THE WORKS OF

AUGUSTUS TOPLADY

VOLUME 5

THE

WORKS

OF

AUGUSTUS M. TOPLADY, A.B.

LATE VICAR OF BROAD HEMBURY, DEVON.

_____________________________________

NEW EDITION,

WITH AN ENLARGED MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR

_____________________________________

IN SIX VOLUMES

____________

VOL. 5

____________

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR WILLIAM BAYNES AND SON,

PATERNOSTER ROW;

AND H. S. BAYNES, EDINBURGH

___________

1825

As Published By Grace-eBooks.com 2015

Book V - Works of Augustus Toplady

The Church of England Vindicated...

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND VINDICATED FROM THE CHARGE OF ARMINIANISM;

AND

THE CASE OF ARMINIAN SUBSCRIPTION PARTICULARLY CONSIDERED:

IN

A LETTER TO THE REV. DR. NOWELL.

OCCASIONED BY

SOME PASSAGES IN THAT GENTLEMAN'S ANSWER TO THE AUTHOR OF PIETAS OXONIENSIS.

"Ita veritati litabo, ne pacem turbem: ita pacem colam, ut nullo tamen eam veritatis dispendio redemptam velim." Witsius, in Orat. de vero Theol.

"To be impugned from without, and betrayed from within, is certainly the worst condition a church can fall into." Dr. South.

Reverend Sir,

Happening to call on a friend of mine, in Westminster, yesterday evening, December 28th, I found him reading your late letter to the author of Pietas Oxoniensis. Curiosity naturally induced me to look into your pamphlet: and grieved I was, to find, that a person in your eminent station, and of your distinguished abilities, should so far lose sight of the duty you owe to that excellent church which you would seem to defend, as to brand, for methodistical tenets, some of those capital truths, which were the avowed doctrines of our reformers; and which, at this very day, make so distinguished a figure in the unrepealed standards of our national faith.

To vindicate the best of visible churches, from the false charge of Arminianism, fastened on her by you, and to prove, that the principles commonly (although, perhaps, not so properly) termed Calvinistic, are plainly and repeatedly delivered in the authentic declarations of her belief, were the reasons that chiefly induced me to resolve on the present undertaking. In consequence of which resolution, I took home your pamphlet with me, and have it now before me.

I would premise, that the two grand questions, on which I shall join issue with you, are, 1st. Not so much whether the Calvinistic doctrines are right or wrong in themselves; as, whether they are, or are not, the doctrines of the church of England: and, 2. Whether, on proof of their actually being the doctrines of our church, Arminians can, with a safe conscience, and bona fide, subscribe to those doctrines ex animo.

As to the affair of the expulsion, I shall enter very little into the merits of that; as not directly falling in with my main design. The injustice, whether real or supposed, shown to those young men, is of very little consequence, when set in competition with the open attack, which you, sir, under the habit of a friend, have ventured to make on the church herself. If it be true, that the persons expelled, were so treated merely for incapacity, and for holding what either the law or the university statutes deem illicit conventicles; it would indeed follow, that the hardship, so generally complained of, was not so great, as it might seem at first view. Every society, as such, have, no doubt, an intrinsic right to agree upon such reasonable and lawful rules, as they may deem necessary for their own interior government and regulation. And, by virtue of that same right, they may expel such of their members, as refuse to adjust their conduct by the rules so enacted. Yet as excommunication (a) is the dernier recourse of a church, and takes place, not until all milder expedients for the reformation of the offending party, have been tried without effect; so should expulsion from any other society. How far this equitable rule was observed lately at Oxford, is a circumstance not yet cleared up by the assessors: and, until it is, the public are certainly at liberty to form what judgment they can from appearances.

(a) By our law, sentence of excommunication is not to be pronounced, until after public admonition thrice given, with the interval of at least two days between each admonition.

It has been affirmed by some who ought to know, that the pretence of illiteracy and irregularity, in the parties expelled, was only adopted by way of casting a mist before the eyes of the world: while, in fact, the true reason of their expulsion was, their attachment to the doctrines of predestination unto life, regeneration by the Spirit of God, and justification by faith alone. If this was the real cause of that transaction, the young men were persecuted, to all intents and purposes; and are to be equally pitied and respected: pitied, for the oppressive treatment they met with; respected, for their firmness in adhering to doctrines which they believe to be true, and which, whether true or not, are the undoubted doctrines of the church established.—Add to this, that, if some persons, equally or more illiterate, and irregular in a much worse sense, continue still unmolested members of this very university, all unprejudiced spectators will cry out,

Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas.

I am not certain, much less dare I to affirm, that the public have hit upon the true cause of this remarkable expulsion. If they have (and even the account given by yourself, seems to justify the general belief), we may now, with the utmost truth, adopt the old cry of “the church is in danger."(b) Since, for a considerable number of the most eminent persons belonging to one of the most respectable universities in Europe, to sit in judgment on six of their own body, and pass sentence of condemnation upon them, for believing and asserting the leading truths of that very church with which the expellers, no less than the expelled, profess to agree; is, mutatis mutandis, as if a Romish council should anathematize six papists for holding transubstantiation; or a Scotch synod should excommunicate six presbyterians, for maintaining a parity among the clergy to be more apostolical than episcopacy. For, gratuitous predestination, justification by faith only, and the efficacy of divine grace in regeneration, are as palpably asserted by the church of England; as transubstantiation is by the church of Rome, or parity of ministers by the church of Scotland.

(b) How strangely are times altered in Oxford, since Usher preached there! See the Preface to his Sermons in Quarto.

Before I enter on the proof of this, I must clear my way, by first considering what you, sir, allege on the other side. In doing which, I shall endeavour to preserve, not only the decency, but the respect, to which your merits, both as a scholar and as a writer, justly entitle you. Though fame is mistaken, if you have not condescended to act as a secretary, on this, as well as a preceding occasion. However this be, I cannot help wishing, that so worthy and considerable a person had drawn his pen, rather in attempting to heal, than widen, the unhappy breaches among us; and had undertaken to vindicate, instead of seeking to confute, the doctrines of the church he professes to revere. But, alas! every day's experience proves the truth of the old adage; “All is not wise, that wise men say; nor all good, that good men do.'

Now, sir, to the point. With regard to the doctrines in debate between Calvinists and Arminians, you ingenuously confess, that they are matters, which “wise and good men have always differed about," page 69. I applaud your justice, in granting that Calvinists, no less than Arminians, may be " wise and good men:" but I cannot say I admire the want of precision, with which you express yourself. Wise and good men did not always differ about those points. There is, on the contrary, the utmost reason to believe, that the main body of the Christian church (in which I do not include the Arians of those times) were unanimous believers of the doctrines now termed Calvinistic, for the four first centuries: until, at the opening of the fifth, a Welsh monk, known by the assumed name of Pelagius, struck out a new path of his own, and laid out the foundations of that mystery of iniquity, which has, more or less, been working ever since.

I am aware, that some Arminian writers, both English and foreign, have had the assurance (somewhat like the papists on another occasion) to ask. "Where was the doctrine of predestination before St. Austin?" To which I answer in my turn, where was not the doctrine of predestination before Pelagius? That his opinions concerning the slight effects of original sin, the power of man's free will, and the possibility of human merit, were novel and unheard of until then, appears, among other circumstances, from the surprise and horror with which they were received by the universal church. A valuable historian of our own, tells us truly, that "To recount the learned works of fathers written; their pious sermons preached; passionate [i. e. pathetic] epistles sent; private conferences entertained; public disputations held; provincial synods summoned; general councils called; wholesome canons made, to confute and condemn these opinions, under the name of Pelagius, or his scholar Celestius; would amount to a volume fitter for a porter's back to bear, than a scholar's brains to peruse." [Fuller, Church Hist. Cent. v. p. 28.]

The learned Dr. Cave, whom no one will suspect of being a factor for Calvinism, tells us plainly, that Pelagius "Haeresin novam condidit,” was the founder of a new heresy, [Hist. Lit. tom. i. ann. 405.] which is as good as to say, that the Christian church were, until that time, in undisturbed possession of the doctrines of grace. The same great man lets us know what the substance of this new heresy was. “Peccatum originale funditus sustulit; docens, Adami peccatum soboli ejus non imputari. Homines, plerosque saltem, non gratiae divinae benefici, sed propter operum suorum merita, justificari, et ad vitam aeternam praedestinari, contendit:" He [i.e. Pelagius] took away original sin from its very foundations, by asserting that Adam's transgression is not imputed to his posterity: and insisted that men, or however, the greater part of them, are justified and predestinated to eternal life, not by the favour of divine grace, but for the worthiness of their own works. Now if the non-imputation of Adam's offence, and the doctrines of justification and predestination as founded on, and resulting from human worthiness, were parts of the new heresy, it follows, that the opposite doctrines of Adam's transgression imputed to his offspring, and justification and predestination by grace alone, must have been branches of the old faith universally held by the church, for the first 400 years after Christ.

That consummate scholar and historian, Spanheimus the son, treating of Pelagius and his tenets, observes, that this arch-heretic asserted, "Causam predestinationis ad gratiam et gloriam esse praevisionem bonorum operum, et perseverantiam in illis, ex recto liberi arbitrii usu, exceptatamen gratia apostolatus. Praedestinationem ad mortem nullam dari; solam dari praescientiam peccatorum." [Introd. ad Hist. & Antiq. Sacr. p. 454.] i.e. that "The cause of predestination to grace and glory was the foresight of good works, and of perseverance therein, resulting from a right use of our free-will: and that there is no such thing as predestination unto death; but only a foreknowledge of what sins men would commit (c)." That these are the doctrines of the Arminians now, as they were of Pelagius then, needs no proof. An Arminian laughs at the imputation of Adam's of

(c) If the reader has a mind to see a compendious, but very satisfactory account of the first rise and progress of Arminianism in Holland (from whence the contagion spread into England) about the year 1600, he may consult a very valuable treatise, written by the same learned foreigner, entitled, Controversiarum cum Dissidentibus Hodie Christantis, prolixe et cum Judaeis, Elenchus Historico-Theologicus. Which, in the compass of a moderate 12mo, traces back all the controversies, which now divide the religious world, to their original sources; gives the quintessence of the arguments urged on either side: and, by a judicious mixture of history with divinity, is perhaps the most instructive and entertaining piece of general Polemics, hitherto extant. There is brevity, without obscurity; and fulness, without redundancy: nor could that excellent performance be either enlarged or retrenched, without detracting from its worth.

fence, in order to elnde the necessity of the Messiah's imputed righteousness: he affirms, that we are not justified without works of our own; and that, if there be any such thing as predestination at all, it is founded on the divine foresight of certain conditions and qualifications in the persons predestinated: that man's will has the casting vote in the affair of regeneration: and that as he may, to-day, consent to be a child of God; so, tomorrow, he may, by virtue of the same omnipotent free-will, undo all, and commence a child of the devil again. Who sees not, that Arminianism is the old Pelagian trump turned up anew? and that the doctrines of conditional grace and precarious salvation, which now go down so glib with many, are the very things, which, at their first appearance, frightened the primitive churches, more than a general persecution would have done? It may further be asked; would an Arminian have drawn up the XVIIth article?

You yourself, sir, seem to have been aware of your mistake, in asserting so peremptorily, that predestination and its concomitant doctrines are points concerning which "wise and good men have always differed:" since you presently add, that they "have been disputed in almost all ages of the Christian church." During the four first ages of it, they were undisputed, for ought appears to the contrary: but, from the time Pelagius first broke the ice, quite down to the reformation, they certainly were frequent subjects of controversy. The reformers, and reformed churches, both here and abroad, were universally on the side of absolute grace, in contradiction, both to the pretended merits, and the boasted free agency of man. Witness the authentic and valuable collection of articles and confessions of faith, published by Gasper Laurentius, in 1612. With regard to our own reformers in particular, bishop Burnet, though far enough from warping to Calvinism, is yet so honest as to allow, that, " In England the first reformers were generally in the Sublapsarian way;" plainly enough intimating, that all our first reformers were doctrinal Calvinists, though with some slight variation; the major part of them being Sublapsarians, or holding that God, in the decree of predestination, considered mankind as fallen: the rest of the first reformers having been Supralapsarians, who suppose that men were in that decree, considered neither as fallen nor as unfallen, but simply as men, in puris naturalibus. A metaphysical disquisition, which still obtains among the anti-Arminians; but which affects not the main question, and concerning which they ever did and do still agree.

I shall, at present, sir, trouble you with but one more citation from Burnet: a short one indeed it is, but full to the point. You will find it in that learned and worthy prelate's abridgment of his History of the Reformation, sub ann. 1549. His words are these: "Another sort of people was much complained of, who built so much on the received opinion of predestination, that they thought they might live as they pleased." Whether or no these people really drew this consequence from the doctrine (as there is nothing so holy as to be exempt from all possibility of abuse); or whether, as is most probable, it was a slander fastened on them by the disguised papists of that time; affects not the present argument. The passage proves what I quote for: namely, that at the settlement of the reformation, and when the church of England was in her primitive purity, predestination was the received opinion. Nor, indeed, need the bishop have told us so. The articles of religion, published about a year and a half after the time he speaks of, put the point beyond all doubt. Thus stood this matter in the reign of king Edward. We shall come to that of queen Elizabeth by and by. In the meanwhile,

From England, sir, I follow you to the continent. You are pleased to tell us, p. 69,70, that these doctrines have been disputed "among the papists, between the Thomists and the Scotists; the Dominicans and the Franciscans:" to which you might also have added, "and between the Jansenists and Jesuits." I grant it all. And these points not only have been, but are disputed among them, with abundance of acrimony, to this very day. A most pregnant proof, by the by, of the infallibility and Catholic unity, which that most depraved and most impudent of all churches affects to value herself upon. Had you stopped here, you had done well: but you add, that the doctrines in debate between yourself and the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, were likewise disputed "among the protestants, from the first beginning of the reformation, between the Lutherans and the Calvinists." Here, I apprehend, you have shot beyond the mark. The era, or first beginning of the reformation, is universally, and very justly assigned to the year 1517, when Luther first publicly opposed the sale of the pope's indulgences at Wittenberg. At this time, Calvin could have had no followers; for he himself was then a boy of but eight years old; being born July 10, 1509. Neither was he settled to purpose at Geneva, until the year 1541, i. e. five years before the death of Luther; by which time the reformation had spread wide and taken deep root on the continent. Hence it is evident, that there were and could have been no disputes concerning the decrees of God, "between the Lutherans and Calvinists, from the first beginning of the reformation;" for the reformation was begun in Calvin's childhood, long enough before he was brought on the stage of public observation.

The plain truth is, Luther himself was an absolute predestinarian; and was as able and as resolute a defender of God's eternal, irrespective decrees, as Calvin or any other. So that even had these two great men been as strictly co-aetanei, as they were contemporaries, there would have been no room for dissension between them on that subject. Bishop Burnet, with all his bias to Arminianism, was too well read, not to know, and too honest, not to acknowledge the Calvinism (if it must be called by that name) of Luther: though the bishop's aversion to these doctrines made him, very disingenuously, insinuate as if that eminent reformer adopted them, partly to serve a turn, and partly without due examination. "When Luther," says he, "began to form his opinions into a body, he clearly saw that nothing did so plainly destroy the doctrine of merit, and justification by works, as St. Austin's opinions. He found also in his works very express authorities against most of the corruptions of the Roman church; and being of an order that carried his name, and, by consequence, accustomed to read and reverence his works; it was no wonder, if he, without a strict examining of the matter, espoused all his [Austin's] opinions." [on Art. 17. p. 194.] However, not to rest on mere testimony, which, at best, is but evidence at second hand; as a solid and indisputable proof that I go on sure grounds in averring Luther to have held absolute predestination, I appeal to the memorable controversy between him and Erasmus. The latter had, at the importunate and repeated requests of king Henry VIII and cardinal Wolsey, published a treatise in favour of free-will, wherein Luther was severely reflected on for holding the opposite doctrine. To this Luther published a copious answer, drawn up in a very nervous manner, and with a vast compass of argument; entitling it, De Servo Arbitrio, or, The Human Will a Slave. If any person, after having read a single chapter in that masterly performance, has the assurance to pronounce Luther an enemy to what is now known by the name of Doctrinal Calvinism; he may, when his hand is in, call Baronius a protestant, or affirm Calvin himself to have been an Arminian. It was chiefly from this book of Luther's, on the Servitude of the Will, that those six positions against free agency were picked out, which twenty years afterwards, made such a bustle in the council of Trent, and were agitated with so much heat and division by the infallible church: some siding with Luther, and declaring that he had asserted no more than Austin had done before him; others anathematising the positions, as the very quintessence of heresy, and of most dangerous consequence to the Catholic faith. The latter party carried their point: and accordingly the fourth, fifth, and sixth canons, passed in the sixth session of that infamous council, are directly pointed against the decisions of Luther respecting the inability of man's will (g).

(g) Of forty-two propositions of Luther, condemned by the pope, A. D. 1521, this is the 37th, "Free-will, after sin, is a thing De Solo Titulo; and while it doth what in it is, it sinneth mortally." Strype's Eccl. Mem. v. i. 39.

The followers of Luther and Calvin, since the deaths of those great reformers (for I cannot find that they did it before), have, if you please, not only differed, but fallen out, with relation to some (and only some) of the points you speak of: but not those reformers themselves. Had they agreed as well about the nature of the Lord's Supper, as they did about predestination, justification, and perseverance; the two denominations of Lutherans and Calvinists, had been in fact, one and the same; so far at least as matters of doctrine are concerned.

Page 70, you put this question to the author of Pietas: “What pretence have you to call your own notions the principles of the reformation?" Because they are so. Open the liturgy where you will, Calvinism stares you in the face. And can the doctrines of grace enter into the very basis of a reformed church, yet not be principles of the reformation? You ask likewise, why he calls "the contrary opinions, the avowed tenets of the church of Rome?" Because the very letter of scripture bids us render to all their dues. The Arminian tenets belong to the church of Rome. Hers they are, and to her they should be returned. From her they came, and to her they lead. It matters not that there were a few such persons, as Marinier, De Vega, and Catanea, in the council of Trent; nor that there are still some individuals within the Romish pale (the Jansenists, for instance), who believed the doctrines of predestination and invincible grace, as taught by St. Paul and St. Austin; and, from these, by Calvin and the reformed churches.

Quid te exempta juvat spinis de pluribus una!

The point is, how goes the stream? quite in the contrary channel. Witness the Tridentine decisions, and the more recent constitution Unigenitus. Let a man peruse these, and then doubt, if he can, whether Arminianism does not cordially coincide with popery.

But you urge, that the Arminian doctrines "have been maintained by many of the brightest ornaments of our church; such as Laud, Hammond, Bull, &c." I except against Laud. I cannot allow him upon the whole, to have been any ornament to us at all; much less can I put him at the head of our brightest ornaments. If he had any brightness belonging to him, it was the brightness of a fire-brand, which at the long run, set both church and state in a flame. Learned as he was (or rather an encourager of learning in others, so they were not Calvinists), he was, at best, but a mongrel protestant; and would have but acted consistently with himself, had he accepted the cardinal's hat, which was offered him from Rome. So declared an enemy was your bright ornament, to all liberty, both civil and religious, that I make no scruple to call him a disgrace to his order, to his country, and to human nature. Illegal and unwarrantable in itself, as his execution was; yet his life, written by his creature Heylin, on purpose to exculpate this Cyprianus Anglicanus; proves, to a demonstration, that this hot-headed prelate, was not slandered, in being charged with a design to carry over the church of England to that of Rome: or, as Heylin himself expresses it, "to make an atonement between the two churches,” i.e. to set them at one again; atonement being a word used at that time, to signify a reconciliation and re-union. For which reason, among a thousand others, I must beg leave to strike out Laud from the list of our brightest ecclesiastical ornaments; and dismiss him with that just observation of bishop Burnet, who remarks, that while Laud's enemies "did really magnify him by their inhuman prosecution; his friends, Heylin and Wharton, have as much lessened him; the one, by writing his life; and the other, by publishing his vindication of himself." [Summary of Aff. before the Restor. p. 68. 8vo. edit.]

As for Hammond, Bull, Tillotson, Sharp, and Stillingfleet, they are names not to be mentioned without honour. Yet it does not follow that Arminianism is either right in itself, or the doctrine of our church, because adopted by these otherwise eminent and worthy persons. Nor do the greatness of their names, and the brightness of their talents, sanctify the errors they might happen to patronize, or one jot mitigate the crime of subscribing to articles they did not believe. Let them have been ever so great ornaments to our church in other respects, this, surely, is no ornamental part of their characters. Dross does not cease to be dross, because some gold may chance to be blended with it: nor error cease to be such, because adopted by men of merit. However, I think, when your hand had been in, you might have reminded us of some more persons, who were, in every respect, ornamental to our church; and true, consistent sons of it, by believing; and maintaining her fundamental doctrines: such as Abbot, Grindal, Usher, Williams, Davenant, Downham, Carlton, Hall, Barlow (of Lincoln), Beveridge, Hopkins, &c. &c. all of whom were bishops, and (for which reason you threw them into shades) predestinarians. After all, truth does not depend on names. The doctrines of the church are to be learned from the articles and homilies of the church herself; not from the private opinions of some individuals who lay hold on the skirt of her garment, call themselves by her name, and live by her revenues.

You proceed. "Our articles have been vindicated from the charge of Calvinism, by bishop Bull, Dr. Waterland, and several other religious and learned men.” You should rather have said, “They have laboured hard to do it, but were not able." Like some disciples of old, they toiled all the day, but could take nothing. When Dr. Bull was strongly pressed with his subscription, by the famous Dr. Tully (who was then principal of that very hall from whence the six religious students were lately expelled; and afterwards dean and chancellor of Carlisle); Bull, in his answer, only huddles the matter up, and slides over it, as well as he can, in this slight equivocating manner: "Quae deinceps, in hoc capite, sequuntur, a D. Tullio, declamatorio more effusa, de regia declaratione articulis nostris praefixa; de canone ecclesiae; de subscriptionibus et juramentis nostris toties repetitis; ea tum demum ad nos pertinere fatebimur, cum evicerit ille, quicquam nos docuisse unquam, quod clarae alicui ecclesiae nostrae definitioni adversetur:” i.e. "I shall then acknowledge myself to be affected by what Dr. Tully subjoins in his declamatory way, concerning the king's declaration prefixed to our articles; the canon he refers to; and my so often repeated oaths and subscriptions; when he shall have demonstrated that I ever affirmed any thing contrary to any clear determination of our church." But the misfortune was, this had actually been demonstrated before; whence Dr. Tully took occasion to press the matter home to Bull's conscience; justly upbraiding him, not for espousing those doctrines which he took for true, but for swearing and setting his hand to articles, which, if his own system was right, were and must be erroneous and false. This home-thrust the Arminian doctor endeavoured to parry off, by insinuating, that the determinations of the church, in behalf of the Calvinistic principles, are not sufficiently clear, but dark and ambiguous. As if she had not clearly determined that "predestination is the everlasting purpose of God," and that we are “justified by faith only!" After this rate, any unbelieving subscriber whatever, when taxed with dishonesty and prevarication, need only cry out, with bishop Bull, "The determinations of our church are not clear:" and he slips his neck out of the collar very cleverly. But, a determination which is not clear, is in reality no determination at all: and either the church has absolutely determined nothing, and is a church without any fixed principles; or her determinations are clear and peremptory; and, of course, the integrity of such persons as subscribe to those determinations without believing them, is not very conspicuous.

One of the most furious Arminians now living (the John Goodwin of the present age) seems to have refined upon bishop Bull in this particular. This Arminian is Mr. John Wesley; who, like many others, endeavouring to leap over the 17th article of the church of England, very gravely tells us, that that article, which treats of predestination, "only defines the term," but does not affirm the doctrine. By this new rule, all our positive articles are only so many definitions of terms: the 1st, for instance, defines the meaning of the word Trinity; the 9th defines original sin; the 27th is a definition of baptism; and the 39th defines an oath. So the church is founded, not upon doctrines, but on bare definitions; and is not a teacher but a definer. Is there a Jew, a Turk, or a papist, who would scruple to subscribe our articles, considered simply as definitions of certain terms and phrases? or is there a protestant in the world, but might safely set his hand to pope Pius's Creed, upon a similar supposition? I leave to the consideration of Dr. Nowell, and of the public, who are to be deemed Methodists and Sectarians? They, who believe the doctrines of the church, as they stand in her articles, without sophistication and disguise? or, they who with Mr. Wesley and some others, subscribe the articles, not as articles of faith, but either as ecclesiastical definitions of terms, or at most as determinations which are not clear? By this loose, shaggling way of evading the force of church decisions, and weakening the sacred ties of solemn and repeated subscriptions, the spiritual fence of our establishment is broken down and trod under foot: and the church, like a city without walls, or a house stript of its doors, lies open to the entrance of every comer, whether friend or foe, who has opportunity of getting in. Such I fear, is in great measure, the present condition of our once admirable church. I can only for my own part, be faithful to her myself; pour out my soul for her, in secret, at the throne of grace; and, until God pours down a spirit of reformation on many of her pretended sons, cry over her, saying, alas! my mother! Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars; the law is no more; her prophets also find no vision from the Lord. What thing shall I liken to thee, O daughter of Jerusalem? what shall I equal to thee, that I may comfort thee, O virgin daughter of Sion? for thy breach is great, like the sea; who can heal thee? La 3.

As to Dr. Waterland, on whose attempts to weed out Calvinism from our articles you lay so great stress; I grant, that, like the prelate last mentioned, he fought through thick and thin, and strained every nerve, in order if possible, to Arminianize the church. But his success was very far from being equal to his toil. This learned and excellent person never lost himself more visibly, nor was never pinched more sensibly, than when his own artillery was turned upon him by Sykes. The inference, urged by the latter, is too glaring to be denied: viz. That, if Arian subscription to Trinitarian articles is palpably dishonest; then, by all the rules of argument in the world, Arminian subscription to articles, that are Calvinistic, must and can be no less criminal. This was the Gordian knot, which Dr. Waterland, with all his straining, could never untie. Therefore this great man, finding himself wedged fast between the horns of this unavoidable dilemma; namely, either to give up the point, and own subscribing Arminians to be as inexcusable as subscribing Arians; or, that, if those might subscribe, salva conscientia, so might these, since what is lawful for the raven is as lawful for the crow;—the doctor, to free himself as well as he could, from this embarrassment, resolved to cut the knot at once, by roundly denying that our articles are Calvinistical. But every struggle he made, and every argument he brought in support of his palpable falsehood (which he adopted only pro re nata, and to help himself out at a dead lift), only plunged him in deeper difficulties, by giving his Arian adversaries this advantage against him, that, upon the doctor's own principles, and by virtue of his own example, they were as much at liberty, mutatis mutandis, to put their own sense upon the 1st, 2d, 5th, and 8th articles, as Waterland was to put his sense upon the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 17th; since the very letter of these articles is no less determinate, in favour of original sin, the utter impotence of free-will in spirituals, gratuitous justification without works, and eternal, absolute predestination, than those are, in favour of the Trinity, the godhead of Ciirist, the godhead of the Holy Ghost, and the orthodoxy of the three creeds.

And, indeed, the case speaks for itself. For, if one sort of men may fairly claim the privilege of clipping, mincing, and wire-drawing some articles, as a salvo for subscription; why may not another sort of men be allowed to take the same liberty with the rest? Let not then the subscribing Arminian (though he may happen to be a Trinitarian) exclaim against the subscribing Arian, the subscribing Socinian, or even the subscribing Deist. Only grant it lawful to wrench the articles one way; and it is as lawful to wrench them any way, or every way. If an Arminian may stretch the 17th article into conditional predestination, and universal redemption; an Arian has just as much right to lop short the 2d article, so far as it stands in his way. By the same rule that our articles are drawn aside from any one part of their plain grammatical import; they may be frothed into no meaning whatever, and bandied about towards every point of the compass. If a subscriber is really at liberty to pick and choose which of them, and which part of them, he will believe, and which he shall reject; which to subscribe sincerely, and which with secret provisos of his own; subscription is no longer a fence against error, but becomes a mere stalking horse, and the articles themselves a nose of wax. St. Paul's words, with a slight variation, may be accommodated to the case in hand. Thou art inexcusable [O subscribing Arminian], whoever thou art, that judgest [the subscribing Arian]; for, wherein thou judgest [him,] thou condemnest thyself: for thou that judgest, doest the same thing [in another way.] Ro 2:1.

Thus, the gap of prevaricating subscription being once obened, “we may," to use Dr. Waterland's own words, "bid adieu to principles;" and between one subscriber and another, the church of England will have no settled doctrines left, or, at most, they will exist no where but in ink and paper, between the leaves of her liturgy and homilies, and in the forgotten writings of her old divines.

Foreign comedians, a spruce band, arrive,

And push her from the scene, or hiss her there.

Should matters go on for half a century longer, as they have done for many years back, the most respectable church in the world will be reduced, by some of those who call themselves her children, to the same condition that the man in the fable was, by his two wives:

Ambae videri dum volunt illi pares,

Capillos homini legere coepere invicem.

Quum se putarat pingi cura mulierum,

Calvus repente factus est: nem funditus

Canos puella, nigros anus, evellerat.

I pray God, that the Delilahs, who make it their business to shear the church of its locks, by robbing it gradually of its doctrines, may not, at the long-run, deliver it quite up into the hands of the Philistines.

Bishop Burnet went to work in a much more plausible manner, than either bishop Bull or Dr. Waterland. He contributed as much, in fact, towards opening a door to prevaricating subscription, as they; but did it with more decency, and with a better regard to appearances. He does not drive so furiously as those Jehu writers, nor insult the common reason of mankind, by fiercely insisting that our articles are not Calvinistic: but hit on a more trimming expedient, and would gently insinuate, that they are worded with, what he calls, such moderation and latitude, that Calvinists and Arminians too may mutually testify their assent by subscription. I mean not to depreciate that truly great and good prelate's Exposition of the Articles: which is, in general, a very masterly and valuable performance (k). I am not entirely of Dr. South's mind, who you know, sir, being asked, soon after its publication, what he thought of it? replied, in his smart way, "Think of it? I think, that, in his Exposition of our 39 articles, his lordship has given the church forty stripes save one." That the bishop has given the church three or four stripes, I think can hardly be denied; and unhappy is the mother, who receives such usage at the hands of the sons she has nourished and brought up. Thus much is certain: that Burnet plays fast and loose, whenever Calvinism and subscription fall in his way. Hence those two contradictory positions of his: "Subscription does import an assent to the article: and - an article being conceived in such general words, that it can admit of different literal and grammatical senses; even when the senses given are plainly contrary one to another, yet both may subscribe the article with a good conscience, and without any equivocation." [Introd. to Exp. Art. p. 10.] As if there could be more literal senses of a proposition than one! and those numerous senses could be plainly contrary one to another, and yet be all literally and grammatically the sense of that proposition! An Arian, a papist, or a Deist, may with a good conscience, and, without any equivocation, subscribe those very articles, which, literally and grammatically, conclude point blank against Arianism, popery, and Deism!

(k) The lower House of Convocation, in 1701, severely censured Burnet's Exposition of the Articles. See Tindal, 15, 319.

That learned and able divine, Dr. Edwards of Cambridge, published, in the lifetime of Bishop Burnet, some strictures on that prelate's way of treating the articles. "I can by no means," says he, "approve of this learned prelate's extravagant attempt, when he takes a great deal of pains to persuade his readers, that these thirty-nine articles, or most of them, are so dark and ambiguous, that the true sense of them is not to be found out: and therefore that we may make what construction of them we please. Surely, his lordship's memory is none of the best: any man must needs think that he had forgot what he had asserted and given as his judgment, namely, That these are articles of downright belief, and therefore must not be dallied and played with. It is such a strange perverting of the articles, as cannot but raise admiration in indifferent persons, and such as are not led by prejudice. For, 1st, This new-found exposition fosters dissimulation. It seems to teach our clergymen to equivocate. For, though the learned and reverend author acknowledges, once and again, that the compilers of those articles were Calvinistically disposed, and accordingly formed some of the articles so as they are to be understood in favour of Calvin's opinions; yet he proposes them to the clergy, to be taken in an ambiguous sense. They are taught, in the whole, to trim; to turn about as they please; to dissemble with God and man; to subscribe to that which they know most assuredly, is, in the plain meaning of it, against their persuasion. Therefore I say that this new-coined explication of the articles, is inconsistent with the integrity of our church, and the sincerity of its ministers who are to subscribe to them. It will be hard to reconcile this with the doing it with a good conscience, as is required in the 5th canon; and ex animo, and avoiding all ambiguities, as the 36th canon enjoins, [2.] After this rate, it can never be known, from our professions and subscriptions, what our mind is, what our belief and sentiments are. Though we openly acknowledge, under our hands, such doctrines to be agreeable to God's word; yet we may not think one article of them to be true; yea, we may think and profess the quite contrary. And of this our author [Burnet] gives us an instance in himself: telling us [in his preface, to the Expos. of the Art.] that in the point of predestination, he follows the Greek church, from which St. Austin departed, and formed a new system; and yet he publicly declares, that our church's article of predestination may be interpreted and understood in favour of the Calvinists, who follow St. Augustin. I remember this learned writer, in the account he gives us of his travels, makes this reflection on Geneva, that there is want of sincerity there. May we not, from what has been represented under this particular, fear, that there is the same want somewhere else?" [Veritas Red. p. 521, 522.]

But I return to Doctor Nowell. Another part of your address to the author of Pietas Oxoniensis runs thus: "Supposing that they and we," namely, the Arminians of past and present times, "are mistaken in the sense we put upon our articles; yet, surely, unless you can see our hearts, you cannot censure us for subscribing to what we believe not a word of." You do well, sir, to suppose yourself and your Arminian friends mistaken. I hope, your next step will be, to retract your mistakes. And you have fallen into not a few, in the very paragraph last cited. 1st. You seem to take for granted, that you have a right to put your own sense on the articles to which you subscribe. But this is by no means the case. Our articles, like the prophecies, are not of private interpretation. You, and I, and every subscriber, are, by express declaration of authority, pinned down to the plain, literal and grammatical meaning of each article. The legislature, duly weighing the importance and solemn nature of ecclesiastical subscription, have taken almost every precaution human wisdom could suggest, or the energy of language furnish, to preclude evasion, and preserve the doctrines of the church inviolate. Let part of the royal declaration, usually prefixed to the articles themselves, and which, having never been revoked, still stands in full force, serve by the way of specimen: "We have upon mature deliberation, and with the advice of so many of our bishops as might conveniently be called together, thought fit to make this declaration following: That the articles of the church of England do contain the true doctrine of the church of England, agreeable to God's word, which we do therefore ratify and confirm, prohibiting the least difference from the said articles, from which we will not endure any varying or departing in the least degree; - And that no man hereafter, shall either print or preach, to draw the article aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof; and shall not put his own sense, or comment, to be the meaning of the article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense." Hence it is as evident, as demonstration can make it, that Calvinists are the only fair subscribers; and that Arminians, as such, are virtually excluded from subscription: because, the articles are to be subscribed, not with qualifying glosses, diluting comments, tacit limitations, and mental exceptions (for this would defeat the very end for which subscription is required:) but we are to subscribe, as every subscriber professes to do, ex animo, with unfeigned assent and consent; without drawing aside the articles any way, or varying or departing from them in the least degree: moreover, without putting the subscriber's own sense on what he subscribes unto, but honestly and bona fide taking the articles in their literal and grammatical meaning, simply as they stand.

2dly, You would insinuate, that we cannot charge the Arminians with subscribing to what they do not believe, "except we could look into their hearts." But there is no occasion for our looking quite so deep as that: since, out of the abundance of their hearts, their hands write and their mouths speak. I think, that I myself, without pretending to dive into hearts, may form a judgment, for instance, of Dr. Nowell and his subscriptions. You, sir, have subscribed to our articles and homilies, over and over again. These articles and homilies are (l) Calvinistic: and you are a professed Arminian. Either, therefore, you were not an Arminian when you subscribed; or you subscribed to what you disbelieved. And, by the same rule that we form an estimate of you, we are qualified to judge of others of your sect.

(l) The Calvinism of these has been acknowledged by very many of the Arminians themselves. One, in particular, recurs this moment to my remembrance. A late dignitary (Dr. H.) of considerable figure, both in the church and in the world, and celebrated among other things, for a learned and sensible work, published under the title of Theological Lectures; being, one day, in company with another dignitary (now living, and from whom I had it), the conversation happened to turn on the thirty-nine articles: against several of which Dr. H. exclaimed with great warmth. My friend asked him, "But have you not subscribed to these, and that ex animo?" I have. "And do not you hold all your preferments by virtue of that subscription?" I do; and our reformers, who drew up such articles, deserved to be hanged for their pains.

3dly, I discern not a little chicanery in the latter clause of your paragraph; "you cannot censure us for subscribing to what we believe not a word of." This is brought in, by way of a trap-door, to escape at, in case you should happen to be hard pressed. You may believe a word, and many words, even iu the 17th article itself; without believing the substance of the article, or assenting to the doctrine it asserts. There are not a few detached words, even in the decrees of Trent, to which any protestant in the world might safely testify his assent: and yet no truly conscientious protestant would look upon that as a sufficient warrant for setting his hand to those execrable decisions. And by parity of argument, I greatly question, whether any truly honest and conscientious Arminian would venture to rest upon this, as a plea for subscription, “though I abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and Calvinistical, the doctrines contained in the 10th, 11th, and 17th articles of the church of England; yet as a subscriber to those articles, I make myself easy, because I cannot say, that I believe not a word in them; for there are some words, here and there interspersed, which are of innocent tendency: and for the sake of these, I have swallowed the whole." Instead of shifting, and mincing, and trimming, in this despicable manner, would it not be more to the credit of such clergymen as are Arminians, to make a push for an alteration, and boldly cry out, with the monthly reviewers, "Our established doctrines are not such as might be wished, and ought to be re-modelled?" Let them act like men of courage and principle; and, instead of doubling and winding, and putting our articles on the rack,”to find out meanings never meant," say of them, and of the l7th in particular (as archbishop Tillotson did of the Athanasian Creed), "I heartily wish we were well rid of it." This would be treading in the steps of their elder brethren, the Dutch Arminians; and would make them remonstrants in act, as well as in principles. It would not, indeed, vindicate them from the glaring dishonesty of solemnly subscribing to articles thus professedly disbelieved: but it would save them the ridiculous and fruitless trouble of endeavouring to twist and torture Calvinistic articles into a sense they are incapable of bearing. The reverend and dignified author of the Confessional, is a saint, when set in competition with such divines as would put out our eyes, by daring to tell us that the 10th article does not overturn free-will; that the l1th does not assert justification by faith only; and that the 17th does not teach everlasting, absolute, gratuitous predestination.

How am I grieved to hear such gentlemen, as the writers of the Independent Whig, triumph over us in such strains as these! "At one time, predestination is of high consequence, and made an article of faith, and all free-willers should be banished the land, or locked up in dungeons, like wild beasts; which was the judgments of the bishops, in the days of James I (m) concerning the Arminians. At a different season, when preferments ran high on the other side, as in king Charles the Ist's reign, and ever since; Arminianism not only recovers credit but grows modish, and consequently, orthodox: whilst predestination becomes an old fashioned piece of faith, and a sure sign of fanaticism, and yet it continues one of the XXXIX articles; and yet it must not be believed; and yet it must be signed and assented to with a sincere assent." [Ind. Wh. vol. ii. p. 9.] I am perfectly shocked, that the same writers should have any shadow of ground for addressing some of our body in the following style: "Is there one of you, that conforms to the genuine sense, or even to the words of the articles? Are not those articles Calvinistical? Were they not composed by Calvinists? And are you not now, and have been long, Arminians? And do you not write and preach against [those] who defend predestination, which is one of your own articles? Will you say that articles, will you say that oaths, are to be taken in a sense different from the words, different from the meaning, of those who composed them? If you do, then you maintain that papists, nay, Mahometans, may subscribe our protestant articles, and be still Mahometans and papists: and that Jacobites may take the state oaths, and be still Jacobites. What subscriptions or declarations, or, indeed, what other ties can bind men who subscribe the direct contrary to what they believe? Subscribe the doctrines of Calvin, yet remain antagonists to Calvin? Is this practice, this solemn assertion of a falsehood, for the honour of religion, or of churchmen? or is it not the direct method to harden men against truth and conscience, and to turn holy things into contempt? yet you still go on to subscribe those articles; still to disbelieve and contradict them." [Ibid. vol. iii. p. 403, 404.]

(m) The fact asserted is undoubtedly true; but there seems to be an anachronism in assigning the date. I cannot find, that the bishops in James the First's time, advised the government to treat Arminians in this manner. It was in the reign of queen Elizabeth, that this counsel was offered by the bishops. The part of their advice, referred to, did, according to Strype, run verbatim as follows: Item, That incorrigible Arians, Pelagians or Free-will men, be sent into some one castle in North Wales, or Wallingford; and there to live of their own labour and exercise; and none other be suffered to resort unto them but their keepers: until they be found to repent their errors." Strype's Annals of the Reformation, &c. during the first twelve years of Queen Elizabeth, chap. 17. p. 207. I do not quote this mortifying paragraph, from any approbation I entertain of the expedient recommended: for I abhor every thing that even looks like persecution for principles merely religious. But I cannot help deducing two conclusions from this curious portion of our ecclesiastical history: 1st. That free-will men were considered, by the church of England, when in her purity, as some of the most dangerous recusants she had to grapple with; else, she never would have advised the confining them in a remote prison, and prohibiting them from the access of all persons, their keepers only excepted. 2nd, That free-will men at that time, were very few in number: otherwise, one castle, however spacious, would not have been thought large enough to contain them. I heartily congratulate our present free-willers, on their living in an age of liberty.

Object not, that these quotations are brought from men whose attachment to our church, and indeed to Christianity in general, was liable to suspicion. I grant it was. Yet,

Fas est, et ab hoste doceri.

And truth is truth, let it come from what quarter it will. The question ought not to be, “Were these men our enemies?" but, “Are these things so?" If they be, such writers as Dr. Nowell ought to turn their eyes inward, and recollect that themselves are the persons, who give the friends of our excellent church reason to lament, and open the mouths of her enemies to blaspheme.

But, if the expostulations of the independent Whig be repudiated, as coming from a suspected quarter; permit me to remind you, sir, of three very remarkable passages, the same in substance with the preceding, though written by persons of your own principles: I mean Dr. Heylin, bishop Burnet, and Dr. Waterland. The introducing them here, is indeed an anticipation which reverses in some measure, the plan I proposed at first setting out: but as I am on the subject of Arminian subscription, I will dispatch it once for all. Dr. Peter Heylin, who was chaplain to archbishop Laud and king Charles the First, and was both a Laudsean and a Carolite in grain; an author, whom you closely follow, and whose Quinquarticular History seems to have furnished you with a considerable part of that book you lately offered to the public; does, in that very history, Arminian as he was, express himself thus: “The composers of the articles of the Church of England had not so little in them of the dove, or so much of the serpent, as to make the articles of the church like an upright shoe, which may be worn on either foot; or like to Theramenes' shoe, as the adage hath it, fit for the foot of every man that was pleased to wear it. And therefore we may say, of our first reformers, in reference to the present book of articles, that those reverend and learned men intended not to deceive any by ambiguous terms. The first reformers did not so compose the articles, as to leave any liberty to dissenting judgments; but did bind men to the literal and grammatical sense: they had not otherwise attained to the end they aimed at, which was “ad tollendam opinionum dissentionem, et consensum in vera religione firmandum: i. e. To take away diversity of opinions, and to establish an agreement in the true religion. Which end could never be effected, if men were left unto the liberty of dissenting, or might have leave to put their own sense upon the articles, as they list themselves. For, where there is a purpose of permitting men to their own opinions, there is no need of definitions and determinations in a national church: no more than is of making laws to bind the subjects in an unsettled commonwealth, with an intent to leave them in their former liberty, either of keeping or not keeping them, as themselves best pleased.” [Hist. Quinq. part ii. chap. 8. sect. 12.]

Bishop Burnet's testimony is as follows: “I come, in the next place, to consider what the clergy are bound to by their subscriptions. The meaning of every subscription is to be taken from the design of the imposer, and from the words of the subscription itself. The title of the articles, bears, that they were 'agreed upon in convocation, for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the stablishing consent touching true religion.' Where it is evident that a consent in opinion is designed. If we, in the next place, consider the declaration that the church has made in the canons, that though, by the fifth canon, which relates to the whole body of the people, such only are declared to be excommunicated ipso facto, who shall affirm any of the articles to be erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe to; yet the thirty-sixth canon is express for the clergy, requiring them to subscribe willingly and ex animo, and acknowledge all and every article to be agreeable to the word of God: upon which canon it is, that the form of the subscription runs in those words; which seem expressly to declare a man's own opinion, and not a bare consent to an article of peace, or an engagement to silence and submission. The statute of the 13th of queen Elizabeth, cap. 12. which gives the legal authority to our requiring subscriptions in order to a man's being capable of a benefice; requires that every clergyman should read the articles in the church, and that with a declaration of his unfeigned assent to them. These things make it appear very plain, that the subscriptions of the clergy, must be considered as a declaration of their own opinion, and not as a bare obligation to silence." [Introd. to Exp. of the Art. p. 9.]

Dr. Waterland shall close the rear. In his Preface to his First Defence of some Queries, page 4th, he informs his readers, that Dr. Clarke had lately published a second edition of his scripture doctrine of the Trinity; on which Waterland has this remark: "One thing I must observe for the Doctor [Clarke's] honour, that, in his new edition, he has left out these words of his former introduction. 'It is plain, that every person may reasonably agree to such forms, whenever he can, in any sense at all, reconcile them with scripture.' I hope, none hereafter will pretend to make use of the Doctor's authority, for subscribing to forms which they believe not according to the true and proper sense of the words, and the known intent of the imposers and compilers. Such prevarication is in itself a bad thing, and would, in time, have a very ill influence on the morals of a nation (n). If either state oaths on one hand, or church subscriptions on the other, once come to be made light of, and subtilties be invented to defend or palliate such gross insincerity, we may bid farewell to principles, and religion will be little else but disguised atheism."— Awful, pertinent, striking words! Happy would it have been, had Heylin, Burnet, and Waterland but stood throughout to their own principles! Instead of which, each of the learned triumvirate openly disavowed, in his own practice, upon some certain occasions, what he had so solidly established with his pen. But though these great men, whenever the Calvinistic doctrines of the church came in their way, turned themselves back, like Ephraim, and were as frightened at Calvin's positions (though subscribed to by themselves) as they could have been at his apparition; thus, Penelope like, unraveling the very web they had taken such pains to weave; yet their remarks themselves are not the less true. The plain case was this: when these persons had to deal with an antagonist who happened to espouse any particular opinion that did not tally with their own, they presently knocked him down with the authority of the church articles: but when this same authority was, in other particulars urged against themselves; they paid no more regard to articles and subscriptions, than other people. Like some tyrants, of whom it is recorded, that they would allow none but themselves to trample on the laws with impunity; or like the man who could, upon occasion, drub his wife soundly, but would suffer nobody else to lift a finger against her (o). -- Only admit the three preceding citations to be just, reasonable and true, and the consequence is undeniable: namely, That Arminian subscription is absolutely unjustifiable, Arminians themselves being judges. Were the same insincerity and prevarications allowed of, in the secular affairs of common life, which too often obtain in religious transactions, all social connections would quickly be at end, and every band, by which mankind are tied to each other, must vanish as a wreath of smoke.

(n) We have lived to see this prediction of Dr. Waterland's too well fulfilled.

(o) So the popish princes of Europe cry up the authority of the Romish bishop, when that authority is to be made use of as an engine to promote their own designs: but, when that end is answered, the authority of his holiness is enforced no longer; but treated with the contempt it deserves, and, like an old tool, thrown by until it is wanted.

It is impossible on this occasion not to recollect the stigma of infamy universally, and deservedly fastened on Eusebius of Nicomede, for subscribing the Nicene Creed, whilst he disbelieved it in his heart: and on Arius himself, for presenting a sham confession of his faith to the emperor Constantine, and ratifying it with his oath; when, at the same time, he really meant no such thing, but endeavoured to patch up matters with conscience, by mentally referring the oath he had taken, not to the declaration he had just made, but to a summary of his opinions, previously written, and which he had then privately about him, concealed in his clothes. I would not be misunderstood, as if I meant to put all Arminians on a par with Arians: I only draw the parallel, or rather point out the similitude, so far as prevaricating subscriptions and false declarations of assent are concerned.

In the process of your answer to the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, you would fain press those two venerable prelates and martyrs, Cranmer and Ridley, into the service of Arminius; and, to prove your point, very pompously refer us, page 71, to a motley, ungainly volume, published 1543, by order of Henry VIII., and entitled, "The necessary Erudition of a Christian Man." Since you think fit, sir, to lay such mighty stress on this mongrel production, I will enlarge a little, in giving some account of it: only premising, that it had been for the credit both of yourself and of your tenets, had you let this popish book wholly alone. You introduce it thus: “What their opinions were," i. e. the opinions of Cranmer and Ridley, "with regard to the doctrines of free-agency, &c., may be seen in the book called Pia et Catholica Institutio, or Erudition of a Christian Man, published 1543, by the king's authority, and authorized by the bishops, with archbishop Cranmer at the head of them." The exact title of your favourite book was this: "A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christen Man, set furthe by the Kynge's Majestic of England, &c. London. By Thomas Barthelet, 1543 (p)." Henry was vehemently bent on the publication of this work; and even took the pains to correct it throughout, while in manuscript, with his own hand. No wonder, therefore, that a prince of Henry's self-opinion, and known attachment to the doctrinal parts of popery (which continued with him to the last), should suffer little or nothing to stand in it, but what comported with his own notions. These (his own notions), however crude, ridiculous and irrational, he was ever resolved, by fair means or fool, to ram down the throats of all his subjects. Witness the unheard-of execution of protestants and papists, in one and the same day: the former for not being papists, in matters of doctrine; the latter, for being papists in the article of the popes supremacy. The book, which you so devotedly admire, and to which you so often appeal, very much resembles that promiscuous execution: being such a jumble of errors and contradictions, as was perhaps never before obtruded on a nation. It should be remembered, that the statute of the six articles (passed into a law four years before, and not repealed until the first year of the following reign) was in full force, at the very time (q) of this publication; therefore it need not seem strange, that this book, whose authority you so greatly magnify, and on whose contents (sorry am I for it) you set so high a value, should harmonize with those detestable and bloody articles in the doctrine of transubstantiation and other points relative to the mass. It also gives a paraphrase on the Ave Maria; admits of burning incense to images, and of kneeling before them; asserts the mediation of departed saints in behalf of the living, and that we may lawfully pray to them for an interest in their intercession; that the sacraments are seven in number; and that the fourth commandment, respecting the observation of the sabbath, was purely ceremonial; that it is charitable and commendable to pray for the dead; with much more of the same popish trumpery. All these particulars shew how little hand Cranmer and Ridley had in composing this book. And, if the book itself can be seriously thought, by you, or by any reasonable man, really to contain the genuine sentiments of our reformers; it must be owned, that such a reformation left popery much as it found it, and that the reformers themselves wanted reforming. Good God! what shall we come to at last! A protestant; a protestant divine; a protestant divine of the church of England; dares, in the face of the sun, to rake into the sink of an antiquated popish book, in order to throw up mud, with which to spatter the doctrines of that reformed church whose bread he eats, and whose raiment he wears! Rather than not carry his point, he who lives on the banks of the Isis, is not ashamed to dip his pen in the Tiber! But, at all events, Delenda est Carthago: down with Geneva; though Rome itself flourish on its ruins.

Think not, sir, that I am too warm. I only, as a protestant, and as a churchman, feel a becoming indignation at this part of your conduct: an indignation, which candour warrants, and justice demands.

" On such a theme it were impious to be calm.'

(p) It was first written and published in 1540, a year very unfavourable to the interests of the reformation.

1. Cromwell's fall put the reformation to a stand. Burnet, i. 278.

2. The mass-books were prevented to be altered; but stood much as they were, 281.

3. A severe persecution immediately followed: among them, suffered the Rev. Mr. R. W. among whose heresies, are ranked his denial of merit and free-will. Strype, vol. i. p. 369.

The protestants were glad to see things were no worse; and the papists, to see them so bad. The former hoped, that, the ice being now broke, popery would gradually melt away; the latter, seeing the leading articles of their superstition ratified and confirmed afresh, hoped it was prelusive to the re-erection of the whole frame.

(q) This year, 1543, was a year of popish triumphs. 1. This book was set forth afresh. 2. A dismal persecution of protestants followed; especially at Windsor. 3. A conspiracy against Cranmer. 4. A league between the king and the emperor. 5. Enjoined by act of parliament, that no women, artificers, &c. should read the Bible. 6. All spiritual persons that should teach any thing contrary to the "Erudition," &c. See Burnet's Ref. vol. i. p. 306-314.

Surely, on a review, and at your cooler moments of recollection, you will blush, that you should ever have attempted to subvert protestant doctrines, by arguments borrowed from Rome! you will, for decency's sake, forbear, in future, to call in such an ally, to your assistance, as the Pia et Catholica Institutio!

However, from this arsenal, you have at present thought proper (I hope, for the last time) to fetch some of your weapons; which you brandish, in quotations, more than once, for whole pages together. Nor are your quotations altogether foreign to the purpose. But, supposing them to be ever so peremptory against the Calvinistic doctrines of your church and mine; whether it be for the honour of the Arminian notions, to be propped up by citations taken from such a treatise, drawn up by such bishops as then generally filled the bench, revised by such a king as then occupied the throne, and published at such a period of Anti-christian darkness; must be submitted to your consideration, and that of my other protestant readers.

Nevertheless, bad as the book is, there are some things in it, particularly under the head of free-will, which you prudently forbore to quote; conscious, that they look a little like Calvinism. These, for my own part, I disdain to cite. The ark of protestant truth needs no such leprous hands, no such rotten props, for its support. The doctrinal articles of our own truly evangelical church, happily established since, neither want assistance from so corrupt a quarter, nor can suffer the least detriment from the despicable, feeble, inconsistent cavils of a popish medley, in which the print of Gardiner's cloven foot appears throughout. I will only observe farther, that the then Pelagian, now (since the starting up of Pelagius the second, I mean James Van Harmin, about fifty years after the publishing of the book in question) Arminian doctrines, are, most of them, to be found in that wretched piece: such as these, that justifying faith includes obedience to all the law of God; that the scriptures say nothing in favour of personal assurance, or from whence it may be gathered that men may in this life be certain of their election, much less of their perseverance in grace to the end; that the divine promises, respecting grace and salvation, are suspended on conditions of man's performing; that there is a double justification, primary and final; that though we are justified by works, yet that very justification is, in some sense, by grace, because good works are done by God's assistance; that works, done by justified persons, are meritorious towards the attainment of life eternal: and such like (r). With which I take my leave of this contemptible, un-protestant performance.

(r) Burnet virtually proves, that Cranmer had no hand in that part, at least, of this book, which relates to justification. This book makes works a condition, not to say, a cause of justification; but Cranmer utterly denied them to be so, as appears from the conclusion of some papers, drawn up by him, about this time, on that important subject; for which see Burnet, Ref. vol. i. 275. See Heylin's Acknowledgmeut. Life of Laud, p. 3.

You have just been dabbling in muddy water; but now the stream

"Works itself clear, and, as it runs, refines;”

Your next appeal (s) being to the Reformatio legum ecclesiasticarum; a protestant codex, drawn up in the protestant reign of Edward VI. But from hence, as if you liked neither the book, nor the reign in which it was written, you bring only two short quotations; and those not very happily chosen: for neither of them clashes with the doctrines of election and final perseverance, but on the contrary, by evident implication, plainly suppose them to be true. The first passage you render thus: “Wherefore all are to be admonished by us, that, in their undertakings and actions, they are not to refer themselves to the decrees of predestination; since, in the holy scriptures, we see promises to good actions, and threats to bad ones, proposed in general terms." This visibly implies, that there are, in fact, decrees of predestination; but that these decrees, being unknown to us, cannot for that very reason, be the rule by which men are to square their actions and undertakings. What Calvinist ever denied this? I never knew one that did. We all hold, that God's revealed, not his secret will, is the rule of human action; and that we are not to descend from the decree to events; but, on the contrary, should ascend from events, to the decree (t). God's hidden will of determination is and can be the rule of his own conduct only, because he only is acquainted with his own purposes in their full extent: but the grand, unerring chart of direction to men, and on which they should constantly fix their eyes, is God's declared will of command, set forth in the written word. So our church determines, article seventeenth, - “In our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God."

(s) Page 74.

(t) See the bishop of London's (Bancroft) speech to the king in the Hampton court conference, p. 29.

It is equally true, that, "In the holy scriptures, we see promises to good actions, and threats to bad ones, proposed in general terms:" i. e. It is declared in scripture, that such and such causes shall generally be productive of such and such effects. Which is a proposition, not only granted, but insisted upon, by myself and by every Calvinist I ever yet read or met with. So much, sir, for your first citation. I go on to the other: "Etiam illi de justificatis perverse sentiunt, qui credunt illos, postquam justi simul facti sunt, in peccatum non posse incidere aut si forte quicquam eorum faciunt, quae Dei legibus prohibentur, ca Deum pro peccatis non accipere." I have given the Latin, that my readers may judge of your translation, which runs thus: “They form very perverse notions of the justified, who believe, that, after they are once made just, they cannot fall into sin; or if, by chance, they should do any thing prohibited by the laws of God, that God does not impute it as sin.” On reading this, I instantly turned to the table of errata, at the end of your pamphlet; but found no correction. What, sir! does accipio properly signify to impute and charge a thing home? Surely both the genius of the Latin tongue, and the sense of the passage under consideration, require us to render accipere, in this place, by regard, consider, or look upon. The whole paragraph stands thus: 'They judge very mistakenly of justified persons, who believe that such cannot fall into sin, after they are once made just; or, if they should happen to commit any of those things which are forbidden by God's law, that God does not look upon those things as sins.” To talk (as you would fain make the passage do) of God's actually imputing sin to justified persons, would be a contradiction in terms: since the negative part of justification itself lies, essentially, in the non-imputation of any sin whatever. Ps 32:1-2. And the man, to whom any one sin is imputed by God, is and must be, ipso facto, an unjustified person. All then that can be inferred from the passage, is, 1. That justified men are not impeccable; the doctrine of sinless perfection in this life, even after grace received, being false, fanatical, and presumptuous. 2. That, consequently, even justified persons may, and too frequently do, fall into sin: and, 3. That, whenever they do so, God, whose judgment is necessarily according to truth, considers such falling as sinful; sin being sin, as much when committed by a child of God, as when committed by any other: the state of the offending person not being able to reverse the nature of things. Nay, sin is, if possible, more exceeding sinful in a regenerate man, than if he was not so. But what has all this to do with your novel, Arminian doctrine of totally and finally falling from grace? It rather makes for the opposite doctrine of final perseverance; since the "reformatio legum,” by only declaring that the justified may fall into sin (which nobody denies, but enthusiasts) and that sin is sin, let who will commit it (which every man in his senses allows), Cranmer and his brother commissioners, by going no farther, but letting the matter rest here, tacitly set their seal to the "perpetuity of a regenerate man's estate,” according to the known axiom, that exceptio probat regulum in non exceptis.

With regard to what you advance from Latimer, [page 75], from Hooper [page 76], and from Kidley, [page 78], it helps not your cause a jot. I had, in my rough draught of these papers, prepared a vindication of these venerable prelates and reformers from the slander of Arminianism, which you have so unjustly laboured to fasten upon them; together with a refutation of the forced, unnatural inferences, deduced by you from the few mangled citations you bring. I find, however, that the insertion of this would swell the present publication beyond the size I intend; and shall therefore postpone submitting that part of my work to the world, until I see whether you still have the hardiness to persist in charging those protestant worthies with opinions they detested. If I might take the liberty of advising you, I would recommend to you at least silence upon that head, in time to come. I am clear, that you endeavoured to cull out the most unguarded passages you could, from the writings of the above excellent men: in order, if possible, to set a grace upon your new doctrines, by the sanction of their venerable names. In doing this, you have no more than followed the precedent set you by Dr. Peter Heylin (u), an absolute creature of archbishop Laud, and an obsequious tool in the persecuting hand of arbitrary power. His Quinquarticular History is the most laboured effort, ever yet made, to farther Arminianism on the church of England: but all his attempts are like throwing straw against a fort, or playing water against a rock. The Calvinism, both of our reformers, and of our church, stands unimpeached, for any thing that either you, sir, or your Heylin, have proved to the contrary. However, supposing (not granting) that you even had so far made good your point, as to have evinced that some of our reformers were not altogether such consistent Calvinists, as yet their works prove them to have been; still this argument would not have been decisive. Not the sermons and private writings even of our reformers themselves, are to be taken for authentic tests of our established doctrines as a church: but those stubborn things, called articles and homilies, which have received the sanction of law, and the stamp of public authority. These stubborn things (for such they are) still remain, blessed be God, to stare some certain folks in the face, and to demonstrate the glaring apostasy of such as say they are Jews, and are not, but are found liars. To these stubborn things we are to appeal: by these every subscriber is bound, and from these our doctrines must be learnt.

(u) A man of fine natural talents, and great acquired knowledge; but who unhappily prostituted both, to the most execrable of all purposes, the advancement of civil and religious slavery. Long enough before he wrote the History of the Reformation, and the History of the Presbyterians (which were more properly libels upon both); he gave an early specimen of what was to be expected from him, in the year 1627, when he publicly maintained, in the Divinity School at Oxford, that the church cannot err, and that the perpetual visibility of the true church, a retro, was to be proved. "Not from the persecuted Christians dispersed in several places, as the Berengarians in Italy, the Waldenses in France, the Wickliffists in England, and the Hussites in Bohemia, he rather chose to find out (says the writer of his life, p. 6.) a continual visible church in Asia, Ethiopia, Greece, Italy, yea and Rome itself:" and concluded his disputation with passing some very high compliments on the Romish church, and on Bellarmine in particular: for which the learned Dr. Prideaux, who then presided in the divinity chair, had the honesty and courage to call Heylin, publicly and on the spot, Papicola et Bellarminianus. Heylin, who well knew what high designs were then carrying on at court, thought he had now laid the foundation of his fortune; and, flushed with hopes of preferment, posts up to London, to acquaint Laud, then bishop of Bath and Wells, with the meritorious services he had just done, by openly maintaining popish positions in a protestant university. "The good bishop, (says the aforesaid biographer, page 7,) commended and encouraged Mr. Heylin, saying that he himself, had, in his younger days, maintained the same positions in a disputation in St. John's college." Presently after, Heylin is made chaplain to Charles I. and prebendary of Westminster. On the coming out of Mr. Prynne's Histriomastix (written, as the title imports, against plays and stage-players), Heylin is sent for to the council table, where he received the king's commands to read over that book, and to select such passages from it, as the administration could lay hold of; for the queen being, it seems (like a true daughter of France), excessively fond of plays and masques, an attempt to prove those diversions unchristian, must needs forsooth, be traiterous and seditious, and an insult on the queen herself. A fortnight's space was allowed our Christian divine, for the performance of this honourable task. But, says his life writer, "He had learned that diligence in business would qualify him for the service of kings; and therefore he finished what was required of him, in less than four days; for which he had his majesty's thanks, as also new commands to revise his papers, and to write down such logical inferences, as might naturally arise from the premises of Mr. Prynne." ib, p. 10. The plain English of this is, that Mr. Prynne's own positions, as they stood in his book (though, no doubt, the most exceptionable of them had been industriously culled out by the worthy divine), did not amount to a foundation for prosecuting the author: therefore the same reverend hand was to draw out such logical inferences, as might effectually do Prynne's business. With this also the court chaplain complied. Nor did he stop here: for his historian adds, - "About this time, and upon this occasion, he wrote a small tract, touching the punishments due by law and in point of practice," [a distinction well suited to the proceedings of that arbitrary reign, when law and practice were two very different things] "unto such offenders as Mr. Prynne; and this was observable in the trial of that person, that nothing was urged by the council to aggravate his faults, than what was contained in Mr. Heylin's collection." A circumstance, to be sure, much to the Rev. Mr. Heylin's credit; who yet, by the bye, had the modesty to fall foul on the memory of Calvin, for the part that reformer is supposed to have borne in the prosecution of Servetus.

About two years before all this bustle, Mr. Prynne had published a learned and masterly performance, entitled anti-Arminianism, proving, that the Arminian doctrines, then almost fresh imported from Holland, were not the doctrines of the church of England, but novel and exotic. This gravelled Laud, who, not being able to overthrow that vast chain of proofs brought by Prynne; and yet being resolved by all the allurements of promotion, and (if these failed) by all the terrors of persecution, to new-model the church, by lopping off Calvinism, and grafting Arminianism in its room; greedily laid hold on the subsequent publication of the Histriomastix; by the help of logical inferences from which the bishop, and his under-strapper Heylin, procured the prosecution of this incorrigible protestant; who was sentenced in the star-chamber to have his book burnt by the hangman; to be, himself, expelled from Lincoln's Inn; disabled, for ever, to act as a lawyer; degraded from his university degree; set twice on the pillory; have his ears cut off; be imprisoned for life; and fined in £5000 a moiety whereof, very probably, went to Mr. Heylin, for his dexterity in drawing logical inferences, and for his activity in publishing a treatise (before the trial came on), setting forth the punishments which the court expected, should be inflicted on such offenders as Mr. Prynne. But, whether Heylin came in for any of the £5000 or not; the author of his life, immediately after the passage last quoted from him, adds: “For the reward of which, and other good services, that, with wonderful prudence, as well as diligence, he faithfully performed; his majesty was graciously pleased to requite him, by bestowing on him the parsonage of Houghton, in the bishopric of Durham, which afterwards he exchanged with Dr. Marshall, for the parsonage of Alresford in Hampshire, that was about the same value; to which exchange he was commanded by his majesty, that he might live nearer the court for readiness to do his majesty's service:" [and laudable service it was, if we may judge of the whole by the sample.] "Neither was he envied for this, or his other preferments, because every one knew his merits the only cause of his promotion." ib. And so much for Heylin, and his merits: some of which, I suppose, consisted in being a pandour for popery, several of his books, but especially his History of the Reformation, having been the means, it is believed (says the life writer, p. 24, 25.) of perverting "some persons, and those of the most illustrious quality, from the protestant faith to popery;” after which is added the following passage from bishop Burnet, who observes, that Dr. Heylin "delivers many things in such a manner, and so strangely, that one would think he had been secretly set on to it by those of the church of Rome: though I doubt not (says the bishop) but he was a sincere protestant, but violently carried away by some particular conceits." To which the biographer's answer is this, p. 25: "If it be true that any have embraced the Roman faith, by means of that book, he [Burnet] may conclude them to be very incompetent judges in the matters of religion, that will be prevailed upon to change it, by the perusal of one single history." A very flimsy vindication from so heavy a charge! See Heylin's Life, prefixed to his Miscellaneous Tracts, in fol. 1681.

I thought the reader would not be displeased to see a sketch of that man's character, whose name and writings are still so precious in the estimation of high-flown Arminians and Tories. I shall only prolong this large note with one observation more: viz. What can we think of the protestantism of that clergyman, who has left it on record, as his settled opinion, that the death of king Edward VI. (though succeeded by the butcheries of a popish reign) was rather a benefit, than a detriment, to the church of England? yet this says Heylin. His words are, - "Scarce had they brought it to this pass, when king Edward died; whose death I cannot reckon for an infelicity to the church of England; for, being ill-principled in himself, and easily inclined to embrace such counsels as were offered to him, it is not to be thought, &c." Hist. Ref. Pref. p. 4. This protestant history was dedicated by the protestant Doctor, to his protestant majesty king Charles the Second: to whom the above-mentioned protestant remark could not fail of being peculiarly pleasing.

Such was the man, whom Dr. Nowell has ventured to commend, and to quote. I fancy, that by this time, the reader will think, with me, that Dr. Nowell (like Charles I. whom he is not ashamed to style The best of kings) is rather unhappy in the choice of his favourites.

Before we quit the reign of king Edward, I must advert to what you deliver (page 89), concerning bishop Ponet's catechism: which you find yourself under the necessity of confessing to have been “set forth by the command of king Edward VI." This Dr. Ponet, or rather Poynet, was in 1550 translated from the see of Rochester, to Winchester, upon the deprivation of that ecclesiastical butcher, Stephen Gardiner. In the year 1553 came out, cum privilegio, two editions, one in Latin, the other in English, of this excellent prelate's catechism: in which form of sound words (clearly exhibiting the sense both of the church and legislature), those doctrines, which you have presumed to brand for Calvinistic and Methodistical, are asserted, explained, and enforced. You indeed tell us, that “the free-agency of man is not there denied." The word free-agency is not mentioned: but the thing is denied peremptorily, in the Arminian sense of it: for thus runs part of the catechism: “From the same spirit also cometh our sanctification, the love of God and of our neighbour, justice and uprightness of life. Finally, to say all in summe, whatever is in us, or may be done of us, honest, true, pure, and good; that altogether springeth out of this most pleasant rock, from this most plenteous fountain, the goodness, love, choice and unchangeable purpose of God: he is the cause; the rest are the fruits and effects." You add, that, in this catechism "universal redemption is not denied." Nor is the baptism of bells. Were we to go by your negative rule of interpretation, there would be no end to chicanery, absurdities, and mistakes. This I know, and this you know, if you ever cast your eye on the performance now under consideration, that, in it, eternal, personal, gratuitous and irreversible election is asserted; whence a limited redemption necessarily follows; unless you will suppose, that, in the judgment of the church, the will of God the Father, and the will of God the Redeemer, were discordant; and that the latter exceeded his commission, by dying for more than the former gave him in charge to save. But, on the contrary, the catechism before us evidently restrains redemption to the elect of God (whether rightly, or wrongly, is not the present question: I am only proving a fact), who are thus described: "Immortality and blessed life God hath provided for his chosen, before the foundations of the world were laid." And again, that, through the alone benefit of Christ's sacrifice and cross, “All the sins of all believers, from the beginning of the world, are pardoned, by the sole mercy of God." The grace by which men are made true believers, and which is the very root of all real sanctification, is farther represented as the special gift and work of the Holy Ghost: "The Holy Ghost is called holy, not only for his own holiness, but because the elect of God and the members of Christ are made holy by him." Now, if they only, who should believe, were redeemed by Christ's sacrifice; and if their belief itself be a part of that sanctification which is wrought by the Holy Ghost; and if this sanctification is peculiar to the elect of God; then, according to this catechism, only the elect of God were redeemed by Christ. You tell us, moreover, referring to this valuable monument of good old church-doctrine, "Nor is the indefectibility of the elect asserted." Indeed but it is, in terms tantamount. The witnessing spirit of Christ, in the hearts of those who are there styled "The fore-chosen, predestinate, and appointed to everlasting life before the world was made," is expressly termed the "author, earnest, and unfailable pledge of their faith." But, was that faith either totally or finally admissible, the pledge, by which it is ascertained, could not be called unfailable: for, that faith itself must necessarily be unfailable, which has an unfailable pledge. Besides, God the holy Spirit could not, with any sort of truth or propriety, be the earnest of their inheritance, if the inheritance itself was precarious, and suspended on conditions of uncertain performance. An earnest is actually a part of payment, and so much of the inheritance advanced beforehand, and which ensures the remainder; otherwise, it would be no earnest at all. An argument, in favour of the saint's final perseverance, which I defy all the excuti-fidians in the world (as bishop Hall, no less justly, than smartly, terms them) to answer.

You say too little, when you tell us that this catechism "speaks in pretty high terms of election and predestination." It speaks of those doctrines in terms the highest and the strongest: as also of original sin; the utter impotence of man's will, by nature, in spiritual things; the eternity and immutability of God's decrees; the absolute freeness of justification; and the efficaciousness of divine grace, by which (as the very words are) "we are made to do those good works, which God had appointed for us to walk in." I shall only add one or two very remarkable particulars, concerning this excellent catechism. 1. It was published the very next year after the framing and setting forth our church articles; and therefore may be considered as a professed explication and enlargement of them. 2. I have good reason to believe, that, during the short remainder of king Edward's reign, it was usually prefixed to and bound up with those articles. 3. It was prefaced by the king himself, with an authoritative epistle of recommendation, strictly enjoining and commanding, “All schoolmasters whatsoever within his dominions, as they did reverence his authority, and would avoid his royal displeasure, to teach this catechism, diligently and carefully, in all and every their schools, that so the youth of the kingdom might be settled in the grounds of true religion, and furthered in God's worship." --- I think, it is sufficiently plain, that Arminianism had no footing in the church of England, while headed by our English Josiah. Which, I presume, was the chief reason that made your beloved Peter Heylin impudently term this excellent young monarch (the first protestant king we ever had) ill-principled.

Come we now to the reign of queen Elizabeth. Under this great princess, the church of England raised its head again, and matters went happily on in the old protestant Calvinistic channel. Of this, many and ample proofs might be given. I shall offer a very decisive one, upon the authority of the worthy and laborious Mr. Strype: a historian, whose attachment to our church was indisputable, and whose faithfulness in relating facts, even when those facts make against his own favourite opinions (for he appears to have been an Arminian), is equally remarkable and praise-worthy. "We are to know," says this respectable annalist, "that, among those who now professed the gospel, there were considerable numbers, differing from the rest, that followed some foreign divines, of great name, in the point of predestination; denying the doctrine of God's being any cause of the sins of men, and thereby of their damnation. One of these was Thomas Talbot, parson of St. Mary Magdalen, Milk-street, London. Those of this persuasion were mightily cried out against, by the other, as Free-willers, Pelagians, Papists, Anabaptists, and the like: but they took their opportunity to address the bishops; plainly declaring their opinions, and their sufferings, as well as others, for the gospel; and desiring therefore the favour of some act of parliament, to enjoy the liberty of their consciences, without restraint or punishment (which some threatened), as others of the queen's protestant subjects did. "I meet" [adds Mr. Strype] "with such a petition to the church, the exact time whereof does not appear: but it being evident, it was near the beginning of the queen's reign, and while a parliament was sitting, I venture to place it here" [i. e. under the year 1562, the very year that our articles of religion were revised and re-established, as we now have them.] The petition, says Mr. Strype, "was exhibited by the foresaid Talbot." After which, he gives the petition itself, at full length (see Strype's Annals of the first twelve years of Queen Elizabeth chap. xxviii. p. 293-296). The petition represents that the grand point wherein the petitioners differed from the other protestants, was their holding "that God does foreknow, and predestinate all good and goodness, but doth only foreknow, and not predestinate any evil, wickedness, or sin, in any behalf." For thus thinking, they complained, that they were “Esteemed and taken of their brethren the protestants, for fautors of false religion; and are constrained hitherto, to sustain at their hands daily, the shameful reproach and infamy of Free-will men, Pelagians, Papists, Epicures, Anabaptists, and enemies to God's holy predestination and providence; with other such like, opprobrious words; and threatenings of such like, or as great punishments and corrections, as upon any of the aforesaid errors and sects is meet and due to be executed." - Then the petitioners entreat, that they may enjoy their opinion of God's not being the predestinator of evil, "Without any prejudice or suspicion, to be had towards them, of the opprobrious infamy of such heretical names above-named:" And, that none of these corrections, punishments, and executions, which the clergy hath in their authority already, and hereafter, by the authority of this present parliament, from henceforth shall have in their authority, to exercise upon any of the aforesaid errors and sects, or any other; shall in no wise extend to be executed upon any manner of person or persons, as do hold of predestination as is above declared: except it be duly proved, that the same person or persons, do, by their express words or writings, affirm or maintain that man, of his own natural power, is able to think, will, or work, of himself, any thing that should in any case, help or serve towards his own salvation, or any part thereof.

From all which, I conclude as follows: 1. That, on the accession of queen Elizabeth, the church of England was re-established upon the old Calvinistic bottom, on which king Edward had left it. 2. That our protestant bishops and clergy were then more highly Calvinistic, than perhaps the scriptures will warrant: as holding, that God was the author both of man's sin and damnation. 3. That nevertheless, those persons, who did not hold this, were looked upon as differing from the rest of our protestant churchmen. 4. That our English divines did, in general, carry their notions of God's decrees to this great length: parson Talbot and his followers being expressly said to have imbibed their qualified notions of predestination from foreign divines. That part, therefore, of the present fashionable system, which would exempt moral and penal evil from falling under God's decree, is not of English, but of foreign growth. 5. Those who held this opinion, of God's not being any cause of sin and damnation, were, at that time, mightily cried out against, by the main body of our reformed church, as fautors of false religion. 6. That Free-will men, were ranked among Pelagians, Papists, Epicures, Anabaptists, and the enemies to God's holy predestination and providence. 7. That to be called a Free-will man, was looked upon as a shameful reproach and opprobrious infamy: yea, that a person, so termed, was deemed heretical, and that the doctrine and abettors of free-will, were numbered among those errors and sects, which called for the correction of the civil magistrate. 8. That the opposers of predestination were then a good deal more modest, than they are at present. The parson of Milk-street, who was agent for the rest, only requested an act of toleration, for himself and his brethren: which demonstrated a consciousness of their differing from the church established. 9. As those sort of people were then more modest, so they were much more orthodox, than the modern Arminians. The semi-pelagians of queen Elizabeth's reign, were, as we have seen, very ready to consent, that any ecclesiastical or civil penalty should be levied on those who should, "By their express words, or writings, affirm, and maintain, that man, of his own natural power, is able to think, will, or work of himself, any thing that should in any case help or serve towards his own salvation; or any part thereof." Where is the Arminian now, who would make such a concession as this? Nay, Where is now the Arminian, who does not stifly maintain the very reverse? From whence I infer, that our new anti-Calvinists are as much degenerated from their forefathers; as those forefathers degenerated from the purity of the protestant faith in general, and from that of our own national church in particular.

Every man, who has eyes to read, must see, that, at the restoration of the church of England, under queen Elizabeth, the church was Calvinistic, as to doctrinals. Else, where had been either the necessity, or the propriety, of presenting such a petition as this, craving liberty and indulgence to those, who differed from the heads of the church, only in not believing the absolute predestination of evil? Nothing can be more evident, than the bishops and clergy, to whom that petition was addressed, believed the predestination of all actions and events whatever, evil as well as good; otherwise, the petitioners would never have thought themselves in danger for not believing it.

Page 79, you enter on an academical transaction, of a very different kind from that in which you have been recently concerned. I mean, the expulsion (for such it virtually was) of the reverend Mr. William Barrett, fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, from that university, in the year 1595, for not being a Calvinist. This gentleman, in a sermon, preached at St. Mary's, for his degree of batchelor in divinity, had the courage to deny the doctrines of assurance of salvation; the certainty of a true believer's final perseverance; and the eternity and unconditionality of reprobation: interlarding his harangue, with fierce invectives against Calvin, Beza, Zanchy, and other great lights of the protestant church. This sermon was preached April 29 (x). On the 5th of May following, Barrett was summoned before the consistory of doctors, where a solemn recantation was enjoined him; which he read publicly, in the same pulpit of St. Mary's, May 10. - For this, you tell us, “We have the authority of that loyal and godly author, Mr. Prynne." Whether Mr. Prynne was really a godly man, or only such in pretence (which your irony seems to insinuate), must be left to the decision of the Judge who cannot err. But, as to Mr. Prynne's loyalty, suffer me to remind you, sir, that true loyalty extends to one's country, as well as to the prince: and that to oppose tyranny, is no breach of loyalty, but an essential branch of it. Loyalty (as the very word imports) is such an attachment to the king and people, as is founded on the laws: and a hair's breadth beyond law, true loyalty does not go. So allegiance is obedience, ad legem, according to law. Whenever, therefore (as was eminently the case in Mr. Prynne's time), a prince oversteps law, loyalty itself obliges a loyal people to say to such a prince, as the Almighty to the sea, " Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further” (y). - With regard to the authority of Mr. Prynne's anti-Arminianism, the treatise wherein Barrett's recantation of his Arminian errors is recorded, please to remember, that the treatise was published, little more than thirty years after the affair happened: and, had a tittle of Mr. Prynne's account been untrue, there were enough living, who both remembered the fact, and could very easily have refuted our loyal and godly author (z).- However, the matter is very far from depending entirely on Mr. Prynne's testimony. He refers his reader [Anti-Arm. p. 66] to bishop Carlton's "Examination of Montague's Appeal;" and to Brown's Appendix to the "Life of Queen Elizabeth." He moreover gives us the recantation, in Latin, as it was delivered; transcribed from the original copy, in Barrett's own hand-writing; which Latin copy, he tells us, differs from his English translation of it, only in this one respect; namely, that so much of our 17th article, as relates immediately to predestination, and is but mentioned in the English, was inserted in Barrett's own copy, and recited by him at full length, when he was forced to unravel his web at St. Mary's. - The industrious Mr. Fuller, in his History of Cambridge, gives the same account, in all material points, with Mr. Prynne, of Barrett's recantation; which having set down at large, he thus concludes: "This recantation was, by the doctors, peremptorily enjoined him; that on the Saturday following, immediately after the clerum, he should go up into the pulpit of St. Mary's (where he had published these errors), and there openly, and in the face of the university, read and make this recantation; which by him was done accordingly, but not with that remorse and humility, as was expected: for, after the reading thereof, he concluded thus, haec dixi; as if all had been oral, rather than cordial (a). Yea, soon after, he departed the university; got beyond sea; turned papist; returned into England; where he led a layman's life until the day of his death." [Hist. Cambr. p. 151.] But I have yet another authority to allege. The great and famous Dr. John Edwards, who flourished in the reigns of king William and queen Anne, and was both a member of the university of Cambridge, and one of its brightest ornaments informs us, that there is a manuscript preserved in the library of Trinity college, Cambridge, which puts the certainty of Barrett's recantation beyond all doubt. The doctor's words are; "More of this nature, relating to Mr. Barrett's case, may be seen in that valuable manuscript, which is kept in Trinity college library, which MS. Mr. Strype, in his Life of Whitgift, very often appeals to. And" [adds the doctor] " from this excellent collection, may be confuted that groundless suggestion and conceit of Heylin, in Quinqu. Hist, that Barrett did not recant: for here it is recorded at length; and several copies of his own" [i. e. Barrett's] “Letters, do expressly own as much." Veritas Redux, p. 535.

(x) For the process against him, see Strype's Life of Whitgift, p. 436.

(y) Besides, Prynne was a loyal man, even in Dr. Nowell's sense of the word. He was devotedly attached to the interest of Charles II., and, for that reason, was excluded from the House of Commons in the year 1661. Charles himself, ungrateful as he naturally and generally was, was yet so sensible of his obligations to Mr. Prynne, that on his restoration, he made him keeper of the records in the Tower, a place worth £500 per ann., which he enjoyed till his death, which happened in the year 1669. See the Biographical Dictionary. See also Heylin's Life of Laud, p. 149.

(z) Strype himself appeals to Prynne's testimony, as unexceptionable and valid. Life of Whitgift, p. 436.

(a) See Strype, ibid. p. 436, 437, and 444.

For my own part, I cannot say, that I approve the method of obliging any person to make a forced, pretended recantation of what he really believes to be true. It is a very high species of persecution; and calculated, not to work conviction, but to make men hypocrites. Besides, as a writer of the first abilities, observes, “The arbitrary imposition of opinions naturally creates a reluctance to the reception of them: and as in the collision of bodies, so of minds, the repelling force is equal to that which impels." But still, the fact proves the university to have been Calvinists in judgment: otherwise, they would never have inflicted censures on one of their own body, purely for broaching Arminian doctrines. Part of the very letter, which you yourself quote (written, on this occasion, by the Cambridge divines, to archbishop Whitgift), renders my assertion indubitable: wherein the university observe to that prelate, that Barrett had advanced untruths “Against the religion of our church, publicly received, and always held in her majesty's reign, and maintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures (b)." - I own, sir, it must be peculiarly grating to you, to be confronted with such an academical act as this: but, I suppose, you comfort yourself with

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Yet remember, that, though men and fashions may vary, truth does not: and what was church of England doctrine, in queen Elizabeth's reign, is so still. You need not be informed who it is that says, “Veritati nemo praescribere potest: non spatia temporum; non patrocinia personarum; non privilegium regionum."

(b) See also Strype, p. 446.

Next come the celebrated Lambeth articles. These you labour with all your might to depreciate: and good reason why; because the testimony they bear, to the avowed Calvinism of the prelates, and other eminent clergymen, who agreed upon them, is too glaring and full to the point. I shall give some account of these famous articles, in the words of an historian already referred to, whose signal opportunities of information, and, above all, whose transparent integrity, entitle him to the esteem of all parties. “Now also began some opinions about predestination, free-will, perseverance, &c. much to trouble both the schools and pulpit:" [i. e. in the year 1595.] "whereupon, archbishop Whitgift, out of his Christian care to propagate the truth, and suppress the opposite errors, caused a solemn meeting of many grave and learned divines, at Lambeth: where, besides the archbishop; Richard Bancroft, bishop of London; Richard Vaughan, bishop elect of Bangor; Humphrey Tindal, dean of Ely; doctor Whitaker, queen's professor in Cambridge, and others, were assembled. These, after a serious debate, and mature deliberation, resolved at last, on the now following articles:

“1. Deus, ab aeterno praedestinavit quosdam ad vitam: quosdam reprobavit ad mortem.”

God, from eternity, hath predestinated certain men unto life: certain men he hath reprobated unto death.

“2. Causa movens, aut efficiens, praedestinationis ad vitam, non est praevisio fidei, perseverantiae, aut bonorum operum; aut ullius rei, quae insit in personis praedestinatis: sed sola voluntas beneplaciti Dei.”

The moving, or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is not the foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in the persons predestinated: but only the good will and pleasure of God.

"3. Praedestinatorum praefinitus et certus est numerus; qui nec augeri, nec minui potest.”

There is pre-determined a certain number of the predestinate, which can neither be augmented, nor diminished.

“4. Qui non sunt praedestinati ad salutem, necessario, propter peccata sua, damnabuntur.”

Those who are not predestinated to salvation, shall necessarily be damned for their sins.

"5. Vera, viva, et justificans fides, et spiritus Dei justificantis, non extinguitur, non excidit, non evanescit, in electis, aut finaliter, aut totaliter.”

A true, living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not extinguished, falleth not away, vanisheth not away in the elect, either finally or totally.

"6. Homo vere fidelis, id est, fide justificante praeditus, certus est, plerophoria fidei, de remissione peccatorum suorum, et salute semipiterna sua per Christum.

A man truly faithful, that is, such a one who is endued with justifying faith, is certain, with the full assurance of faith, of the remission of his sins, and of his everlasting salvation by Christ.

"7. Gratia salutaris non tribuitur, non communicatur, non conceditur uuiversis hominibus, qua servari possint si velint.”

Saving grace is not given, is not communicated, is not granted to all men, by which they may be saved if they will.

“8. Nemo potest venire ad Christum, nisi datum ei fuerit, et nisi Pater eum traxerit: et onmes homines non trahuntur a Patre, ut veniant ad Filium.”

No man can come unto Christ, except it shall be given unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him: and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they may come to the Son.

"9. Non est positum in arbitrio, aut potestate unius cujusque hominis servari.”

It is not in the will or power of every one to be saved." Fuller's Church Hist. b. ix. p. 229.

After which, our historian gives us the letter, sent by Dr. Matthew Hutton, archbishop of York, to his brother of Canterbury, testifying his concurrence with, and approbation of the above articles.

Your grand, fundamental objection, sir, to these articles, is, your hatred of the doctrines they contain. This is the worm, that lies at the root of your exceptions. 1. You tell us, (page 82,) that "They are no part of our faith." You should have said, of your own faith. I am sorry for it. I am sure they ought. 2. They were never “Established by any legal authority." I answer, with Fuller, "That, as medals of gold and silver, though they will not pass in payment for current coin, yet will go with goldsmiths, for as much as they are in weight; so, though these articles are not, [as that historian observes,] "Provincial acts, yet will they be readily received, of orthodox Christians, as far as their own purity bears conformity to God's word: - and will be taken as witnesses beyond exception; whose testimony is an infallible evidence, what was the general and received doctrine of England, in that age, about the fore-named controversies.” (Fuller, ib. p. 232.) - 3. You add, "They are urged against us by the author of the Confessional.” What if they are? Does that in the least impair their value? I am only concerned, that any, who now call themselves members of our church, should by deserting her principles, lay themselves open to the scoffs of such authors. - 4. "They gave great offence, not only in the university, but at court." Offence they could not give to the university; except only to a few heterodox individuals, whose innovating tenets were in danger of public suppression, by counter decisions so clear and peremptory. - Whether or no they gave any real offence at court is questionable. But, if they even did, it can be no matter of wonder to those who consider the character of queen Elizabeth, and how tenderly jealous (c) she was of her own supremacy in ecclesiastical matters. The articles had been transmitted to Cambridge, without her leave: which alone had been enough to displease a monarch of less haughtiness than Elizabeth; who was too much her father's own daughter, and too tenacious of her prerogative, to smile on any measures that had not received the previous sanction of her approbation. For the same reason, that archbishop Whitgift is said to have resented (d) the university proceedings against Barrett (observe he did not resent their condemnation of Barrett's tenets, for of these the archbishop openly avowed his detestation, (see Strype, p. 447.) as much as they; but their presuming to proceed judicially against that innovator, by virtue of their own sole authority and without first consulting with their metropolitan (e). For the same reason (mutatis mutandis), Elizabeth herself resented, if it be true that she did resent, the subsequent proceedings of Whitgift. At all events this is certain, that her extreme affection for that prelate, did not suffer her resentment to proceed far, or to continue long (f). One Corvinus, a noted Dutch Arminian, in a book of his, published beyond sea, seems to have been one of the first who made public mention of the queen's displeasure at this supposed invasion of her prerogative. Concerning the degree of credit due to this foreign writer, who affected to know more of the English affairs, than the English themselves, let us hear the candid and judicious historian last cited: " As for Corvinus, as we know not whence he had this intelligence, so we find no just ground for what he reporteth, [viz.] That archbishop Whitgift, for his pains incurred the queen's displeasure, and a praemunire. We presume this foreigner better acquainted with the imperial law, and local customs of Holland, than with our municipal statutes, and the nature of a praemunire. Indeed, there goes a tradition, that the queen should in merriment, say jesting to the archbishop, 'My Lord, I now shall want no money; for I am informed, all your goods are forfeited to me, by your calling a council without my consent; but how much of truth herein, God knows. And be it referred to our learned in the law, whether, without danger of such a censure, the two archbishops, by virtue of their place, had not an implicit leave from the queen, to assemble divines, for the clearing, declaring, and asserting of difficult truths, provided they innovate or alter nothing in matters of religion." Fuller, p. 232 (g).

(c) See Heylin's Life of Laud, p. 194.

(d) This gave occasion to that excellent letter of apology, sent to the archbishop from Cambridge: for which, see Strype's Whitgift, p. 437. Barrett, had been beforehand with the university, in writing to the archbishop; which artful expedient, did at first prejudice the prelate in his favour. See Strype, p. 438. Conscious, however, of the badness of his cause, he began to trim, and to eat up part of his assertions. See Strype's Appendix to Whitgift, p. 188.

(e) See Strype, ib. p. 440. And in this, the university certainly acted imprudently; Whitgift being then at the head of the ecclesiastical commission, and also having a peculiar jurisdiction over Cainbridge, pro tempore; the see of Ely being then vacant. In short, the dispute between the archbishop and the university, was little else but a mere struggle for power. The heads at Cambridge were at last apprehensive, that in their scuffle with the archbishop concerning the extent of his jurisdiction over them, the truths of religion might eventually suffer; wherefore they present to him a very respectful, but very nervous, petition: which see in Strype, p. 451.

Soon after, Barrett was by the archbishop's order, strictly examined at Cambridge, upon these eight questions; which, with his answers, see in Strype, p. 452, 453. Then examined again at Lambeth, before the archbishop in person, p. 457; and another form of recantation (more moderate and qualified than that he had before delivered at St. Mary's) was drawn up at Lambeth, with Barrett's consent, and transmitted to Cambridge; but which, however, this prevaricating Pelagian delayed to make, p. 457, 458. The whole affair is summed up by the archbishop himself, as follows: and is such a proof of this prelate's Calvinism, as must for ever leave it incontestible, p. 458, 459.

Here, properly, come in the Lambeth articles; p. 461. which were sent to Cambridge, accompanied with a letter from the archbishop, which breathes the true spirit of a Christian and a protestant, p. 462: yet was he firmly persuaded of the truth of the doctrine asserted in these articles, p. 463. See Sand. Pax. Eccles. p. 64.

(f) See Strype, p. 464. She was, however, enraged at Baroe's impudence in presuming to preach against the Calvinistic doctrines, as we shall presently see.

(g) A Cambridge divine, so low down as 1634, was stopped of his degree, for seeming to nibble at the doctrine of justification by faith only. See Usher's Letters, p. 470.

As to lord Burleigh's supposed disapprobation of the articles, I apprehend it is nothing to the purpose, even admitting it to be true (h). That great person was certainly a very able statesman; but it does not therefore follow that he was a good divine. The famous Mr. Wilkes, is, in the opinion of very many, a passable politician; yet I question whether you yourself (though, like you, he is far enough from being a Calvinist) would venture to pronounce that gentleman a consummate theologist.

(h) It is extremely questionable whether he did quite dislike them. See Strype, 464.

In consequence of these articles, approved of at Lambeth, and from thence sent to Cambridge, Peter Baroe, D. D. and Margaret-professor, chose rather to quit the university, than either to relinquish his Arminianism, or profess himself a Calvinist when he was not so. The matter is thus related by Fuller: “The end of Dr. Peter Baroe's triennial lectures began to draw near. Now, though custom had made such courtesy almost become a due, to continue the same professor, where no urgent reasons to the contrary were alleged; yet the university intended not to re-elect him for the place: meaning fairly to cut him off at the just joint (which would be the less pain and shame unto him), when his three years should be expired. He himself was sensible thereof: and besides, he saw the articles of Lambeth, lately sent to the university; and foresaw, that subscription thereunto should be expected from, yea, imposed on him; to which he could not condescend, and therefore chose to quit his place. So that his departure was not his free act, out of voluntary election; but that whereunto his will was necessarily determined: witness his own return, to a friend enquiring of him the cause of his withdrawing: “Fugio," said he, “ne fugarer;' I fly for fear of being driven away.” Some conceive this, hard measure, to one of Dr. Baroe's qualifications: for, 1. He was a foreigner, a Frenchman: 2. He was a great scholar, &c. Others alleged, that, in such cases of conscience, there lies no plea for courtesy; and that Baroe, as he was a stranger, had brought in strange doctrines, to the infecting the university, the fountain of learning and religion; and therefore archbishop Whitgift designed the removing," [or, as Dr. Nowell would have termed it, the Amotion] " of him from his place." [Hist, of Camb. sect. vii. p. 21, 22.] (i).

(i) The queen was enraged with Baroe, for his impudence and ingratitude, shown in his presuming to preach against the Calvinistical doctrine; Strype, p. 464, 465, and so was the archbishop, who was Hutton, archbishop of York, p. 476. The articles, for which this French Semi-pelagian was accused, were chiefly four. Strype, p. 470.

I shall subjoin the account given by Dr. Edwards, of these celebrated Lambeth articles: who, after setting them down, as I have cited them above, adds: “The archbishop of Canterbury, in the letter to the vice-chancellor of the university, when he sent Dr. Tindal and Dr. Whitaker back from Lambeth with these articles, professed that he thought them to be true, and correspondent to the doctrine professed in the church of England, and established by the laws of the land. And again, in his letter to Dr. Nevil, master of Trinity college, he asserts the propositions to be undoubtedly true, and not to be denied of any sound divine. Matthew Hutton, archbishop of York, in the close of his letter to archbishop Whitgift, adds these words, “Hae theses ex sacris literis, vel aperte colligi, vel necessaria consecutione deduci possint, et ex scriptis Augustini.” i.e. These positions may plainly be gathered out of the sacred Scriptures, or by necessary consequence may be deduced out of them and St. Augustine's writings (k). John Young, bishop of Rochester, in a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, allowed of all the articles but one: 'I am something doubtful,' saith he, of the fourth proposition, because I do not perfectly understand it: for the rest, I have no manner of scruple.' The determination of Dr. Launcelot Andrews, concerning these articles, is also set down in the Trinity college manuscript, whence I had the foregoing informations. He [bishop Andrews] agrees with the archbishop, as to the main; and submits his judgment to the censure of that prelate. There likewise we have Dr. Bisse's opinion of the propositions; wherein he fully gives his suffrage in their behalf, and distinctly sets it down according to the order of the propositions. This, and the other particular testimonies, may be seen in that fore-mentioned manuscript; which is a standing confutation of those false things that are told by Dr. Heylin, concerning the articles of Lambeth: and, particularly, of that calumny, which another of the same genius hath had the confidence to publish to the world, namely, (l) that archbishop Whitgift did not in the least approve of the theses, but yet subscribed to them out of facility and fear of discord (m). The contrary manifestly appears from that choice collection of papers which I have made use of, and which was compiled by the archbishop himself, or by his order; so as it may be looked upon as his: which I gather from the manuscript itself, it being bound up in a leather cover, on which are the arms belonging to the archbishop's see. From the whole, we may conclude what was the judgment of the prelates and other divines of the church of England, in queen Elizabeth's time, concerning those high points. Yea, indeed, the conclusion is made to our hand; for the force of truth hath drawn this acknowledgment from one of our chief adversaries, that, in those times, 'Predestination, and the points depending thereupon, were received as the established doctrines of the church of England:' [Heylin's Life of Laud, p. 51.] And again, 'The books of Calvin were the rule, by which all men were to square their writings; his only word, like the ipse dixit of Pythagoras, was admitted for the sole canon to which they were to frame and conform their judgments.' He adds, 'It was safer for any man in those times, to have been looked upon as a heathen or publican, than an anti-Calvinist.' (n) [ibid. p. 52.] Veritas Redux, p. 537, 538.

(k) See Hutton's judgment, more fully in Strype, p. 461 and 478.

(l) Strype also vindicates the archbishop from this mean insinuation of Elis', p. 462.

(m) J. Elis Hist. Artic. Lamb.

(n) See another concession of Heylin's. Life of Laud, p. 121.

It will appear, sir, even to yourself, how greatly mistaken you are, in asserting so confidently, that the Lambeth articles gave offence in the university; when you consider the letter sent by the university, to their chancellor, the lord Burleigh, within four months after those articles had been agreed upon at Lambeth. We have it at length, in Heylin's Quinquarticular History, part iii. chap. xxii. and, I dare believe, this writer has been very careful not to give it in stronger terms than it was written: an historian, of his bigotted complexion, is more likely to have castrated such a monument of Cambridge Calvinism, than added to its vigour. However, in this letter, even as preserved by him, I find the following passages: "The peace of this university and church being brought into peril, by the late reviving of new opinions and troublesome controversies among us, hath urged us, in regard of the places we here sustain, not only to be careful for the suppressing the same, to our power; but also to give your lordship further information hereof. About a year past (among divers others, who have attempted to preach new and strange opinions in religion), one Mr. Barrett, more bold than the rest, did preach divers popish errors in St. Mary's; with whose fact and opinions, your lordship was made acquainted by Dr. Some, the deputy vice-chancellor. Hereby offence and division growing; as after, by Dr. Baroe's public lectures and determinations in the schools, contrary to Dr. Whitaker's and the sound received truth ever since her majesty's reign, we sent up to London, by common consent, in November last, Dr. Tyndal and Dr. Whitaker (men especially chosen for that purpose) for conference with my lord of Canterbury, and other principal divines there: that the controversies being examined, and the truth by their consents confirmed; the contrary errors and contentions thereabouts might the rather cease. By whose good travel, with sound consent in truth, such advice and care was taken, by certain propositions" [i. e. the Lambeth articles], “containing certain substantial points of religion taught and received in this university and church, during the time of her majesty's reign, and consented unto, and published by the best approved divines both at home and abroad; for the maintaining of the truth and peace of the church; as thereby we enjoyed here great and comfortable quiet, until Dr. Baroe (in January last, in his sermon ad clerum, in St. Mary's, contrary to restraint and commandment from the vice-chancellor and the heads), by renewing again these opinions, disturbed our peace; whereby his adherents and disciples were and are too much emboldened to maintain false doctrine, to the corrupting and disturbing of this university, and the church, if it be not in time effectually prevented. Now, unless we should be careless of maintaining the truth of religion established, we cannot (being resolved and confirmed in the truth of the long professed and received doctrine) but continue to use all good means, and seek at your lordship's hands some effectual remedy hereof; lest, by permitting passage to these errors, the whole body of popery should, by little and little, break in upon us, to the overthrow of our religion. As we find, by late experience, it hath dangerously began." Such were the ideas, which the university then entertained, of those Arminian errors, which have since grown so rampant among us! (o)

(o) How the university of Oxford also stood affected as to these points, is evident from the manner in which they treated Laud. See his Life, p. 50.

Presently after giving us the public letter, whence I have extracted the above passages, this very Heylin has the impudence to call Arminianism, the genuine doctrine of the Church. And yet he dates the rise of this genuine doctrine, from the time he there treats of, viz. the year 1595; and acknowledges, in effect, that Calvinism was the doctrine universally received in our church, until then. His words are, "Such was the condition of affairs at Cambridge, at the expiring of the year 1595; the genuine doctrine of the church" [by which he means Arminianism, propagated by Barrett, Baroe, and Harsnet] "beginning then to break through the clouds of Calvinism, wherewith it was before obscured.” Yet he seems to lament that Arminianism made so slow a progress at that time; for he adds, “that there were some still left of the old predestination leaven." Strange, that the church of England should be without her genuine doctrines, for the first fifty years after her establishment! I should rather have thought, that the Arminian doctrines, which, by the confession of Heylin himself, did not begin to break through the clouds of Calvinism until the church was half a century old, must, for that very reason, be looked upon as new and adventitious; and that, on the other hand, the old predestination leaven, which met with no considerable opposition until the year 1595, was and must have been the truly genuine doctrine of our English church.

You next advert to the ever-memorable synod of Dort, held in the reign of James I, (p) which renowned assembly, and its decisions, have always been as great an eye-sore to Arminians, as ever the council and creed of Nice were to the Arians, or Geneva to his holiness of Rome. That the decrees, past in this synod, are not binding in England, is what I never knew so much as questioned. All that we refer to it for, is, to prove, that our national church was not then Arminianized: as appears from the character and principles of those English clergymen, who, as representatives of the church of England, were sent over to Holland, to assist the foreign churches in the solemn condemnation and proscription of the Arminian doctrines. This important convention was at Dort, where the synod (composed of the flower of the reformed churches) was opened, Nov. 13, 1618. Of all the councils that ever sat, since the apostles' days, this was, perhaps, taking every thing into the account, by far the most respectable. Scarce ever, I believe, did the Christian world, before or since, see such a number of evangelical divines, so learned, so pious, so discreet, so candid, assembled together under one roof. The English divines, who made so eminent a figure in this synod, and whose orthodoxy, learning, and great abilities reflected so much honour on our church and nation, were, George Carlton, D. D. then lord bishop of Llandaff, afterwards of Chichester; Joseph Hall, D. D. then dean of Worcester; afterwards, successively, bishop of Exeter, and Norwich; John Davenant, D. D. then Margaret professor, and master of Queen's College, Cambridge; afterwards bishop of Salisbury; and Samuel Ward, D. D., then master of Sidney College, Cambridge, and archdeacon of Taunton. To these was soon after added, as representative of the church of Scotland, George Balcanquall, B. D. and fellow of Pembroke Hall. Dr. Hall, after about two month's stay in Holland, was forced, by want of health, to return to England (having first taken a most respectful and tenderly affectionate leave of the synod, in a pious and elegant speech, still extant:) and was replaced by Thomas Goade, D. D. chaplain to the archbishop of Canterbury. That these great divines, who represented our church with such fidelity and ability, were, every one of them, doctrinal Calvinists, the reader may see for himself, by consulting the acts and memorials of the synod, published at Dort, A. D. 1620, where the determinations of our English divines, their speeches, and their subscriptions, stand on record, and prove how deeply and how inexcusably, we, in the present day, are revolted from our first love, and degenerated from our first faith.

(p) James' view [in his share of the business] was, to condemn Arminianism. Heylin's Life of Laud, p. 120.

I will not call the Arminian writers (as bishop Bull, not very politely, did the Arians) "mendacissimum genus hominum," a most lying set of men; but I cannot, without doing violence to truth, acquit them, in general, of artifice and wilful misrepresentation, hardly compatible with heathen honesty, and still less with Christian integrity, when they treat of doctrines and transactions relative to Calvinism. Even you, sir, do not seem to have quite escaped the ungenerous infection. Hence you venture to assure the world, page 92. that, “It was indeed in great measure owing to the heats and violence with which matters were carried in that synod, and the great severity of the horrible decrees" [a phrase you have apparently borrowed from Mr. John Wesley] "here framed, that our English divines, who attended that synod, begun to have less reverence for the doctrines of Calvin." If ever there was a mistake in the world, this is one. I, as an individual of that public to whom you have submitted your pamphlet, have a right to call upon you for proof of this confident assertion. Bring forth your strong reasons, or the world will be at full liberty to draw conclusions not to your advantage (q).

(q) Here might have been introduced the judgment of these divines at the synod, from the acts of it.

Never were debates, of such intricacy and importance, carried on with more decency, solemnity, and unanimity, than in this synod. The Arminians (who were cited to answer for themselves, as corrupters of the church and disturbers of the state), did, indeed, endeavour all they could, to embarrass and throw matters into confusion; and never did chicanery and insolence of the remonstrant sect more palpably appear, than at that period. These mushroom-schismatics were in hopes, by raising a dust, to elude the censures they justly dreaded; and to catch some advantage to themselves, by striving to occasion divisions in the synod: thus exactly treading in the steps of their good friends and cousin-germans, the papists; who, ever since the first dawn of the reformation, have acted on the same plan, and with the same views. But the venerable Dordracene fathers saw the drift of the Arminian faction; and happily defeated its wishes, by standing together like a chain of rocks, which neither fraud nor force could shake or sever. Nor were the divines of England staggered in their judgments, upon their return hither from Dort, concerning either the justice and moderation of the synod's proceedings, or the orthodoxy of its decisions; as may, if need require, be easily and largely demonstrated from the writings of Hall, Carlton, Davenant, &c. published long enough afterwards. I therefore call once more on Dr. Nowell, as he is a clergyman and a man of honour, either to prove, or to retract, what he has (I would hope, unadvisedly) advanced.

Nor can I wholly pretermit your next paragraph; wherein you assure us, that the learned Mr. Hales went to Dort "a rigid Calvinist; but there I bid John Calvin good night, said he to his friend Mr. Faringdon.” The learned Mr. Hales both was, and continued a Calvinist: as appears from that very book, to which Mr. Faringdon's letter is prefixed. Yet, if he had changed his judgment ever so greatly (which, by the bye, he never did, if his own (r) subsequent writings are allowed to have the casting vote, still that would not affect the church of England. He did not go to Dort, invested with any public commision or character from this kingdom, but merely as a private person (s). However, since you affect to lay so much weight on the pretended change of this learned man, I will subjoin what the famous Dr. Edwards delivers on the subject: "The sentiments of Mr. Hales, of Eton college, who was present at the synod of Dort, may be here inserted; for though some tell us, that, when Episcopius urged Joh 3:16. this Mr. Hales 'bid John Calvin good night,' yet it is likely he was reconciled to him next morning: for his writings, that are since extant, give us the best account of his opinions. He expressly acknowledges the purpose of God's election, and the purpose of God's reprobation, in a sermon on Mt 26:75. And, in another sermon, on Ro 14:1 he tells us, That some with favourable countenance of scripture, make the cause of reprobation, only the will of God, determining freely of his own work, as himself pleases, without respect to any second cause whatsoever. He owns, that this doctrine may be profitably taught and heard, and that matter of singular exhortation may be drawn from it. And he adds, “It is a noble resolution, so to humble ourselves, under the hand of almighty God, as that we can with patience hear, yea, think it an honour, that so base creatures as ourselves, should become the instruments of the glory of so great a majesty, whether it be by eternal life, or by eternal death; though for no other reason, but for God's good will and pleasure's sake. This is very high, and more than I have ventured to say: but thence we may gather what kindness this great man had for Calvin's opinions; yea, for that which is the most exceptionable of all; and how averse he was to Arminius' system of divinity. (t).

(r) See his Golden Remains, passim.

(s) He went to Holland in capacity of chaplain to sir Dudley Carlton, James' ambassador to the States. Hence he came to be present at the synod at Dort; held at that time. Biogr. Diet. vol. vi. p. 279.

(t) The very poets of that and the preceding times, were Calvinists. See Spenser, Shakespeare, Waller, Quarles.

“And it is to be observed, that Mr. Hales' book, wherein these passages are, is commended to the reader by two excellent divines of our church; Dr. Pearson (afterward bishop of Chester), and Mr. Faringdon; who were well skilled in these points. Which puts me in mind [N. B.] of what the former of these learned men told me when he was pleased to admit me to some discourse with him: namely, that when he [bishop Pearson] was a young master of arts, he thought there was no difficulty in these grand articles [of predestination, &c.]; that he was able to determine any of them with ease, especially on the Arminians' side; but, since, he found it was otherwise; and he disapproved of men's rash censuring and condemning the other side; and, indeed, we may guess this to be his inclination, by his approving of Mr. Hales' remains." Verit. Red. p. 542, 543. Of all the English clergymen, who assisted in the synod of Dort, the great and good bishop Hall was the longest survivor. The Arminian fanatic, John Goodwin, in his libel on the protestant doctrines, entitled, “Redemption Redeemed," published during the usurpation, slandered the synod with the blackest calumny his malice could invent; thinking, that he might safely vend his falsehoods, at a time when the far greater part of the persons, who composed that apostolical assembly were gathered home to the church triumphant. It was a happiness, that we had, however, one excellent man living, who was able upon his own knowledge, to wipe off the aspersions of this bigottcd miscreant. The pious, the aged bishop Hall, upon the coming out of Goodwin's book, wrote a pretty long letter to Fuller, which that historian published at full length, in his Church History, b. x. p. 85. I wish I had room to transcribe the whole; but it concludes thus: “Since I have lived to see so foul an aspersion cast upon the memory of those worthy and eminent divines; I bless God, that I yet live to vindicate them, by this my knowing, clear and assured attestation; which 1 am ready to second with the solemnest oath, if I shall be thereto required.

"Your most devoted friend, &c.

“JOS. HALL, B. N.”

“Higham, Aug. 30, 1651.”

Almost two years after, the same incomparable prelate wrote another letter to the learned Mr. George Kendall (u), upon the same subject. The reader may see the whole of it, in Mr. Kendall's Sancti Sanciti, published in the bishop's life-time. The latter part of it is as follows: “My unhappy sickness called me off, before the full conclusion of that work" [viz. the formal condemnation of the Arminians (called in Holland, Remonstrants), by the synod of Dort): “But I stayed so long as any public session, or appearance of the remonstrants continued. Thus much, in effect, I have formerly, upon the motion of my worthy successor at Waltham, Mr. Fuller, signified to him; as one who cannot but think, it was one end of this unexpected protraction of my days, after all the rest of my fellows, that I might do this right to that godly reverend learned assembly. With the intimation whereof, I bid you farewell in the Lord; and do heartily commend your studies to the divine benediction; professing myself,

"Your loving and

"much devoted friend,

JOS. HALL, B. N."

Higham, July 25, 1653.”

(u) This great man effectually answered John Goodwin's "Redemption Redeemed," in two separate treatises: the one entitled, Qeokratia, or, a Vindication of the Doctrine commonly received in the reformed churches, concerning God's Intentions of Special Grace and Favour to his Elect, in the Death of Christ; as also concerning his Prerogative, Power, Prescience, Immutability, &c. printed 1653. The other, entitled, Sancti Sanciti, or, the common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints vindicated: published in 1654. In these two volumes, the doctrines of grace are explained, asserted, and defended, with such solidity of nervous argument - such a display of useful learning - such transparent piety - such pleasing perspicuity - and the whole enlivened with such acumen of wit; as few controversial pieces, written in that age at least, can boast. If, after giving my opinion of this most excellent author, I may, without presumption, subjoin the attestation of the truly primitive bishop Hall; I would lay before the reader, that most worthy prelate's letter to Mr. Kendall, signifying how greatly he approved, and even admired the first of the above performances, which the author had made him a present of soon after its publication. A testimony from such a hand, will at once enrich this note, give the utmost weight to my recommendation, and both gratify and edify such of my readers, as have not met with it before. The bishop's letter is affixed to Sancti Sanciti, between the dedication and the preface; and runs verbatim, as follows

"Worthy Mr. Kendall,

"I cannot forbear, though with a sick hand, to signify my thankful receipt of your excellent work" (the Qeokratia), part whereof I had eagerly perused, before your welcome present came; and had desired my sonne to impart unto you my appreciative thoughts concerning it. I easily foresee, how highly you will be tempted with applauses for so acceptable a service. I know I need not, but my tender love of you bids me, desire you, with an humble heart to sing, Non nobis, Domine; but let the whole praise run clear back to that infinite bounty, from whence these precious gifts came. And go on to improve those great parts, to the further honour of the Giver.

"With my thankful acceptance of your comfortable letter, and rich present, I take leave; professing myself

"Your heartily devoted friend,

"and fellow labourer,

"JOS. HALL, B. N."

“Higham, March 16th, 1652.”

Is it possible to read such an apostolical letter, without being charmed with the venerable simplicity, improved by the sweet humility, and warmed with experimental piety, which glow and shine in every sentence?

When arguments fall short, it is too common with controversial writers to call names, and fling dirt; in hopes of casting an odium, on what they find themselves unable to confute. I could wish, sir, that you had not stooped to this illiberal recourse, your following expostulation had then been spared; page 93. "Consider what faction it was, which then" [i. e. in the time of Charles I] "prevailed towards the overthrow of the church. Was it not that of the puritans? And were not the doctrines of Calvinism their leading principles?" Permit me, sir, to ask, Were all the disturbers of those times Calvinists? Were Charles and his French queen; were Laud and Buckingham, Calvinists? These were the primary disturbers, whose evil counsels, and whose arbitrary measures, laid the sad foundation of those disturbances, which issued in the overthrow of the church. The confusions of that unhappy reign, and the miseries that followed, are to be radically charged, not on those who repressed the haughty strides of despotism; but on the despots themselves, whose violent proceedings rendered that opposition absolutely necessary. Matters at last were wound up to that fatal height, that both sides found themselves reduced to the dismal necessity of going to much greater lengths, than either of them foresaw at first setting out. On one hand, there was a court equally despotic and corrupt, and (as the event proved) no less feeble, than proud and unyielding. On the other there was patriotic zeal, gradually enflamed into party rage, by a long series of repeated insults and unrelenting oppressions. No wonder, therefore, that, under the confluence of such circumstances, the constitution received that eventual subversion, which you, either through forgetfuliess of history, or by disingenuous misrepresentations, would untruly, and ridiculously, charge on the Calvinism of that age.

As Charles (x) and his court were far enough from inclining to the Geneva doctrines; so likewise were some, who, though they agreed with that unfortunate prince, as an Arminian, yet detested and resisted his measures, as a tyrant, and even publicly justified the putting him to death. Witness John Goodwin, (y) that virulent anti-Calvinist, who wrote an elaborate treatise, in professed vindication of Charles' murder, under the title of "A Defence of the Sentence, passed on the late King, by the High Court of Justice.” This was the same John Goodwin, who, about the same time, published his Redemption Redeemed; that infamous libel on the doctrines of the reformation: wherein he endeavours, throughout, to prove Calvin, and all the reformed churches, in the wrong, and asserts universal redemption, free-will, justification by works, and falling from grace, not quite so smoothly, but altogether as tenaciously, as you yourself have done, or as the authors of your admired popish book, the Pia et Catholica Institutio. Add to this (and deny it if you can), that those execrable enthusiasts, who were the chief authors of Charles' execution, were not Calvinistic divines (z) (for these were so far from approving of the king's murder, that they offered a petition against it), but a rabble army; composed of the dregs of almost every sect, and particularly of papists in disguise (a). With regard to the puritans, properly so called, many of whom had previously made a stand against the despotism, arrogated by that misguided king and his delinquent ministers; these (the puritans), to their credit be it said, joined with those of the Episcopalians who were undissembling lovers of the church and of their country, in warding off the slavery, which it was the endeavour of an infatuated court to obtrude: whence all, whether churchmen or dissenters, who were engaged in this noblest of causes, were lumped together, and stigmatized, indiscriminately, with the name of state puritans. The friends of liberty and the constitution stood up in defence of both, not merely as Calvinists, but as Englishmen. What concern for instance, had the doctrines of efficacious grace and final perseverance, in the just opposition that was made to ship-money, star-chamber prosecutions, and ten thousand other intolerable grievances? Let me request you, sir, as you tender your own credit, to think before you write, and weigh matters with some degree of care. Had you done this lately, you had not attempted to palm such absurdities on the public. I must add, That the history of Charles' and the two preceding reigns, makes it undeniable, that those of the puritans, who were non-conformists, did not dissent from our church in doctrinal matters, but solely in the matter of rites and ceremonies. And what had this partial dissent to do with the doctrine of predestination, in which the main body, both of conformists and non-conformists, were reciprocally agreed? It is notorious, that the latter had their name, not for disbelieving our doctrinal articles (which was never, that I can find, so much as laid to their charge), but for not conforming to our modes of worship. (b) If a Calvinist, and a non-conformist, were, as you would unjustly insinuate, convertible names; it would follow, that we must un-church our own church, for the first hundred years after the Reformation, and date its genuine commencement from the introduction of Arminianism under archbishop Laud. That innovating, hot-headed prelate, if your premises are admitted, is to be considered as the father and founder of the church of England; whereas he was in reality its corrupter, and its eventual destroyer: for he drove so rapidly towards Rome, that he overset the church, of which he unhappily held the reins; and was not a little accessary to the concomitant fall of the state likewise, which, rushing precipitant, entombed both his sovereign and himself in its ruins. I will only observe farther, that, even in the present century, we have had some Calvinistic bishops: Bishop Beveridge, and bishop Hopkins, for instance. And will you call these truly bright ornaments of our church, sectarists, puritans, and methodists, because they were professed Calvinists?

(x) There is indeed, a book extant, published in 1651, entitled, "Certamen Religiosum, or a Conference between the late king of England, and the Lord Marquis of Worcester, concerning Religion." It is written with great poignancy, clearness, and learning: and contains a most excellent defence of the protestant faith; especially of those branches of it, which now go under the name of Calvinism. Could the authenticity of this masterly performance be satisfactorily ascertained, it would effectually overthrow my supposition, of Charles' attachment to Arminianism. If he can be really thought to have borne that part in the conference, which this treatise represents; he did indeed, literally, merit the title of Defensor Fidei, and must have been as sound a protestant, as ever lived; and as strenuous a Calvinist, as any puritan in his whole dominions. But the book bears the signatures of a much finer genius, and of far more extensive learning, than Charles seems to have possessed: though his abilities were by no means inconsiderable. It was evidently written, and fathered upon the king, by some learned churchman, who was a well wisher to his memory. I have great reason to think, its author was archbishop Usher, who certainly was with the king, at Ragland, at the time the conference is said to have been held. See Parr's Life of Usher.

(y) For some account of this Arminian fanatic, see bishop Burnet's Own Times, vol. i. p. 67. and 163. folio, and Ant. Wood in several places.

(z) Very many Calvinists were on Charles' side: as Usher, Hopkins, Hall, &c.

(a) See bishop Bramhall's letter to archbishop Usher. Usher's Life, p. 611. See also Calamy's Abridgement of Baxter, vol. i. and Voltaire's Universal History, vol. iv.

(b) "Albeit the puritans disquieted our church, about their conceived discipline, yet they never moved any quarrel against the doctrine of our church. Which is well to be observed: for, if they had embraced any doctrine which the church of England denied, they would assuredly have quarrelled about that, as well as they did about the discipline. But it was then the open confession, both of the bishops and puritans, that both parties embraced a mutual consent in doctrine: only the difference was in matter of inconformity. Then hitherto there was no puritan doctrine, as distinct from that of bishops and clergy known." Upon which passage, quoted from Bishop Carleton's Examination of Montague's Appeal, Dr. Edwards makes this obvious remark: "This is a full confutation of that idle conceit, taken up by so many in our age, that the anti-Arminian doctrines were not the doctrines of our church, of our bishops, and of the rest of our clergy, but only of a few disciplinarians and non-conformists." Veritas Redux, p. 548.

The farther I advance in your pamphlet, the more my surprise and concern increase. In order to prove, what you call, the moderation of our articles, you are not content with distilling away and forcing off the sense and spirit of the doctrinal ones; but would even insinuate, that the necessity of episcopal ordination itself is not determined in our articles. Treating of article 23, you say (page 95), “The compilers were not willing to condemn or unchurch the reformed churches abroad, where episcopacy was not established, and therefore prudently avoided determining the question, whether episcopal ordination is necessary. Those who hold, and those who deny the necessity of episcopal ordination, may both subscribe to this article: those only are condemned by it, who hold that a man may preach without any lawful vocation. The same moderation the compilers of our articles have observed in the points before us," i. e. in the Calvinistic ones. I can hardly believe my own eyes. So rather than not expunge predestination from our articles, you would expunge with it the necessity of episcopal ordination! This is sweeping the church clean indeed. Though the respect, I bear you, forbids me to treat your paragraph and your insinuation in the manner they deserve; yet the still greater respect, which I bear to the church, constrains me to hang out the detached paragraph to open view, and leave it to the public indignation. Whoever can persuade himself, that our episcopal church does not insist on the necessity of episcopal ordination, may well enough believe, when his hand is in, that our Calvinistic church has not determined in favour of the Calvinian doctrines. Nor does it follow, that the church of England, in believing for herself, the necessity of episcopal ordination; does thereby unchurch those of the reformed churches abroad, which have no bishops, any more than that those churches unchurch us for retaining our excellent and primitive mode of ecclesiastical government. National churches that are independent on each other, have respectively, an internal right to establish such forms of regimen, as to them seem most scriptural and expedient. And this indefeasible right may pass into execution, without any violation of that Christian charity and neighbourly affection, which ought to subsist between churches that agree in the common faith of the gospel. I cannot, however, forbear to repeat the astonishment I feel, that a clergyman of this church, should, through zeal against the Geneva doctrines, make such an unwarrantable concession in favour of the Geneva discipline. Who could ever have thought, that an Oxford divine, should, and that from the Clarendon press, rather let go the hierarchy, than give up free-will? Oh, tell it not in Glasgow! publish it not in the streets of Edinburgh! lest the Presbyterians rejoice, and the daughters of the kirk triumph!

No wonder, sir, that after this, you should assert as follows, concerning grace and free-agency. You indeed give us to understand, that you do not wholly explode all influences of the holy Spirit, “But the supernatural, extraordinary, and irresistible influences of the holy Spirit,” page 98. If, by supernatural, extraordinary, and irresistible, you mean the miraculous gifts and influences of that adorable person; Calvinists as much disclaim all pretension to these, as you can do. We believe, that the end of their vouchsafement, in the primitive ages, being fully answered by the confirmation of the gospel; the gifts themselves are long since ceased: and that no man, who now makes this claim (if any such mad-man is to be found), can expect to be credited, unless he actually has miraculous powers to prove it by. Yet there is, certainly, a sober sense in which all the gracious influences of the Spirit may, and ought to be termed, supernatural; or superior to the powers and reach of nature. You will not surely assert, that the influences of the Spirit are natural to fallen man: for that would be setting aside the essential difference, which scripture and reason are so careful to maintain, between nature and grace. Constant experience also, and daily observation, confirm the apostle's decision, that "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; neither can he" even "know,” much less receive, “them, because they are spiritually discerned;" and until the natural man is renewed by grace, he has no spiritual eyes to discern them by. In exact conformity to this certain truth, the first exhortation, in our baptismal office, hath these words: "Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour Christ saith, none can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that, of his bounteous mercy, he will grant to this child that thing" [namely, regeneration] "which, by nature, he cannot have." If, then, the new birth, and the renovating influences of the Spirit, are not natural to man; they must be supernaturally conferred. The same influences may, in some sense, be safely enough termed extraordinary; inasmuch as they are extra ordinem, or out of the common course: for all men have them not. But I lay no manner of stress on this remark. Thus much, however, it proves; that the word, so carefully explained, may be used in a rational, harmless sense. Though, for my own part, I always choose to abstain, as much as possible, from the use of such terms as are liable to misapprehension, and require a tedious circuit of explanation. As a great man observes, Quid hoc malae rei est, ita ex destinato consilio loqui, ut mox prolixa explicatione indigeas, apud auditores simplices et candidos; et apologia apud minus faventes ac suspicaces? I have, therefore, always acquiesced in the usual distinction of the Spirit's influence, into ordinary and extraordinary: and understand, by the former, his supernatural agency in a way of saving grace; by the latter, his agency formerly exerted in the collation of miraculous gifts.

But I see not so much reason for absolutely cashiering the epithet irresistible: though I could wish, that the term invincible (which more exactly conveys our true meaning) were always substituted in its room. Irresistible may seem (though we intend no such thing) to imply some compulsive force on the will of man, in regeneration: whereas, we neither assert, nor believe, that the will is violently compelled, but only that it is effectually changed for the better, without any violation of its natural freedom. An elect sinner is not made good, against his will; but is, by grace, made willing to be good: according to that of the psalmist, “Thy people shall be willing, in the day of thy power," Ps 110:3. We apprehend this to be effected, as St. Augustin expresses it, suavi omnipotentia et omnipotenti suavitate: so that, though the effect of the holy Spirit's operation is infallibly secured and cannot but issue in conversion (for he does nothing in vain;) yet is this blessed effect accomplished, in a way suitable to the natural powers wherewith man is endued. By irresistible, therefore, if you understand grace that is efficacious, invincible, and certainly victorious; we are authorized, both by scripture, reason, and the strictest maxims of philosophy, to term converting grace irresistible; since, where God really designs to renew a sinner unto righteousness and true holiness, we think it incompatible with every notion of Deity, to suppose, that the intent of an all-wise Being should be eventually defeated, and his plan disconcerted; or that the measures made use of by an Almighty agent, should be baffled and issue in nothing. Neither can we apprehend, that a deity, of this infinite wisdom and infinite power, who is “excellent in counsel, and mighty in working," can ever find himself at a loss how to carry his immutable purposes, whether of grace or providence, into execution; or be unable to operate effectually on the wills of men; without trespassing on that freedom, of which he himself is the author and giver. Surely, he who, without our consent, made us reasonable beings, can, by virtue of his own omnipotently transforming grace, make us holy beings! and that without making us mere machines. He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that made the eye, shall he not see? He that endued my will with natural freedom, cannot he renew this will of mine, without infringement of the freedom he gave? Time was when the Christian world did not entertain such low thoughts of God, and such lofty thoughts of man, as now too generally prevail. How beautiful, how just, how nervous is that petition, which Grotius informs us, was a part of the public devotions of some ancient churches! “Ad te nostras etiam rebelles compelle propitius voluntates:" In mercy, force over even our obstreperous wills to thy blessed self. That fine prayer of the ascetic Ray-mund Jordanus is animated with the same heavenly spirit of internal humiliation, and absolute submission to sovereign grace: "Per violentiam tui dulcissimi amoris, compelle rebellem animum meum ad te amandum;" By the overpowering virtue of thy sweetest love, constrain my rebellious soul to the love of thee. O that God would put such a cry into the heart of the person to whom I am writing! You would then, sir, never more draw your pen against the doctrines of grace; but, if reduced to the alternative, you would rather, with Cranmer, hold your hand in the flames, until it was consumed from your arm. I must observe, however, that the holy persons, above quoted, are not to be understood, as if they imagined, that God, in his operations of grace, offered violence (properly so called) to the human will; or compelled his people to love him, whether they would or no, as an ox was dragged to sacrifice: but the meaning of their supplications was, that he would effectually incline and attach their wills to himself; and that the omnipotence of his constraining love would reduce and master their natural obstinacy and perverseness. However, the strong and nervous manner, in which their petitions were expressed, show what ideas these ancient Christians entertained of the stubbornness, rebellion, and depravity of man's will, by nature; and the almighty exertion of divine grace, which is requisite to subdue it. The invincibility of converting grace, and, at the same time, the immunity of the will from all forcible, involuntary compulsion, are very happily expressed in the 10th of those articles of religion set forth by king Edward VI. "The grace of Christ, or the Holy Ghost which is given by him, doth take from man the heart of stone, and giveth him an heart of flesh. And though it rendereth us willing to do these good works, which, before, we were unwilling to do; and unwilling to do those evil works, which, before, we did; yet is no violence offered by it to the will of man: so that no man, when he hath sinned, can excuse himself, as if he had sinned against his will, or upon constraint, and therefore that he ought not to be accused or condemned upon that account.''

As for the passages of scripture, which you have accumulated, as making for your own notions of free-will, conditional grace, &c. and which, having wrenched and detached from their contexts, you would fain torture into a sense which, it is demonstrable, the inspired writers never thought of; you will find all those perverted passages, and many other's which are no less impertinently pressed into these controversies by the partizans of Arminius, restored to their primitive and obvious meaning in Dr. Edwards' Veritas Redux, or in Dr. Gill's Cause of God and Truth. As to the forms of these valuable books, I cannot find that it was ever attempted to be answered. And, for the latter, it has stood unanswered for, I believe, near thirty years; and you, sir, or any other expert Arminian, would do well to try your skill upon it, if you are able, while the learned and judicious author is detained from Abraham's bosom. But, surely, so long as such capital books as those remain in full possession of the field, it is idle, to the last degree, for the gentlemen of your side of the question, to amuse themselves, and trifle with the public, by letting off pop-guns, and throwing paltry squibs at what they call Calvinism.

Speaking of the doctrines of election and reprobation, you justly observe, that you are “pressed with the authority of the 17th article," p. 103. Indeed you are, and pressed hard too; else you would never have added, as you do in the next page, "The article speaks of a predestination, decreed by God's counsel, secret to us; and to be discerned only by the working of the Spirit of Christ mortifying the works of the flesh: and directs us to receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in the holy scripture." Is it possible that these truly Calvinistic sentences should drop from the pen of a Dr. Nowel? O vis veritatis, invitis etiam pectoribus erumpeutis! What a concession is here! You have granted as much as any Calvinistic writer could have granted, or a Calvinistic reader can desire. You are got into the very midst of Geneva, before you are aware; a place where I no more expected to have met you, than the Normans did, at one time, think of seeing the great lord Clarendon at Roan.

Nor is your concession weakened a jot, by what you immediately subjoin; “But there" [i. e. in scripture], “we shall find all these promises conditional." For, 1. All the divine promises are not conditional; witness that famous one, in which every other spiritual promise is virtually comprised, "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 2. It does not follow, because some promises seem to run conditionally, i. e. hypothetically, that therefore the performance of the conditions themselves is suspended on the free-agency of man. In the distribution of the blessings promised to the elect, a certain order and economy are observed. Grace is first given, then glory. Thus we believe and say, with the apostle, that, without holiness, no man shall see the Lord: or, that a man must be sanctified, before he can be finally glorified. God does not eventually save an elect person, until he has previously regenerated that person. Hence final salvation is frequently, in scripture, held forth to the view of his people, not only under the character of elect, but likewise under every other character they sustain; such as penitents, believers, saints, and workers of righteousness; because, in consequence of their predestination to life, they are endued with the graces of repentance, faith, and sanctification, in order to their meetness for and enjoyment of that eternal life which they were predestinated to. Regeneration must, and always does, come between the decree of election, and the ultimate accomplishment of that decree; the means and the end being inseparably linked together, both in God's own purpose, and his execution of it. Yet, means are one thing; conditions are another. And I challenge any one Arminian to point out any one spiritual qualification, represented in the Bible, as previously requisite to everlasting life; which qualification, is not, in the same Bible, declared to be the gift of God, and the work of his own grace in every one that shall be saved. So much for the scriptures. Next, for our liturgy. You assert, page 106, that "The sentences of scripture, with which the morning and evening prayer are appointed to begin, fully declare the free-will of man.” They declare neither more nor less than this, that persons, possessed of such and such graces, have an evidential right to such and such privileges, by virtue of God's free promises. You add, “In the absolution, the priest declares, that almighty God desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that be may return from his wickedness, and live.” Granted. But what sort of sinner is here meant? Let the absolution itself decide. It is such a sinner as belongeth to “his people," the people of almighty God; who are farther described under the visible characters of "them that truly repent, and unfeignedly believe his holy gospel." But are all sinners partakers of this true repentance and unfeigned faith? And can you really persuade yourself, that God actually wills the salvation of those, in whom these graces are not finally wrought? This would be opening a door to licentiousness indeed: nay, it would be a most tremendous misrepresentation of the Deity himself, as if it was possible for him to love the wicked as wicked. Surely you will never offer to father such horrid doctrine upon the church of England! Did all sinners truly repent and unfeignedly believe, they would come under the opposite denomination of saints. The plain meaning, then, of this declarative absolution, is, that, until repentance and faith (the two grand constituents of regeneration) are wrought in us, and show forth themselves by the peaceable fruits of righteousness, we have no right to look upon ourselves as pardoned and absolved: but that, when these are wrought in us, we have in the judgment of our church, a safe and scriptural warrant to conclude that we are in a pardoned state. Our reconciliation unto God by the death of his Son, being to be inferred from and proved by (though in no sense founded upon), the grace he hath given us, and the good works he enables us to do. And, that the faith and repentance, which the absolution mentions, were, in the intention of the compilers, considered as the effects of God's free grace, and not of man's free-will, appears incontestibly from a subsequent part of the absolution itself; which runs thus: "Wherefore let us beseech him to grant us true repentance and his holy Spirit; that those things may please him, which we do at this present, and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure and holy." But, upon your principles, in vain we do pray for these blessings; since, if your hypothesis be right, we had them in our own power before. Were Arminian free-willers to act consistently with their darling tenet, they would never pray at all.

As a proof of the church of England's denial of final perseverance, you gravely inform us (p. 106.) that, "In the Lord's Prayer, we petition God not to lead us into temptation." A most formidable argument indeed! reduced to some little sort of form, it stands thus:

The church of England hath adopted the Lord's Prayer into her public service.

But, in that prayer, we request to be preserved from temptation:

Ergo, the church believes, that the truly regenerate may totally and finally fall from grace.

Here are premises, without a conclusion; and a conclusion, without premises. For, are temptation, and final apostasy, terms synonymous? If they are, it would follow, that every saint is actually a final apostate; because there is no saint who is not tempted to evil, more or less, every day of his life. If the terms are not synonymous, then your inference, drawn from this topic, falls to the ground, and vanishes into air.

Enter, now, a proof, no less cogent, in behalf of unlimited redemption. “The hymn, called Te Deum, thus celebrates the universal redemption by the incarnation and death of Christ; 'when thou tookest upon thee to deliver man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin's womb: when thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death, thou didst open the kingdom of heaven to all believers.'" (page 107.) The conclusion you would deduce from hence, must be this, if any:

Christ, by the merits of his death, opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers:

Ergo, he opened the kingdom of heaven to every individual of mankind, that ever did, that now does, or ever shall exist.

I could not have expected such reasoning from the public orator of our English Athens. Indeed, sir, you can never prove, from these two verses of the Te Deum, that our church holds absolutely universal redemption, until you have previously made good these two points: 1. That all mankind, not a single individual excepted, are believers: and, 2. That faith is not the gift of God. My argument, drawn from this part of that seraphic hymn, stands thus (and I leave to the judgment of the impartial, whether it be not perfectly obvious and unforced):

Our church, in the Te Deum, asserts, That Christ, by his incarnation and death, opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers:

But the whole of mankind are not believers:

Ergo, our church, in the Te Deum, does not assert, that Christ opened the kingdom of heaven to the whole of mankind.

Nay, I will go a step further. The church, in this place, does evidently limit redemption, to only a part of mankind. For, by saying that Christ opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers; she virtually declares, that he opened heaven to believers only: so that, in the judgment of the church, they alone were intentionally redeemed by Christ, who should finally believe. And what is this but the very essence of that innocent, yet much dreaded thing, called Calvinism? in running away from which, you plainly run away from the church. Ita fugis, ut praeter casam. Still your ammunition is not exhausted; for, in the same page, you hurl another thunderbolt at John Calvin's head: "The suffrages, offered up by the priest, and all the congregation alternately, are quite inconsistent with the notion of absolute predestination and indefectible assurance: - 'Grant us thy salvation' - 'Take not thy holy Spirit from us.'" The suffrages themselves are most excellent; but your inference from them is a mere telum imbelle sine ictu. As if prayer (which is one of the very means, by which the end is decreed to be come at) - as if prayer, on man's part, was incompatible with predestination on God's! So far is this from being true, that the belief of his immutable purposes is the very thing which excites, and warrants, effectual fervent prayer, and puts life and confidence into our approaches to the throne of grace. I shall give two remarkable instances of this; one from scripture, the other from our liturgy. 1. From scripture. David having received some gracious intimations of what good things God had decreed to bestow on his family after him, instead of sitting down idle, and restraining prayer before God, as if human duty was superfluous, on the supposition of divine decrees, the holy monarch breaks forth into supplication for the very mercies which had been so peremptorily promised: - Thou, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying I will build thee an house; therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee, 2Sa 7:27. It is equally plain, 2. That the compilers of our admirable liturgy considered matters in the same view. Those evangelical divines well knew, that God hath determined the times before appointed (Ac 17:26); and that the day of Christ's second coming is, in particular, foreordained and fixed, in God's determinate counsel and foreknowledge (Ac 17:31.) “Surely, then," might an Arminian say, "those compilers have not directed us to pray for the coming of this predestined period." Indeed but they have; and that on a very solemn occasion, and in these very solemn words: Humbly beseeching thee of thy gracious goodness shortly to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy kingdom (f). Prayer therefore, and the other means of grace, are not superseded, but even rendered needful, by the certainty of God's predestination: for Qui vult finem, vult etiam media ad finem. The manifestation of God's goodness, in the final salvation of his people, being the end designed by him in his gracious decree; must necessarily have been first in the divine intention: but this end, being last in actual execution, certain correlative means must necessarily intervene, in order to carry the divine intention into actual execution, and to connect the decree and the accomplishment of it together. Of these means, prayer is one. Therefore supposing our church had directed her regenerate members to pray even in express terms, (which, however, I do not recollect she has) for preservation from total and final apostasy; that would not have proved the defectibility of the saints: watchfulness and prayer being means of perseverance no less decreed than perseverance itself. Thus the apostle, like a wise master-builder in Sion, joins the certainty of perseverance with prayer for it: The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. 1Th 5:23-24.

(f) See the Funeral Office. From the petition cited above, it is undeniable, that, according to the doctrine of the church of England, there is, 1. A body of elect persons; which elect persons are, 2. chosen and elected of God himself: whence she terms them thine elect. These elect of God are, 3. a certain determinate number; and this round number will, 4. be accomplished, perfected, and made up; so that not one of the number shall be missing: it being a rule that holds good, no less in divinity, than in metaphysics, sublata quacunque parte, tollitur totum. Hence, the church, ever consistent with herself, begins one of her collects thus: "O almighty God, who hast knit together thine elect into one communion and fellowship in the mystical body of thy Son," &c. And surely those whom God hath knit together, can never be put asunder: for what God doth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it, Ec 3:14. The above collect is for the festival of All Saints. Now, if all saints are thus divinely knit together, and make up the Mediator's mystical body; it follows, that not one true saint can perish. As not a bone, in Christ's natural body, was suffered to be broken; so neither shall his mystic body be maimed, by the loss of any the meanest member: for the world of the elect, collectively taken, constitute the mystical fulness of him who filleth all in all, Eph 1:23. So that, without every one of them, Christ himself (considered relatively, as the head and Saviour of his spiritual body) would not be made perfect.

You tell us, p. 107. that some infer the doctrine of election, from that petition in our liturgy, "make thy chosen people joyful." They do: and not only directly, the doctrine of election; but, indirectly, that of assurance likewise. The petition evidently proceeds on this datum, that God really had a chosen people; and, agreeably to such a belief, beseeches him to make his chosen people joyful: i. e. to rejoice them with the comfortable sense and persuasion of their belonging to that chosen number. But you object (ibid.) that, “The word chosen, or elect, signifies in scripture, either all Christians in general, or such Christians as walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called." Easily said; but, so far as I have been able to find, never yet proved. Every text appealed to in your references, demonstrates the very reverse to be true. The word eklektov, elect, chosen; is evidently, formed from the participle eklelegmenov, which, as every body knows, signifies selected, picked out, and chosen from among others. But I have such an authority to vouch, for this sense of the word, as is infinitely superior even to the natural, proper etymology of the word itself: I mean the authority of no less person than the eternal Son of God; the incarnate Logov, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He surely, if any, both perfectly knew, and was able to fix rightly, the meaning of this religious term. And how does he define the word elect? In Dr. Nowell's vague, jejune manner? Quite the contrary. Consult Mr 13:20. And except the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should he saved: but for the elects' sakes, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. According therefore to Christ's own definition, 'ui eklektoi the elect, are wv ecelecato, those whom he [the Lord] hath chosen. Consequently, this important word does not signify, either all professing Christians at large, nor yet such Christians as walk worthy of their vocation. But simply and singly, the objects of God's gracious choice, abstractedly considered as such, without any respect had to aught in them, or done by them, whether actual or foreseen. A cordial profession of Christ, and a walking worthy of their high calling, are after-parts of their character; and have no place in the persons chosen, until, in consequence of their election from everlasting, they are regenerated and made new creatures in Christ Jesus. As real conversion is the fruit and result of predestination; so holiness of heart and purity of life, are the fruits of real conversion: which is the immediate (as election is the remote) cause of all the good, that is wrought in us, and that is done by us. Upon the whole, then, as long as the good old definition of the elect remains on record in the above scripture; so long we obstinate Calvinists must beg leave to reject Dr. Nowell's new-fangled, vapid explication, as utterly inconsistent with the plain, obvious import of language, and (which is still worse) as totally counter to the express determination of Christ himself.

Your slashing treatment of scripture-phrases and scripture-doctrines, which you hack and mangle so unmercifully, when they happen to militate with your own preconceived opinions; unhappily realizes but too well that remark of Dr. Middleton; "We may observe," says this able writer, "how impossible it is for men, even of the greatest learning and piety, to interpret scripture with success, when they come to it, prepossessed with systems, which they are listed, as it were, to defend. For, instead of searching candidly, the true meaning of the text; they come provided with senses, which they are obliged to ingraft upon it; until, by a practice and habit of wresting the scripture on all occasions, they acquire a dexterity of extracting what doctrines they please out of it." Miscell. Tracts, p. 12.

The fashion of explaining away the word elect, by saying it only means good Christians, was invented at a pinch, for much the same reason, that people look at the sun through a fumigated glass; namely, to diminish and obscure the native lustre of its beams, by the intervention of a dark, discoloured medium. Thus some artful Arminians, in order to secure a majority, would persuade superficial enquirers (who make up the bulk of mankind) that the word elect does not signify elect, but something very different from its own meaning. By virtue of which artificial fumigation, the meridian truth is clouded; and all who believe election to be election, are set down for Calvinists, Puritans, Methodists, and low churchmen: only because they are so very unmannerly (g) as not to look at scripture through the Arminian's dark glass: which glass has just the same effect on gospel truths, as Dr. Hooke's helioscope has on the rays of the sun; which he tells us, will be so weakened, if beheld through that qualifying tube, "as only to strike the eye with a 256th part of their force."

(g) In like manner Peter, with his triple hat, kicked his two brothers, Martin and Jack, out of doors, because they would insist upon it, that a loaf was a loaf, and could not be a shoulder of mutton. See the Tale of a Tub.

Still, sir, you harp on the same beloved string; and would fain fumigate our catechism among the rest. There the Church tells us that the Holy Ghost sanctifies all the elect people of God; that is say you, (p. 107). “All Christians, or at least all good Christians, who are ready to comply with his motions." And can a person of your good sense really believe this to be the meaning of elect? I will not offer you such an affront, as to suppose it. And yet, alas! on the other hand, if you do not believe your own interpretation, what becomes of your integrity? “The Holy Ghost sanctifies all good Christians:" so then men must be good Christians, before they are sanctified; and when they have made themselves good Christians, then the blessed Spirit sanctifies them. A piece of information, for which the poor, ignorant, Calvinistic church of England men are solely indebted to the labours of Dr. Nowell. I really before was so weak as to imagine, with St. Paul, that goodness was a fruit of the Spirit, and a constituent part of sanctification itself: but now I perceive goodness precedes sanctification; and that the office of the Holy Ghost (I tremble to write it, but let them answer for the conclusion, who avow the premises) is only to make such people good as were good before. Hence you revert once more to universal redemption, which you infer from that passage in the catechism, "Who hath redeemed me and all mankind:” on which your comment is, p. 108. "All those, therefore, whom God the Son hath redeemed, God the Holy Ghost sanctifies." Excellent. You now write indeed like a true minister of the church. Not a Calvinist in the whole world, but would subscribe to this with both hands. But pray, sir, is every individual of mankind sanctified by the Holy Ghost? If the contrary is but too evident, then it follows, from your own positive premises, that every individual of mankind was not redeemed: since you justly assert redemption and sanctification to be equilateral and commensurate with each other; "All those whom God the Son hath redeemed, God the Holy Ghost sanctifies." That all mankind, therefore, which our church hath declared to be interested in Christ's redemption, is not to be understood of every individual, but of some of all nations, even those, and those only whom God the Holy Ghost sanctifies. Thus your own explication of the phrase all mankind, exactly comports with the explication of it, which the church herself gives in the very next paragraph, “All the elect people of God.”

I should congratulate you, sir, on your candour and attention to evidence, did you not immediately recant, and build up the things you had just destroyed. Your whole paragraph stands thus: “All those, therefore, whom the Son of God hath redeemed, God the Holy Ghost sanctifies; but both only on condition of their own concurrence and compliance with the terms offered." The church of England says no such thing. You have clogged redemption and sanctification with dead weights of your own putting on. There is not a word in the catechism, directly or indirectly, about concurrence and compliance. Redemption itself is there represented as a finished, peremptory thing; not as a term or condition tendered to man's acceptance; but as a real price actually paid down for the ransom of mankind. “God the Son who hath redeemed me, &c." Not who will redeem me, if I am pliable and concurring: but who hath done it, to make me so. Whatever conditional salvation may be, a conditional redemption is a contradiction in terms: for either the ransom price is paid, or it is not; there is no medium, nor room for any qualifying salvo or drawback. The doctrine of the church, as well as of the scriptures, and of plain common sense, is, that Christ hath, "by the one offering of himself, perfected for ever them that are sanctified," or set apart for God. Nor is the notion of a conditional sanctification less absurd. I must be either sanctified by the Holy Ghost or not. If I am, I comply and concur with him of course, by virtue of that very sanctification which he imparts; if I am not sanctified by him, I shall neither concur nor comply; because this concurrence and compliance are a part of sanctification itself, and can have no existence without it. I blame no man for believing according to the best light of his own judgment, let his faith, to me, seem ever so ill-grounded: but I blame any man who dares to palm his own private notions upon the church.

However, by way of canvassing your paragraph as minutely as I am able, and letting it have all the fair play it possibly can, by considering it in every point of view, I will suppose, for once, that both redemption and sanctification are conditional. What will you get by it? You will plunge head foremost, quantus quantus es, into the lake of Geneva, and come out a limited redemptionist. A very able writer observes, that all violent extremes, how widely remote soever they may seem, have in fact, a common central point, to which they mutually verge, and in which they ultimately coincide. You yourself, sir, (with all due respect I dare to speak it) are an instance of the justice of this remark. “God the Son," you tell us, “hath redeemed us only on condition of our concurrence and compliance." We will put the case, that some persons do, eventually, neither concur nor comply. Such persons were, by your own acknowledgment, unredeemed. Therefore, say I, admitting these premises, redemption is not universal: they only (according to Dr. Nowell) being redeemed by Christ, who "concur and comply with the terms offered;" which all do not.

We enter now on a new scene. Prepare thyself, reader, for a fresh discovery: even such an one, as I, for my own part, should never have dreamt of, but for the assistance of Peter Heylin and Dr. Nowell. Calvinism, it seems, is downright popery; and popery is orthodox Calvinism. But by what art of transubstantiation is this proved? The proof follows: page 108. "The word elect frequently occurs in the Roman breviary, the papists make use of it in their rituals as well as we; so that if the use of this word will prove the compilers of our liturgy predestinarians; it will prove the church of Rome so too, and that in this respect it is as orthodox as Calvinism itself." Not quite so fast, sir. Let us weigh premises, before we jump to conclusions. The sense of the word elect, as it stands in a reformed liturgy, is not to be determined by the sense affixed to it in a Romish breviary. Such an insinuation comes with a very ill grace from the pen of a protestant divine. It would at least have saved appearances, had you referred us, for the sense in which the church of England uses the word elect, to her own 17th article, where she professedly treats of election; instead of sending us back again into Egypt, to consult mass-books and breviaries. The spouse of Christ is not to learn the meaning of her husband's language from the mother of abominations. 2. The amount of your observation is this, if I understand it right; "By the word elect, when used by papists, they do not mean God's predestinated children, but all good catholics; ergo, the same word, when used by protestants, is to be understood as denoting all good Christians." I deny the consequence. Because papists are perverters of language, scripture, common sense and every thing that is good, it does not follow that protestants should be so too. 3. Neither does it follow, that the church of Rome are predestinarians, because the word elect occurs by chance in their public offices. Popish priests, when they mutter out the word elect, are (like ladies on some occasions) to be understood by contraries: in which too many professing protestants, who ought to know better, are not ashamed to imitate those locusts of the bottomless pit.

In farther opposition to the doctrines of predestination and perseverance, you appeal to our baptismal office. Excellent as that office is, we have had some truly great and good men, who thought it not quite unexceptionable. But, for my own particular part (if I may, without presumption, offer my own judgment), I know not of one syllable in the whole, which does not harmonize with those doctrines. That part of it, on which you seem to lay the greatest stress, is, where the church appears to take the regeneration of the baptized for granted. Whence Arminians would endeavour to infer, that, since many baptized persons persist finally in sin, and may be supposed to perish at last, therefore the regenerate are not secured from absolute apostasy. That baptism is a typical regeneration, I grant; as also that it is the ordinance of initiation, whereby a person, whether infant or adult, is incorporated into the visible church, and entered on the list of Christian professors. From the maturest consideration of what our church has delivered concerning the nature and effect of this sacrament it appears to me, that, in her judgment, the administration of baptism is very frequently attended with the true, real, renovating influences of the Holy Ghost: which influences being internal, spiritual, and invisible, and consequently not to be discerned by the baptizer; he is directed to acquaint the bye-standers with the charitable hope of the church, both in his subsequent address to the sponsors, and in his presumptive thanksgiving to Almighty God. Yet, I can no where find, that the church pretends to tie the regenerating grace of the Spirit, to the bare administration of this ordinance: as if that infinitely glorious and absolutely independent person always seconded the good intentions of the church, by invariably crowning that rite with real regeneration. The church of Rome, indeed, bawls out, that every sacrament does, ipso facto, confer grace ex opere operato, and curses them that will not believe it; as also, that baptism impresses I know not what spiritual mark on the soul, even such a mark as can never be effaced: which assertion she likewise arms with a sting in the tail; pronouncing them accursed who deny it. But our own church has nothing like this. On the contrary, she positively defines a sacrament to be "An outward and visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." She adds, that “The outward, visible sign, or form in baptism,”' is "water, wherein," or wherewith, “the person is baptized in the name of the Father, &c." Baptism itself, therefore, is not regeneration, but a sign or type of it: and is then only a proof of regeneration, when accompanied with "the inward and spiritual grace," which the church does not affirm it always is. And, indeed, I should wonder if she had; since, if all baptized persons were truly regenerate, Christendom would be a much better part of the world than it is. This inward and spiritual grace, of which baptism is the sign and figure, is defined by our church to consist in “A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness. For, being by nature, born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby [i. e. by inward and spiritual grace, the last immediate antecedent] "made" [constituted and proved to be] " children of grace." Exactly coincident with our catechism, is our 27th article: “Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly, are grafted into the church, &c." I conclude hence, that, in the judgment of the church of England, baptism and internal regeneration (the former being simply considered in itself, only a sign or symbol of the latter) are two distinct things; which, though they sometimes go together (when the holy Spirit pleases to make baptism the channel of his gracious influences), yet do not necessarily nor constantly accompany each other: and therefore the subsequent apostasy of some baptized persons does not in the least (as bishop Burnet would infer, and you from him) shake the doctrine either of immutable predestination on God's part, or of infallible perseverance on the part of the truly regenerate. But you observe, page 109, that, "With regard to infants, the rubrick declares, it is certain by God's word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” I firmly believe the same. Nay, I believe more. I am convinced, that the souls of all departed infants whatever, whether baptized or unbaptized, are with God in glory. And I think my belief warranted by an authority which cannot err. Mt 18:14. You have therefore no occasion to lug in children by head and shoulders, page 110. and to ask, with an air of insult, where then is the "doctrine of absolute, irrespective predestination and reprobation, which would include children as well as adults?” I believe, that, in the decree of predestination to life, God hath included all whom he hath decreed to take away in infancy; and that the decree of reprobation has nothing to do with them.

Now we come to what you and others of your party represent as monstrum, horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum: I mean the doctrine of reprobation. Absolute reprobation you say, “Is no where taught in our articles, nor in the scriptures; but just the contrary." I, on the other hand maintain, that it is plainly implied in our articles, and expressly asserted in the scriptures. Of the latter I shall say little here: but I cannot, in justice to the church, omit a short proof or two respecting the former. In doing this, I must really be so unpolite as to bold up the 17th article to you, though I am sensible it is an article you have no great affection for. However, as it has received the sanction of your own solemn subscription, you are bound, both in honour, conscience, and law, to stand or fall by the evidence it brings. "Predestination to life” [which implies, on the other hand, a predestination to death; otherwise the article is lame] “is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those [observe that restrictive word], whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind," [all mankind therefore were not chosen, but some were passed by: for if there was no decretive distinction in God's election, the elect could not be said to be chosen out of mankind], “and to bring them by Christ” [and not the rest, out of whom they were chosen], "to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour." [There are, therefore, some vessels not made unto honour]. In thus asserting everlasting, personal, immutable election; the church, tacitly indeed, but virtually, and by necessary consequence, sets her seal to the opposite doctrine of preterition; since there can be no choice, without a refusal; no election of some, without a rejection of others; no partial admission, without a partial exclusion. The church, indeed, does not expressly say as much: but, from the premises she has laid down, the conclusion follows as unavoidably as if she had; and I defy all the sophistry of man to affirm the premises, without admitting the conclusion. Election, without reprobation, cannot stand: it must have the other leg, or it will tumble down. But I recur to the article: and shall begin where I left off. After asserting the decree of predestination unto life, and telling us what it is; the church goes on to affirm, that this decree cannot be frustrated, but shall certainly have its accomplishment, in the salvation of its objects, at the appointed time, and through the appointed means: “Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God" [namely, with the excellent benefit of God's election and predestination to life], “be called” [and that not with a random call, but] “according to God's purpose, by his Spirit working in due season; [nor with a precarious, ineffectual call; but with such a spiritual and internal call, as insures the end for which it was vouchsafed: for] "They through grace, obey the calling: they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works;" [not only for a while, but to the end of their days; otherwise it would not be added] "and, at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity, [so that they, who do not eventually attain to everlasting felicity, were never in the number of God's elect.]

In the next place, this article proceeds, by way of practical improvement, to point out the most obvious uses and abuses of the doctrine of predestination. 1. Its uses. "As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is [1.] full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things; as well because [2.] it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because [3.] it doth fervently kindle their love towards God;" [now follow the abuses of it] “so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of God" [i. e. the reprobate, who are described in scripture, (Jude 1:19) under this very character of not having the Spirit], "to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination, is a most dangerous downfal; whereby the devil doth thrust them either [1.] into desperation, or [2.] into wretchedness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation." The article, then, plainly speaks of two distinct sorts or persons; the elect, and the non-elect. With regard to the converted elect, the consideration of their predestination in Christ fills them with sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort; it greatly establishes and confirms their faith; and doth fervently kindle their love towards God: which love is the never failing source of all good works. But, with regard to the others, the article expressly declares God's predestination to be a sentence; and a dismal sentence it is to such; the contemplation of which serves to thrust them into desperation and unclean living. Never was any ecclesiastical decision a more exact unison with scripture. Who can read this 17th article, and not be reminded of that passage in the apostle, 1Pe 2:8-9?

The article closes with two wise and useful cautions; "furthermore, we must [1.] receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth in holy scripture: and [2.] in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God." Two propositions these, which every Calvinist allows; and the latter of which, by the by, is evidently formed on the Calvinistic distinction of the divine will into secret and revealed.

But you still wage war against the import of the word elect. Hence, page 112. you serve up the crambe repetita again, and will have it that "the elect and chosen of God are all good Christians," You have given us to understand before that God the Son redeemed, and God the holy Spirit sanctities, none but good Christians; as if the effect went before the cause: and now (if your definition has any meaning at all), you would insinuate again, that God the Father does not elect and choose men, until they become good: and then, I suppose, if they lose this goodness (for, upon Arminian principles, it is a very slippery thing), they are presently cashiered and unchosen: but, if their free-will should once more yield itself so pliable, as to grow good again, they are re-elected anew: and, perhaps, after they have been, in the course of a few years, elected and un-elected, redeemed and unredeemed, sanctified and unsanctified, born again and unborn, some hundreds of times; these “elect and chosen of God, these good Christians," may (for it is all a chance) perish and go to hell at last, A very suitable representation, this, of the God who changeth not, and of the everlasting covenant which is ordered in all things and sure! "The elect and chosen of God are, all good Christians!”' invert the proposition, and you will advance a certain truth; “all good Christians,” those that are renewed, and sanctified in the Spirit of their minds by divine grace, "are the elect and chosen of God;" known and discovered to be his chosen, by the grace which he hath given them. I am sure St. Paul represents sanctification, not as a cause or condition of election, but as a fruit, effect, and one subordinate end of it: according as he hath chosen us in him [in Christ] before the foundation of the world, [not because we were, or he foresaw we would be, “good Christians" but] that we should be holy and without blame before him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:4-5. I wish you would read what bishop Fell observes on this passage: the testimony of that learned and worthy bishop of Oxford might be a means of making you see the absurdity, as well as impiety, of turning the gospel plan upside down, by bottoming Gods decrees on any qualification (whether actual or foreseen) in the creature. You go on, (ibid.) “Christ's sheep are they who hear his voice, and follow him, and abound in good works." We all grant that his sheep, or his elect, "hear his voice" sooner or later, in effectual calling; that they are made to "follow him" in the regeneration, “and abound in good works," from the genuine principles of faith and love. But then we assert, with the scripture, and conformably to the doctrine of our church, that this sanctification of them is not the cause of their being his sheep and his chosen, but proofs, marks, and evidences of their having been so from everlasting. Our Lord himself, Joh 10. styles the elect his sheep, previously to their hearing his voice; My sheep hear my voice, &c. they do not hear it, in order to their becoming his sheep, but hear it as such, and because they were such. So, verse 16. the elect, even while unregenerate, and who had not yet heard his voice, are termed his sheep; “And other sheep I have, which are not of this [of the Jewish] fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: according to what he says, elsewhere. All that the Father giveth me, shall come unto me. He tells the reprobate Jews, chap. 10. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, i. e. in the number of my elect. But if the word sheep does not signify elect persons, but good Christians; the sense of our Lord's declaration would be this, "Ye are not believers and good Christians, because ye are not believers and good Christians!"

As you will not let the word elect have fair play for itself; the word church must, it seems, come in for a share of the same fate, p. 112. “The church, in scripture, signifies the whole body of Christians, of which Christ is the head." Do you mean the visible, or the invisible church? If the visible, it does most certainly consist of the whole body of professing Christians, of whom Christ is the acknowledged head. But if you mean the invisible church (that church, which Christ loved, and for which he gave himself unto death, Eph 5:25.) your definition is much too vague and lax: this church being suneklekth, co-elect with Christ, and ordained to grace and glory through him; the church of the first-born, who are enrolled in heaven, Heb 12. and whose names are, from before the foundation of the world, in the Lamb's book of life, Lu 10:20. Php 4:3. Re 17:8. The constituent members of this invisible church, when brought to the knowledge of Christ by effectual calling, and added to the visible fold, are, in scripture, the true ekklhsia, or the company of men called out of the world, and gathered in from among mankind: so that, during their abode on earth, they are a kingdom within a kingdom, as being not only subjects of the kingdom of Providence (which they were before, in common with the rest), but likewise exalted to be subjects of the kingdom of grace, which all mankind are not.

I could wish, sir, that you had observed some regular plan, in your handling of the points in debate. Instead of this, the method you observe, is as rambling and embarrassed, as the system you have embraced. Your performance had been less intricate and confused, if you had reduced it to some order, and delivered all you had to say on predestination, free-will, and final perseverance, under each of those heads respectively, without running them one into another. For want of this, I am forced to follow you through your various windings, and measure back the ground already trod, by perpetually reverting to the same subjects. - After giving us your definition of the word church, you recur to the doctrine of universal redemption: which you aver to be taught by our homilies. That the church, when treating of Christ's sacrifice and death, does not always, in so many words, expressly limit redemption to the elect only; is no argument of her holding the absurd doctrines of a random salvation, and of redemption without a plan. It is her own stated rule, and a very just one, that “The promises of God are to be received in such wise, as they be generally set forth in holy scripture.” This rule she has generally followed, and in it we follow her too; and assert, pleno ore, that "God so loved the world," i. e. Gentiles as well as Jews, "that he gave his only begotten Son, to the end that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The question, then, between the Arminians and us is, not whether all true believers shall be saved; for we hold that as a certain truth; but, whether saving faith (which always works by love) is of man's acquisition, or of God's operation.

Now, again, for perseverance, p. 118. “The l6th article teaches, that, after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin: and that deadly sin is here meant, appears from the beginning of the article. It follows, that, by the grace of God, we may rise again; which plainly implies, that we also may not rise again." Pray, sir, let the article speak for itself. The title of it runs thus, "Of sin after baptism:" and the article itself is as follows; "Not every deadly sin, wilfully committed after baptism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost" [i. e. after we have been baptized, as the words, immediately preceding, explain it] "we may depart from grace given," &c. The conclusions to be inferred from this article, are, 1. That it treats of sins committed, not after spiritual and internal regeneration, but simply, after baptism. 2. That, it is probable, some common, restraining influences of the Spirit may usually be vouchsafed to the recipients of this ordinance: but still, these influences do not, for any thing the article says, amount to real regeneration; consequently, it has nothing to do with the doctrine of final perseverance, which relates to the truly regenerate, and to them only. 3. the departure from grace given, of which the article makes mention, is only simply styled a departure, without declaring that departure to be either total or final: consequently, it does not at all affect the present argument. 4. The whole apparently relates, not to matters of spiritual grace, but to ecclesiastical censures and the exercise of church discipline. If, for example, a member of the church be under excommunication for some atrocious crime committed, or for some public scandal given, after baptism; the church, upon such a person's open repentance, is to accept of his submission, and recall her censures: as appears, not only from the main drift of the article, but, in particular, from those words of it, “The grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism." Hence, this article, 5. Expressly condemns the severity of the old Novatians; who held, that such baptized persons, as had fallen away in persecuting times, were for ever to be excluded from the communion of the church. 6. It follows, from the article, that they are no less to be condemned, who would set up for sinless perfection; and that, 7. Baptized persons and professing Christians are liable to fall into sin, and may, by grace, recover and rise again. All which is very true, and doubted of by no Calvinist within the sphere of my acquaintance. Bishop Burnet would gladly enough have caught at this article, in proof of the saints apostasy, had the article itself looked at all that way. But he saw it did not, and therefore explains it in a manner, very different from the glosses and perversions, with which Dr. Nowell would darken it. Surely, the cause must be very weak, which, in so able a hand as yours, is so feebly and so unfairly supported! Why should you labour so ardently to make the church contradict herself? In the 17th article, as I observed before, the elect are expressly said, to be "Justified, called, conformed to the image of Christ, to walk religiously in good works, and, at length, to attain to everlasting felicity:” but how could they be said to actually attain to everlasting felicity, if all or any of them might perish by the way?

Nor do our homilies run counter to our articles. Your citations from the former, only prove these five things; 1. That the regenerate are not, in this life, impeccable. 2. That, without carefulness and circumspection, the most advanced in grace may not only sin, but even sin grievously. 3. That the spiritual life of the soul must be cherished, and kept up, by a diligent and humble attendance on the several means of grace. 4. That good works and holy obedience are the inseparable effects of true faith; and, 5. that all hope of interest in Christ, and expectation of salvation by him, are vain and groundless, unless we prove ourselves his children, by walk-ing as he walked.

Lastly, we come to the doctrine of justification by faith. On this important subject, you deliver your judgment as follows; page 123: “We all hold, that we are justified freely by God's grace: that there is no merit in good works: that we are not to place our dependance, or rest our plea, on any works that we have done or can do; but only on the mercy of God, and the merits of our Redeemer." And again, page 124: “We hold, as well as you, that justification is the act of God alone, conferred on us freely, by his grace: that our own good works have no proper efficiency in the act of our justification; have no worth or merit in them: that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, and can be justified and saved only by faith," which faith you immediately define to be, "a reliance on the mercies and merits of Christ." After giving us such a coufession of your faith, who could have imagined that you would almost in the same breath, blow down the whole fabric? by saying, page 123. "On the other hand, I should hope, that all who believe the gospel, would agree, that good works are the necessary condition both of our justification and salvation.” How! justified and saved only by faith, and yet, good works the necessary condition both of our justification and salvation! which soever of these two propositions is right, one of them must be wrong, because two contradictory assertions cannot be both true. If faith be, as you say it is, neither more nor less than a reliance on the mercies and merits of Christ, and we are justified and saved by faith only, it follows, that good works cannot possibly be the necessary condition of our justification and salvation.

To tell you plainly, sir, the doctrine of the scriptures, and of our church, is, that justification itself consists in God's esteeming and counting us righteous: that he thus esteems and counts us righteous, neither for our faith, nor for our works, nor for both of them together; but solely and entirely on account of Christ's sacrifice and obedience imputed to us freely and fully: that the sacrifice and obedience of Christ, as the alone matter of our justification are to be received, embraced, and rested upon by faith only, which faith is the gift of God: and, that this faith, thus divinely given and wrought in the soul by the Holy Ghost, is lively, active and purifying; having its fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Sanctification, then, and good works, are not conditions of, but consequences resulting from, interest in Christ and acceptance with God: not antecedent requisites, a priori, in order to our being justified; but subsequent evidences, a posteriori, of our being so. Hence, our excellent church puts justification before good works, and makes good works follow justiiication. In her 11th article, she treats of justification; and then, in the 12th considers good works.

Article XI.

Of the justification of Man.

“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of justification.”

If works, if all works of our own, of every sort, and in every point of view, are not here totally excluded from having any thing to do with justification, a parte ante; there is no such thing as meaning in language. Yet our reformers, in the next article, speak, if possible, clearer still; and, as if they thought it not enough, simply to exclude works from having the least hand in any part of our justification; go on to acquaint us, that, until men actually are justified, they cannot so much as do a good work; good works being the effect and fruits, of which justification, previously received, is itself the source and cause. And, if justification itself is the cause of good works, then good works cannot possibly be either the cause or condition of justification; because causes and conditions necessarily precede that, which they are the causes and conditions of.

Article XII.

Of Good Works.

"Albeit, that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out, necessarily, of a true and lively faith: insomuch that, by them a lively faith may be as evidently known, as a tree discerned by the fruit."

Hence I conclude, that, if we are justified, or accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ received by faith; and if good works themselves are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification; then good works cannot, in the very nature of things, go before justification, any more than fruit can exist prior to the tree that bears it; or an effect can be wrought, antecedently to the cause that produces it. Has the determination of our own church any weight with her members? If it has, they must and will acknowledge, that good works do not precede justification; and, consequently, cannot be (as Papists and Arminians pretend) a condition, without which God will not justify. The good works, which he has ordained for us to walk in, succeed and follow upon justification ex post facto; as marks and evidences of our being already in a justified state. But our reformers foresaw, that some would probably ask, "Since justification is not, in any sense whatever, founded upon good works; but, on the contrary, all good works flow from justification; and these flowing from it, can never be the source of that, from which themselves issue as the stream; what are we to think of those works, which are done prior to this justification by faith?” To an enquiry of this sort, the next article returns such an answer, as effectually clinches the nail, and lays the axe to the very root of legal conditional justification; declaring, that no works whatever, done by us before justification, are pleasing to God; and by consequence, that no man can, directly or indirectly, be justified by works of his own. It being of all absurdities, the absurdest, to imagine, that those sinful works, with which God is actually displeased, should be conditions of obtaining his favour, or recommend us to his acceptance.

Article XIII.

Of works done before Justification.

“Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God; forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, &c.”

With these decisions, our homilies are perfect unisons. Witness the following citation, which being extremely important, most judiciously worded, and as pertinent to the subject, as if it had been purposely drawn up against Dr. Nowell, I request the reader to peruse it slowly, and to weigh it with the most careful attention. "These works" [namely, such as are becoming of "new creatures in Christ"] “the apostle calleth good works; saying, we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them. And yet his meaning is not by these words to induce us to have any affiance, or to put any confidence in our works, as by the merit and deserving of them to purchase to ourselves and others remission of sin, and so consequently everlasting life; for that were mere blasphemy against God's mercy, and great derogation to the blood-shedding of our Saviour Jesus Christ. For it is of the free grace and mercy of God, by the mediation of the blood of his Son Jesus Christ, without merit or deserving on our part, that we are reconciled and brought again into his favour, and are made heirs of his heavenly kingdom. Grace, saith St. Augustine, belonging to God, who doth call us; and then hath he good works, whosoever received grace. Good works then, bring not forth grace, but are brought forth by grace. The wheel (saith he) turneth round, not to the end that it may be made round; but, because it is first made round, therefore it turneth round. So no man doeth good works to receive grace by his good works, but because he hath first received grace, therefore, consequently, he doeth good works. And in another place, he [St. Austin] saith: good works go not before in him which shall afterwards be justified, but good works do follow after, when a man is, first justified (n). St. Paul therefore teacheth, that we must do good works, for divers respects: 1. To shew ourselves obedient children to our heavenly Father, &c. 2. For that they are good declarations and testimonials of our justification. 3. That others, seeing our good works, may the rather by them be stirred up and excited, &c." Homily of fasting. Part 1.

(n) Hence it appears, that St. Austin's famous adage, bona opera non praecedunt justificandum, sed sequunter justificatum, is, by its insertion into the above homily, become an article of our faith, which every son of the church professes to hold, and to which every minister of it has subscribed with his own hand.

Good works, therefore, being the effects of justification, cannot be the cause of it, any more than the volubility of a wheel is the cause of its rotundity. A wheel rolls, not in order to be made round, but in consequence of being already so: in like manner men do good works, not in order to be justified; but in consequence of being justified already. On this grand, fundamental church of England principle, the doctrine of conditional justification is the grossest of contradictions. For (suffer me to repeat the important remark) if no good works whatever can be done, before justification, it is absolutely impossible that justification should be at all suspended on good works; for then justification would be suspended on a non-entity. How, sir, can those good works be the condition of my justification, not one of which can have any existence until I am justified! Your assertion therefore, page 124, "That good works, though imperfect and worthless, are yet required by God as necessary terms, qualifications, and conditions, both of our justification and salvation," is flatly giving the lie, not only to scripture, but to every article and homily of our church upon the subject. Let me likewise observe, by the way, that as, on the one hand, you extol good works too high, in representing them as conditions of justification; so, on the other, you sink them as much too low, in presuming to call them worthless. Works resulting from grace, and wrought with a view to glorify God, deserve a better epithet, than that of worthless. Had a Calvinist styled them so, you would have set him down at once for an Antinomian: and not without reason. Good works, though imperfect, are yet very far from being worthless things. Seeing, as the above homily justly observes, they are proofs of our obedience to God, testimonies of our justification, and conducive to the edification of our fellow Christians. We Calvinists value sanctification and good works, as the writings of our heavenly estate: which, though they have no hand in procuring the estate itself (for that is already done, by the precious merits of the sole Mediator between God and man), yet prove that the estate is ours through the free grace of God and the alone righteousness of Christ. Good works, therefore, though no part of our dependence, nor any condition of our present or everlasting acceptance, are still by no means worthless, as you have contemptuously, and inconsistently with your own plan, ventured to style them. However worthless you may affect to deem them, woe be to you and me, if we are eventually found without them.

I have now, so far as the church of England is properly concerned, touched on the most material parts of your pamphlet; and am of opinion, for my own part, that your design is not very happily executed, nor your objections very solidly founded. I really think, upon a review of the whole, that you have no great reason to sing Te Deum, for your imaginary triumph over the doctrines of the reformation. Yet is it matter of lamentation, that you should even have attempted to subvert them; and that the church should receive any blow, how slight soever, from so respectable a hand. You have been fighting against those very truths, which, when you received ordination, you, on your knees, were solemnly commissioned to defend; and which, previous to that solemnity, you had ratified as your own belief, by the deliberate subscription of your name. Form to yourself, the idea of an English officer, who, false to the cause and service of his Britannic Majesty, should ungratefully and perfidiously, endeavour to promote the interest of the French king, at the very time that he wears the regimentals, and receives the pay of his own lawful sovereign. Very pertinent to the present argument, is that expostulation of the great Dr. South: “To be impugned from without, and betrayed from within, is certainly the worst condition, that either church or state can fall into; and the best of churches, the church of England, has had experience of both. It had been to be wished, and one would think, might very reasonably have been expected, that, when providence had took the work of destroying the church of England out of the papists hands, some would have been contented with her preferments, without either attempting to give up her rites and liturgy, or deserting her doctrine: but it has proved much otherwise” (o). It has indeed. How much farther God will suffer us to fall, is best known to him that knows all things. I only wish, that “we may not part with one thing after another, till we have nothing left.” How wide a difference there is, between the doctrine of the church, and that of some churchmen (as Dr. South well distinguishes), will appear yet plainer, by the following extracts from a book, which, I fear, is subscribed by too many who have never read I;: I mean, the homilies of our established church. Let these decide, whether Calvinists or Arminians best deserve the name of churchmen.

(o) Preface to his Animadversions on Sherlock, 1693.

I. Concerning predestination, as it respects Christ the Mediator, our church delivers herself thus: "When the fulness of time was come, that is, the perfection and course of years appointed from the beginning; then God, according to his former covenant and promise, sent a Messias." Horn, on the nativity, p. 243. (p)

(p) My edition of the Homilies is that printed in 1673.

Again, "Remember that ye be bought from your vain conversation, and that your freedom is purchased neither with gold nor silver, but with the price of the precious blood of that innocent Lamb, Jesus Christ, which was ordained to the same purpose before the world was made.” Hom. on the resurrection, p. 266.

Of predestination, as it respects mankind, I find as follows:

"When God had chosen to himself a peculiar and special people, from amongst all other nations that knew not God, he gave unto them certain ordinances, &c." Hom. against idolatry, p. 104. This refers to the ancient Jews. Let us now hear what is said, concerning the Christian church: "The true church is a universal congregation or fellowship of God's faithful and elect people, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the head corner-stone." Hom. for Whitsunday, p. 283.

"Let us only trust to be saved by his death and passion, and to have our sins clean washed away through his most precious blood; that in the end of the world, when he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead, he may receive us into his heavenly kingdom, and place us in the number of his elect and chosen people." Hom. 2. on the passion, p. 261.

Once more: "God of his mercy and special favour towards them, whom he hath appointed to everlasting salvation, hath so offered his grace especially, and they have so received it fruitfully, that although, by reason of their sinful living outwardly, they seemed before to have been the children of wrath and perdition; yet now, the Spirit of God mightily working in them, they declare, by their outward deeds and life, in the showing of mercy and charity (which cannot come, but of the Spirit of God, and his especial grace) that they are the undoubted children of God, appointed to everlasting life. And so, as by their wickedness and ungodly living, they showed themselves according to the judgment of men, which follow the outward appearance, to be reprobates and castaways; so now, by their obedience unto God's holy will, and by their merciful and tender pity (wherein they shew themselves to be like unto God, who is the fountain and spring of all mercy) they declare openly and manifestly to the sight of men, that they are the sons of God, and elect of him unto salvation." Hom. 2 on alms-deeds, p. 235, 203. Hence, it is clearly the doctrine of our church, 1. That there are some persons elect, chosen, and appointed of God to everlasting life. 2. That this his choice of them, and their subsequent regeneration, are founded on his own mercy and special favour towards them. 3. That the elect, even before they are converted and sanctified, are not, in reality, objects of God's hatred, but only seem to be such, in the judgment of men. 4. That the conversion of the elect is wrought by God's especial grace, and by his Spirit mightily working in them. 5. That sanctification and good works are (not the causes and conditions of election, but) the marks, proofs, evidences and consequences of it; whereby the regenerate declare openly and manifestly, that they are the undoubted children of God, appointed to everlasting life, and elect of him unto salvation.

Nor is our church silent as to that other branch of God's decree, commonly called reprobation. "Christ himself, the prophets before him, the apostles after him, all the true ministers of God's holy word, yea, every word in God's book, is, unto the reprobate, the savor of death unto death." Hom. 2. on certain places of scripture, p. 228. And, elsewhere, more roundly still: God "will have none in council with him, nor any to ask the reason of his doing: for he may do what liketh him, and none can resist him. For he worketh all things in his secret judgment, to his own pleasure; yea, even the wicked to damnation, saith Solomon." Rogation, 1 Hom. p. 289.

Intimately connected with (and indeed solely founded upon) predestination, is the doctrine of absolute providence: concerning which latter, the church thus speaks: - Epicures they be, that imagine, that he (God) walketh about the coasts of the heavens, and hath no respect of these inferior things, but that all these things should proceed either by chance, or at adventure, or else by disposition of fortune; and God to have no stroke in them. What other thing is this to say, than, as the fool supposeth in his heart, there is no God?" Rogation, 2 Hom. p. 293.

II. With regard to the extent of redemption, our church expressly declares, that Christ "is the high and everlasting priest, who hath offered himself once for all upon the altar of the cross, and with that one oblation, hath made perfect for evermore them that are sanctified." Hom. 1. of Salvation, p. 10. More minutely still: "The end of his coming, was to save and deliver his people." Hom. on the Nativity, p. 247. Again, "Christ put himself between God's deserved wrath and our sin; and rent that obligation, wherein we were in danger to God, and paid our debt. Our debt was a great deal too great for us to have paid; and without payment, God the Father could never be at one with us. Neither was it possible to be loosed from this debt, by our own ability. It pleased him therefore, to be the payer thereof, and to discharge us quite.” Hom. 1. on the Passion, p. 249, 250. Hence it appears, that in the opinion of our church, Christ did not lay down his life to put men into a salvable state, and render their salvation barely possible; but, actually and absolutely, secured the discharge of those he redeemed, and indeed it would have been no redemption, without this. Christ is here said to have positively paid our debt, and to have so paid it, as to discharge us quite. Seems it not, therefore, to flow from these premises, that the spiritual debts of those who shall be condemned in the last day, were not paid by him? for, if they were, how can it come to pass, that some of those very persons shall be thrown into prison, and there tormented, whose debts have been really paid to the uttermost farthing? Will not the Judge of the whole earth do right? Is it consistent with our ideas of justice, that God the Father should demand double payment of the self-same debts, by charging sin first to the Surety's account, and then to the sinner's afterwards? Christ, says our homily, discharged us quite: but can such persons be said to be quite discharged, on whom divine justice hath still an unsatisfied claim, and against whom the debt book is yet uncrossed, and for whom penal vengeance is laid up in store? Upon these two correlative suppositions, 1. That the death of Christ was a vicarious punishment; and, 2. that it was a proper, real, adequate atonement for sin (both which are the avowed doctrines of our church); either universal salvation, or a limited redemption, must necessarily follow. But the church does not hold universal salvation; therefore, you must either grant, that she contradicts her own fundamental principles, or, that she believes redemption to be only co-extensive with election. - There is, I apprehend, but one way to elude the force of this argument; and that is, fairly and above-board, to take refuge in (q) Socinianism (as the great Grotius at length unhappily did) by denying that Christ died as our substitute, and in our room and stead. But this refuge is attended with ten thousand times worse consequences, than either the doctrine of unlimited salvation, or that of partial redemption. The Arminian salvo, that "Christ died for us, only to put us into a capacity of being saved if we are willing to close in with certain terms offered;" leaves the matter every jot as embarrassed as it found it. Since it can never with any colour of reason, be supposed, that he would ascertain the end, without securing the means; for that would be doing just nothing at all. He cannot be said to have purchased salvation for any, for whom he did not likewise obtain those influences of saving grace, without which, final salvation cannot be had; nor am I able to conceive, how a Being of infinite wisdom would actually pay down a price of infinite value, and yet leave it quite uncertain, whether the purchased blessing should be enjoyed by those for whom he bought them. This will still appear more unlikely (or rather impossible), if we take his foreknowledge into the account. Would he (with the deepest reverence be it asked) shed his inestimably precious blood for those persons, who, as himself knew at that very time he did it, would certainly reject the redemption wrought? If he did not foreknow this, what becomes of his deity? If he did foreknow it, and yet died for such, it was, in effect, redeeming them unto greater condemnation: and then, redemption (so far as these persons are concerned) can hardly be considered as an act of mercy. For my own part, these and similar considerations strike me so strongly, that I find myself obliged, by dint both of rational and scripture evidence, to believe, that Christ actually and infallibly secured the salvation of every individual for whom he died: that repentance, faith, and holiness are wrought in those he hath ransomed; and that God giveth grace and glory to all them, for whom he gave his Son. - This train of reasoning is not a little countenanced, by the following passage in another of our homilies. “Now it followeth to have, with this knowledge, a sure and constant faith, not only that the death of Christ is available (r) for the redemption of all the world, for the remission of sins, and reconciliation with God the Father; but also that he hath made upon the cross, a full and sufficient sacrifice for thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sins: So that thou mayest say with the apostle, that he loved thee, and gave himself for thee." Hom. on the sacrament, p. 272. But, if Christ loved all men, and gave himself for every individual of mankind, he must of course have loved me, and gave himself for me: consequently, this assured faith, of his being my lover, my sacrifice, and my Saviour in particular, could not, upon the principle of universal redemption, be so high and distinguishing a privilege, as the homily here represents it. Upon the whole, when the homilies appear to speak of redemption as general, it seems but fair to understand them, rather in an indefinite, than in a strictly unlimited sense. Such a declaration, as this that follows, should be looked upon as explanatory of the church's meaning in other places, where the restriction is not so expressly laid down: Christ "was obedient even to the very death, the death of the cross. And this he did, for us all that believe." First homily on the passion, p. 250.

(q) The alliance between Socinianism and Arianism, is evident from the confession of an Arminian divine; Tindal. Cont. of Rap. Vol. 15. p. 237. note a. Also Biogr. Dict. vol. 10. p. 404.

(r) That is, of sufficient value: which it most certainly is. But availableness, or intrinsic sufficiency, is one thing; intentional and actual efficacy is another. The argument, a Potentia ad Actum, concludes nothing.

III. Man's exceeding depravation by nature, and total inability as to spiritual good, are largely and strongly asserted in our homilies. "The Holy Ghost, in writing the holy scriptures, is in nothing more diligent, than to pull down man's vain glory and pride; which of all vices, is most universally grafted in all mankind, even from the first infection of our first father Adam." First homily on the misery of man, p. 6.

"St. Paul, in many places, painteth us out in our colours, calling us the children of the wrath of God when we be born: saying also, that we cannot think a good thought of ourselves; much less can we say well, or do well ourselves." Ibid. p. 8.

"We be, of ourselves, of such earth as can bring forth but weeds, nettles, brambles, briars, cockles, and darnel. Our fruits be declared in the 5th chapter to the Galatians (Ga 5). We have neither faith, charity, hope, patience, chastity, nor any thing else that good is, but of God; and therefore these virtues be called there, the fruits of the Holy Ghost, and not the fruits of man." Second homily on ditto, p. 9.

"Of ourselves, and by ourselves, we have no goodness, help, nor salvation: but, contrariwise, sin, damnation, and death everlasting. Which, if we deeply weigh and consider, we shall the better understand the great mercy of God, and how our salvation cometh only by Christ; for, in ourselves (as of ourselves), we find nothing whereby we may be delivered from this miserable captivity, into the which we were cast, through the envy of the devil, by breaking of God's commandment in our first parent Adam. We are all become unclean, but we all are not able to cleanse ourselves, nor to make one another of us clean. We are by nature the children of God's wrath, but we are not able to make ourselves the children and inheritors of God's glory. We are sheep that run astray, but we cannot of our own power come again to the sheepfold; so great is our imperfection and weakness." Ibid. p. 10.

“St. Ambrose concludeth in a few words, saying, he that by nature would withstand vice, either by natural will, or reason, he doth in vain garnish the time of this life, and attaineth not the very true virtues." First homily on good works, p. 28.

“These sentences (good people), unto a natural man, seem mere absurdities, contrary to all reason. For, a natural man, as St. Paul saith, understandeth not the things that belong to God: neither can he, so long as old Adam dwelleth in him." Second homily on certain places of scripture, p. 225.

“God therefore, for his mercy's sake, vouchsafe to purify our minds, through faith in his Son Jesus Christ, and to instil the heavenly drops of his grace into our hard stony hearts to supple the same." Ibid. p. 229.

"Let us, throughout our whole lives, confess all good things to come of God, of what name or nature soever they be: not of these corruptible things only, but much more of all spiritual graces behovable for our soul." Second rogation homily, p. 226.

"If any gift we have, wherewith we may work to the glory of God, and profit to our neighbour, all is wrought by his own and self-same Spirit, which maketh his distributions peculiarly to every man as he will." Third rogation homily, p. 299.

"We have, of our own selves, nothing to present us to God." First homily on repentance, p. 326.

Such are the ideas inculcated by the church of England, concerning man's free-will, and the powers of nature.

IV. Equally careful she is, to assert the absolute energy, independence, and efficacy of divine grace. “As the good fruit is not the cause that the tree is good, but the tree must first be good, before it can bring forth good fruit; so the good deeds of men are not the cause, that maketh man good, but he is first made good by the Spirit and grace of God, that effectually worketh in him, and afterward he bringeth forth good fruits." And, a little lower, we meet with this expression, "The grace of God, which worketh all in all." Second homily on almsdeeds, p. 236.

"Where the Holy Ghost worketh, there nothing is impossible: as may further also appear by the inward regeneration and sanctification of mankind." Whence, taking occasion to speak of Nicodemus, the homily adds, "Behold a lively pattern of a fleshly and carnal man. He had little or no intelligence of the Holy Ghost, and therefore he goeth bluntly to work, and asketh how this thing” [namely, inward regeneration by the Spirit of God] "were possible to be true? Whereas otherwise, if he had known the great power of the Holy Ghost in this behalf, that it is he which inwardly worketh the regeneration and new birth of mankind; he would never have marvelled at Christ's words, but would rather take occasion thereby to praise and glorify God." First homily for Whitsunday, p. 279.

"Man, of his own nature," is fleshly and carnal, corrupt and naught, sinful and disobedient to God, without any spark of goodness in him, without any virtuous or godly motion, only given to evil thoughts and wicked deeds. As for the works of the Spirit, the fruits of faith, charitable and godly motions; if he have any at all in him, they proceed only of the Holy Ghost, who is the only worker of our sanctification, and maketh us new men in Christ Jesus. Such is the power of the Holy Ghost to regenerate men, and, as it were, to bring them forth anew, so that they shall be nothing like the men that they were before." Ibid. p. 280.

"Let them all come together, that be now glorified in heaven, and let us hear what answer they will make in these points before rehearsed, whether their first creation was in God's goodness, or of themselves. Forsooth, David would make answer for them all, and say, Know ye for surety, even the Lord is God; he hath made us, and not we ourselves. If they were asked again, who shall be thanked for their regeneration? for their justification? and for their salvation? whether their deserts, or God's goodness only? Let David answer by the mouth of them all at this time, who cannot choose but say, Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to thy name give all the thanks, for thy loving mercy and for thy truth's sake. If we should ask again, from whence came their glorious works and deeds, which they wrought in their lives, wherewith God was so highly pleased and worshipped by them? Let some other witness be brought in, to testify this matter; that in the mouth of two or three, may the truth be known. Verily, that holy prophet Esay beareth record, and saith, O Lord, it is thou, of thy goodness, that hast wrought all our works in us, not we ourselves. And, to uphold the truth of this matter, against all justiciaries and hypocrites, which rob almighty God of his honour, and ascribe it to themselves, St. Paul, bringeth in his belief: We be not (saith he) sufficient of ourselves, once to think any thing: but all our ableness is of God's goodness. For he it is, in whom we have all our being, and living, and moving. If ye will know, furthermore, where they had their gifts and sacrifices, which they offered continually in their lives to almighty God; they cannot but agree with David, where he saith. Of thy liberal hand, O Lord, we have received that we gave unto thee. If this holy company, therefore, contest so constantly, that all the goods and graces, wherewith they were endued in soul, came of the goodness of God only; what more can be said, to prove, that all that is good cometh from almighty God? To justify a sinner, to new create him from a wicked person to a righteous man, is a greater act (saith St. Augustine), than to make such a new heaven and earth as is already made." First rogation homily, p. 289, 290.

"All spiritual gifts and graces come especially from God. Let us consider the truth of this matter, and hear what is testified; first, of the gift of faith, the first entry into the Christian life, without the which, no man can please God. For St. Paul confesses it plainly to be God's gift; saying, Faith is the gift of God. It is verily God's work in us, the charity wherewith we love our brethren. If any will we have to rise, it is he that preventeth our will, and disposeth us thereto. Who worketh these great miracles in us? our worthiness, our deservings and endeavours, our wits and virtue? Nay verily, St. Paul will not suffer flesh and clay to presume to such arrogancy; and, therefore, saith, All is of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself by Jesus Christ.” Third rogation homily, p. 297.

We must "Beware and take heed, that we do in no wise think in our hearts, imagine, or believe, that we are able to repent aright, or to turn effectually unto the Lord, by our own might and strength. For this must be verified in all men, Without me ye can do nothing. Again, Of ourselves we are not able as much as to think a good thought. And, in another place, It is God that worketh in us both the will and the deed. For this cause, though Hieremie had said before, Turn unto me, saith the Lord; yet afterwards he saith, Turn thou me, and I shall be turned, for thou art the Lord my God. And therefore that ancient writer, and holy father, Ambrose, doth plainly affirm, that the turning of the heart unto God, is of God; as the Lord himself doth testify by his prophet, saying, And I will give thee a heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, for they shall return unto me with their whole heart." First homily on repentance, p. 330, 331. So far is the church of England from making the grace of God strike to the free-will of his creatures!

Next, for the doctrine of justification.

V. "Let us know our own works, of what imperfection they be, and then we shall not stand foolishly and arrogantly in our own conceits, nor challenge any part of justification by our merits, or works." Second homily on Man's Misery, p. 9.

"All the good works that we can do, be imperfect; and therefore not able to deserve our justification: but our justification doth come freely, by the mere mercy of God." First homily of Salvation (s), page 13.

"By grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God, and not of works, lest any man should glory. And, to be short, the sum of all Paul's disputation is this: That if justice" [i.e. justification] “come of works, then it cometh not of grace; and, if it come of grace, then it cometh not of works. And to this end tend all the prophets, as St. Peter saith in Ac 10. 'Of Christ all the prophets,' saith St. Peter) 'do witness, that, through his name, all they that do believe in him, shall receive the remission of sins.' St. Hilary speaketh these words plainly, in the 9th canon upon Matthew, 'Faith only justifieth.' And St. Basil, a Greek author, writeth thus: 'This is a perfect and whole rejoicing in God, when a man advanceth not himself for his own righteousness, but acknowledgeth himself to lack true justice and righteousness, and to be justified by the only faith in Christ. And Paul (saith he) 'doth glory in the contempt of his own righteousness, and that he looketh for the righteousness of God by faith.' These be the very words of St. Basil. And St. Ambrose, a Latin author, saith these words: 'This is the ordinance of God, that they, which believe in Christ, should be saved without works, by faith only, freely receiving remission of their sins.' Consider diligently [adds the homily] these words, without works - by faith only – freely - we receive remission of our sins.' What can be spoken more plainly, than to say, freely, without works, by faith only, we obtain remission of our sins?" Second part of the Homily of Salvation, p. 14, 15.

(s) Mr. Strype has an observation, which deserves to be noticed here. "In the first framing of this homily," says he, viz. The Homily of Salvation, "there was a great controversy between archbishop Cramner, the chief composer thereof, and bishop Gardiner, concerning that branch of it, that asserted justification by faith: as may be seen in the memorials of that great archbishop, under the year 1547." (Annals of the reformation under queen Elizabeth, p. 296.) And well there might: since nothing plunges the dagger deeper into the very heart of popery, than that great, fundamental doctrine of the gospel, free, unconditional justification by faith in the imputed righteousness of Christ. This admirable homily is itself, a standing demonstration, that, not Gardiner, but Cranmer prevailed.

"Man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in part, nor in the whole. For that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of man, that anti-christ could set up against God, to affirm that a man might, by his own works, take away and purge his own sins, and so justify himself. But justification is the office of God only, and is not a thing which we render unto him, but which we receive of him: not which we give to him, but which we take of him, by his free mercy, and by the only merits of his most dearly beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifier." Ibid. pp. 15, 16.

“It is of the free grace and mercy of God, by the mediation of the blood of his Son Jesus Christ, without merit or deserving on our part, that our sins are forgiven us, that we are reconciled and brought again into his favour, and are made heirs of his heavenly kingdom." First homily on Fasting, p. 165.

"To fast, with this persuasion of mind, that our fasting and our good works, can make us perfect and just men; and, finally, bring us to heaven: this is a devilish persuasion. Ibid. p. 168.

“It [namely, the parable of the pharisee and publican] is spoken to them that trusted in themselves, that they were righteous, and despised others. Now, because the pharisee directeth his works to an evil end, seeking by them justification, which indeed is the proper work of God, without our merits; his fasting twice in the week, and all his other works, though they were never so many, and seemed to the world never so good and holy, yet, in very deed, before God, they are altogether evil and abominable." Ibid. p. l69.

He must have piercing eyes indeed, who can discover any thing in our homilies, from whence to infer the conditionality of justification. What Arminians call conditions, our church calls gifts of God; and those graces, which are the gifts of his own free favour, can never be the conditions of obtaining it. "Two things," says the church, "are chiefly to be respected, in every good and godly man's prayer; his own necessity, and the glory of almighty God. Necessity belongeth either outwardly to the body, or inwardly to the soul; which part of man" [i. e. the soul], "because it is much more precious and excellent than the other, therefore we ought, first of all, to crave such things as properly belong to the salvation thereof: as the gift of repentance; the gift of faith; the gift of charity and good works; remission and forgiveness of sins, &c. and such other like fruits of the Spirit." Third Homily on Prayer, p. 198.

Some Arminians, of more subtilty and refinement than the rest of their sect, acknowledge indeed, that we are not justified by moral works and performances of our own, but by the To credere, or the act of believing: which faith itself, say they, is imputed to the believer, in lieu of that perfect righteousness which the law demands. This opinion is as totally unscriptural, and anti-scriptural as the doctrine of justification by works. It is equally absurd in itself, and derogatory to the merits of Christ. I shall, however, in this place, content myself with proving, that this imaginary imputation of faith for righteousness, is not the doctrine of the church of England. "The true understanding of this doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only; is not, that this our own act, to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us and deserve our justification unto us, (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves). So that, as St. John the Baptist, although he were never so virtuous and godly a man, yet, in this matter of forgiving sin, he did put the people from him, and appointed them unto Christ, saying thus unto them: Behold, yonder is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world; even so, as great and as godly a virtue as faith is, yet it putteth us from itself, and remitteth or appointeth us unto Christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins, or justification. So that our faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus: It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only, and to him only I send you for that purpose; forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts and works, and only putting your trust in Christ." Homily of Salvation, part II. p. 16.

Once more. "God, of his own mercy, through the only merits and deservings of his Son Jesus Christ, doth justify us. Nevertheless, because faith doth directly send us to Christ, for remission of our sins; and that, by faith, given us of God. We embrace the promise of God's mercy, and of the remission of our sins (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth); therefore scripture useth to say, that faith, without works, doth justify. And forasmuch that it is all one sentence in effect, to say, faith without works, and only faith, doth justify us; therefore the old, ancient fathers of the church, from time to time, have uttered our justification with this speech, only faith justifieth us: meaning none other thing than St. Paul meant, when he said, faith without works justifieth us. And because all this is brought to pass, through the only merits and deservings of our Saviour Christ, and not through our merits, or through the merit of any virtue that we have within us, or of any work that cometh from us; therefore, in that respect of merit and deserving, we forsake (as it were) all together again, faith, works, and all other virtues. For our own imperfection is so great, through the corruption of original sin, that all is imperfect that is within us; faith, charity, hope, dread, thoughts, words and works: and therefore not apt to merit and discern any part of our justification for us. And this form of speaking use we in the humbling of ourselves to God; and to give all the glory to our Saviour Christ, who is best worthy to have it." Ibid, part III. p. 17.

It is plain from these testimonies, that, according to the judgment of the church, God does not dishonour his law, nor compromise and patch up matters with justice, by accepting of faith, in the room of perfect obedience, and imputing that for righteousness, which is not such; the office of faith, in the affair of justification, being to send us directly, or transmit us through and from itself to Christ; and to embrace God's promises of mercy in him.

It may here be enquired, since neither faith nor works are the matter of justification; what is it, for the sake of which, God does justify? Our church answers with scripture, the righteousness and blood-shedding of Christ alone. “God sent his only Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, into this world, to fulfil the law for us; and, by shedding of his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or, (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins." Homily of Salvation, part I. page 12.

“With his endless mercy, he joined his most upright and equal justice. His great mercy he shewed unto us, in delivering from our former captivity, without requiring of any ransom to be paid, or amends to be made upon our parts; which thing by us had been impossible to be done. And whereas it lay not in us that to do, he provided a ransom for us, that was the most precious body and blood of his own most dear and best beloved Son Jesus Christ; who, besides this ransom, fulfilled the law for us perfectly. And so the justice of God and his mercy did embrace together, and fulfilled the mystery of our redemption. Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness, to every one that believeth.” Ibid. p. 13.

"The apostle toucheth three things specially, which must go together in our justification. Upon God's part, his great mercy and grace. Upon Christ's part, justice; that is, the satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our redemption, by the offering of his body, and the shedding of his blood; together with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly. And, upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by God's working in us." Ibid.

“It pleased our heavenly Father, of his infinite mercy, without any our desert or deserving, to prepare for us the most precious jewels of Christ's body and blood, whereby our ransom might be fully paid, the law fulfilled, and his justice fully satisfied. So that Christ is now the righteousness of all them that truly do believe in him. He for them paid their ransom, by his death. He for them fulfilled the law in his life. So that now, in him, and by him, every true Christian man may be called a fulfiller of the law." Ibid. p. 14. (s)

(s) “Whose mediation," [i. e. the mediation of Christ] "was so acceptable to God the Father, through his absolute and perfect obedience, that he took his act for a full satisfaction of all our disobedience and rebellion; whose righteousness he took, to inveigh against of sins; whose redemption he would have stand against our damnation." Third Rogation Homily, p. 297.

VI. I shall now proceed to remind you, sir, of what our church asserts, concerning the influence and indwelling of the holy Spirit.

"In reading of God's word, he most profiteth not always, that is most ready in turning of the book, or in saying of it without the book: but he that is most turned into it; that is most inspired with the Holy Ghost; most in his heart and life altered and changed into the thing which he readeth.” First homily on the knowledge of scripture, p. 3.

"He" [Christ] "speaketh presently unto us in the holy scriptures, to the great and endless comfort of all them that have any feeling of God in them.” First homily on certain places of scripture, p. 221.

“Such is the power of the Holy Ghost to regenerate men, and as it were to bring them forth anew; so that they shall be nothing like the men that they were before. Neither doth he think it sufficient, inwardly to work the spiritual and new birth of man, unless he do also dwell and abide in him.*' First homily for Whitsunday, p. 280.

"Unless the Holy Ghost had been always present governing and preserving the church from the beginning; it could never have sustained so many and great brunts of affliction and persecution, with so little damage and harm, as it hath. And the words of Christ are most plain in this behalf, saying, that the Spirit of truth should abide with them for ever; that he would be with them always (he meaneth, by grace, virtue, and power), even to the world's end. Also, in the prayer that he made to his Father, a little before his death, he maketh intercession, not only for himself and his apostles, but indifferently for all them that should believe in him, through their words; that is to wit, for his whole church. Again, St. Paul saith; If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, the same is not his. Also, in the words following, we have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Hereby then, it is evident and plain to all men, that the Holy Ghost was given, not only to the apostles, but also to the whole body of Christ's congregation; although not in like form and majesty as he came down at the feast of Pentecost." Second Homily for Whitsunday, p. 282.

"God give us grace (good people) to know these things, and to feel them in our hearts. This knowledge and feeling is not in ourself. By ourself it is not possible to come by it. - Let us, therefore, meekly call upon that bountiful Spirit, the Holy Ghost, which proceedeth from our Father of mercy, and from our mediator Christ, that he would assist us, and inspire us with his presence; that in him we may be able to hear the goodness of God declared unto us to our salvation. For, without his lively and secret inspiration, can we not once so much as speak the name of our Mediator, as St. Paul plainly testifieth: no man can once name our Lord Jesus Christ, but in the Holy Ghost (t). - St. Paul saith, that no man can know what is of God, but the Spirit of God. As for us, saith he, we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; for this purpose, that we might know the things that be given us by Christ." This leads me,

(t) 1Co 12:3. No man can, for himself in particular, with an assured and appropriatiug faith, and from a real principle of experimental love, call Jesus his Lord, but by the Holy Ghost; whose gracious office it is, to bring Christ and the soul together, in a way of spiritual intercourse and communion.

VII. To consider the sense of our church, with relation to the doctrine of assurance. She tells us, that "The right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe, that holy scripture, and all the aforesaid articles of our faith are true; but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God's merciful promises, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ: whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey his commandments. - For, how can a man have this true faith, this sure trust and confidence in God, that, by the merits of Christ, his sins he forgiven, and he reconciled to the favour of God, and to be partaker of the kingdom of heaven by Christ, when he liveth ungodly, and denieth Christ in his deeds?" Third homily of salvation, p. 18.

"A quick, or lively faith - is not only the common belief of the articles of our faith, but it is also a true trust and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and a stedfast hope of all good things to be received at God's hand.” First homily on faith, p. 20.

"They” [the Old Testament saints] "did not only know God to be the Lord, Maker, and Governor of all men in the world; but also they had a special confidence and trust, that he was, and (u) would be their God, their comforter, aider, helper, maintainer, and defender. This is the Christian faith which these holy men had, and we also ought to have." Second homily on faith, p. 23.

(u) Hence it appears, that, in the judgment of our church, the assurance of faith looks forward to what shall be, as well as regards the present. The saints, even under the Jewish dispensation, had, according to this homily, not only a special confidence and trust, that God was then their God; but likewise that he would be so still, and be their maintainer in the grace he had given them. But how is this consistent with the new, Arminian doctrine, of finally falling from grace?

"Finally he (St. John) concludeth and showeth the cause why he wrote this epistle; saying. For this cause have I written unto you, that you may know that you have everlasting life which do believe in the Son of God.” Ibid. p. 24.

"He that doth consider all these things, and believeth them assuredly, as they are to be believed, even from the bottom of his heart; being established in God in this true faith, having a quiet conscience in Christ, a firm hope, and assured trust in God's mercy, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to obtain this quietness, rest, and everlasting joy; shall not only be without fear of bodily death, &c." Third homily against fear of death, p. 61, 62.

This is meant by what the church calls, the “effectuous presence of his heavenly grace." First homily of the right use of the church, p. 94.

“Then we shall be assured after this life, to rest in his holy hill, and to dwell in his tabernacle.” Second homily of the right use of the church, p. 102.

“By this then, you may well perceive that the only mean and instrument of salvation, required of our parts, is faith: that is to say, a sure trust and confidence in the mercies of God, whereby we persuade ourselves that God both hath and will forgive our sins." Second homily on the passion, p. 260.

"Thou hast received his body, to endow thee with everlasting righteousness; to assure thee of everlasting bliss and life of thy soul." Homily on the resurrection, p. 265.

"The faithful see, hear, and know the favourable mercies of God sealed, the satisfaction by Christ towards us confirmed, and the remission of sin established. Here they may feel wrought, the tranquillity of conscience; the increase of faith; the strengthening of hope; the large spreading abroad of brotherly kindness; with many other sundry graces of God. - Whence you may perceive and know, both the spiritual food of this costly supper, and the happy trustings and effects, that the same doth bring with it. Now it followeth, to have with this knowledge, a sure and constant faith, that he hath made upon his cross, a full and sufficient sacrifice for thee; a perfect cleansing of thy sins.” - First homily on the sacrament, p. 271, 272.

"If after contrition, we feel our consciences at peace with God, through remission of our sin, &c." Third Rogation Homily, p. 297.

Intimately connected with the privilege of assurance, is,

VIII. The blessing of final perseverance. Noah, Lot, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon, though they committed very flagrant and atrocious offences, things (as the homily expresses it) "plainly forbidden by the law of God, and now repugnant to all public honesty;" yet, the opinion of our church seems to be, that, even under such shocking circumstances as these, those Jewish saints were not totally fallen from grace. Her words are as follow; "We ought then to learn by them this profitable lesson; that, if so godly men, as they were, which otherwise felt inwardly God's holy Spirit inflaming in their hearts with the fear and love of God, could not, by their own strength, keep themselves from committing horrible sin, but did so grievously fall, that, without God's great mercy, they had perished everlastingly; how much more then ought we miserable wretches, who have no feeling of God in us at all, continually to fear, not only that we may fall as they did, but also be overcome and drowned in sin, which they were not?" First homily on certain places of scripture, p. 224, 225.

Perseverance, in another homily, is represented as the gift of God. "Let us, throughout our whole lives, confess all good things to come of God, of what name or nature soever they be; not of these corruptible things only, whereof I have now last spoken, but much more of all spiritual graces behovable for our soul: without whose goodness no man is called to faith, or stayed therein." Second Rogation Hom. p. 296.

Again, "St. Peter saith, it is of God's power that ye be kept through faith to salvation. It is of the goodness of God, that we falter not in our hope unto him." Third Rogation Hom. p. 297.

The following passages, I should imagine, seem scarcely reconcilable with the doctrine of the total and final amissibility of real grace. "True faith will show forth itself, and cannot long be idle: for, as it is written, the just man doth live by his faith; he never sleepeth, nor is idle, when he would wake and be well occupied. And God, by his prophet Jeremy, saith, That he is an happy and blessed man, which hath faith and confidence in God: for he is like a tree set by the water side, and spreadeth his roots abroad towards the moisture, and feareth not heat when it cometh: his leaf will be green, and will not cease to bring forth his fruit: even so, faithful men (putting away all fear of adversity) will show forth the fruit of their good works, as occasion is offered to do them." First Homily on Faith, p. 21.

"All those, therefore, have great cause to be full of joy, that be joined to Christ with true faith, stedfast hope, and perfect charity; and not to fear death nor everlasting damnation. For death cannot deprive them of Jesus Christ, nor any sin can condemn them that are grafted surely in him, who is their only joy, treasure, and life." Second Homily against Fear of Death, p. 56.

"The just man falleth seven times, and riseth again. Though the godly do fall, yet they walk not on purposely in sin; they stand not still, to continue and tarry in sin; they sit not down like careless men, without all fear of God's just punishment for sin: but, defying sin, through God's great grace and infinite mercy they rise again, and fight against sin." Second homily on certain places of scripture, p. 226.

"Christ Jesus, the prophets, the apostles, and all the true ministers of his word; yea, every jot and tittle in the holy scripture, have been, is, and shall be for evermore, the savour of life unto eternal life, unto all those whose hearts God hath purified by true faith." Ibid. p. 228.

"After the loving kindness of God our Saviour appeared towards mankind, not according to the righteousness that we had done, but according to his great mercy, he saved us by the fountain of the new-birth, and by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he poured upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that we being once justified by his grace, should be heirs of eternal life, through hope and faith in his blood." Homily on the Nativity, p. 247.

“St. Peter thanketh God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for his abundant mercy; because he hath begotten us (saith he) unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from death, to enjoy an inheritance immortal, that never shall perish, which is laid up in heaven for them that be kept by the power of God through faith." Homily on the resurrection, p. 264.

"He hath ransomed sin, overcome the devil, death, and hell, and hath victoriously gotten the better hand of them all, to make us free and safe from them. And knowing that we be, by this benefit of his resurrection, risen with him by our faith, unto life everlasting; being in full surety of our hope, that we shall have our bodies likewise raised from death, to have them glorified in immortality, and joined to his glorious body: having, in the mean while, this holy Spirit within our hearts, as a seal and pledge of our everlasting inheritance. By whose assistance, we be replenished with all righteousness; by whose power we shall be able to subdue all our evil affections, rising against the pleasure of God." Ibid. p. 265, 266.

“The faithful have their life, their abiding in him; their union, and, as it were, their incorporation with him." First Homily on the Sacrament, p. 272.

“Neither doth he," [the Holy Ghost] "think it sufficient inwardly to work the spiritual and new-birth of a man, unless he do also dwell and abide in him." First homily for Whitsunday, p. 280.

“Very liberal and gentle is the Spirit of wisdom. In his power shall we have sufficient ability to know our duty to God. In him shall we be comforted and encouraged to walk in our duty. In him shall we be meet vessels to receive the grace of almighty God: for it is he that purgeth and purifieth the mind, by his secret working. And he only is present every where by his invisible power, and containeth all things in his dominion. He lighteneth the heart, to conceive worthy thoughts of Almighty God: he sitteth in the tongue of man, to stir him to speak his honour. He only ministereth spiritual strength to the powers of our soul and body. To hold the way which God had prepared for us, to walk rightly in our journey, we must acknowledge that it is in the power of his Spirit, which helpeth our infirmity." Third Homily for Rogation week, p. 299.

So speaks the church of England: and so will she ever speak, while her liturgy, her articles, and homilies, stand as they do. These are the doctrines, which she holds; these, the truths, to which all her clergy have subscribed; (x) truths these, which have no more to do with Methodism (properly so called), than they have with Mahometanism. To our departure from the above principles of the Reformation are chiefly owing, 1. That the church and churchmen are the scorn of infidels. 2. that so great a part of the common people of this land are sunk into such deplorable ignorance of divine things as is unparalleled in any other protestant country. 3. That our churches are, in many places, so empty; while dissenting meetings are generally as full as they can hold. The plain, but melancholy truth is, that, in various parts of this kingdom, multitudes of persons, who are churchmen upon principle, are forced to go to meeting, in order to hear the doctrines of their own church preached. And, as to the totally ignorant, and openly profane, they care not whether they attend on any public worship or not. To the same deviation from our established doctrines, we may, 4. Impute, in great measure, the vast and still increasing spread of infidelity amongst us. Christianity, shorn of its peculiar and distinguishing principles, and reduced to little more than a dry system of Ethics, can take but small hold of men's hearts, and is itself but a better species of Deism. Many graceless persons, are yet men of good sense: and, when such consider the present state of religion in this country, how is it possible for them not to reason in a manner similar to this (y)? "There is a book, called the Bible, in which such and such doctrines are written as with a sun-beam. There is also an establishment, called the church, which teaches the self-same doctrines, and is the very echo of that book. This Bible is said, by the clergy, to be of divine authority, and a revelation from God. And, for the church, they tell us, it is the best and purest in the world; and indeed, unless they thought it so, nothing could justify their solemn subscription to its decisions. Yet, how many, of them open their mouths, and draw their pens, against those very decisions to which they have set their hands? Can those of them, who do this, really believe the scriptures to be divine, and their church to be in the right? Does it not rather look as if religion was no more than a state-engine, on one hand; and a genteel trade, on the other?" Such I more than fear, is the conclusion, unhappily inferred, by thousands, from the conduct of some, who lift up their heel against the church, while they eat her bread; or as Dr. Young expresses it, “Pluck down the vine, and get drunk with the grapes.” To the same source may be traced the rapid and alarming progress of popery in this kingdom. Would we lay the axe to the root of this evil? Let us forsake our Arminianism, and come back to the doctrines of the Reformation. That these are Calvinistic, has, I think, been fully proved: and, should these proofs be deemed insufficient, there are more in reserve. A man must draw up a prodigiously large index expurgatorius to our articles, homilies, and liturgy, before he can divest the church of her Calvinism. As long as these, in their present form, remain the standards of her faith; so long will predestination be an eminent part of it. We might more plausibly, with the philosopher of old, deny that there is any such thing as motion, than deny this glaring, palpable, stare-face truth. Whilst the Calvinistic doctrines were the language of our pulpits, as well as of our articles, the Reformation made a swift and extensive progress. But ever since our articles and our pulpits have been at variance, the Reformation has been at a stand. At a stand, did I say? I said too little. Protestantism has ever since been visibly on the decline. Look round England; look round London. Is not popery gaining ground upon us every day? And no wonder. Arminianism is the basis of it. Figuratively speaking, the Arminian points are five of the seven hills, on which the mystic Babylon is built. It gives a true papist less pain to hear of pope Joan, than of predestination. That I do not affirm things at random, in calling Arminianism the very essence of popery, will appear from the following short antithesis, wherein the doctrines of our own church, and those of Rome, respecting some of the articles under debate, are contrasted together, in the very words of each church.

(x) Well, therefore, might the House of Commons pass a condemnatory vote concerning Montague's book, written in favour of Arminianism. See Life of Laud, p. 148 and 180. with Laud's Anim. p. 181.

(y) Sec Mr. Sloss on the Trinity; pref. p. 10.

Church of England.

I. The godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons. Art. XVII.

Church of Rome.

I. No man, so long as he liveth in this mortal life, ought so far to presume concerning the hidden mystery of divine predestination, as positively to conclude that he is actually in the number of the predestinate. Concil. Trid, Sess. 6. c. xii.

Church of England.

II. The condition of man after the fall of Adam, is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God. Art. X.

Church of Rome.

II. If any person shall say, that since the fall of Adam, man's free-will is lost and extinct, &c. Let him be accursed. Ibid. Sess. 6. Can. V

Church of England.

III. We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our own works, or deservings. Art XI.

Church of Rome.

III. If any person shall say, that men are justified, either by the alone righteousness of Christ, or by a bare forgiveness of sins, Let him be accursed. Ibid, can. xi.

Church of England.

IV. That we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. Art. XI.

Church of Rome.

IV. If any one shall say, that the ungodly is justified by faith only, so as to mean that nothing else is required, &c. Let him be accursed. Ibid. can. ix.

Church of England.

V. Art. XIII. Of works done before justification.

Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God; yea, we doubt not, but they have the nature of sin.

Church of Rome.

V. If any one shall say, that all the works, done before justification, in what way soever they are done, are actually sins, and deserving of God's displeasure, &c. Let him be accursed. Ibid. can vii

Church of England.

VI. Good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification. Art. XII.

Church of Rome.

VI. If any man shall say, that justification [justitiam] received is not preserved, and even increased before God by good works; but that those good works themselves are no more than the fruits and evidences [fructus et signa] of justification already obtained, &c. Let him be accursed.

Even from this slight survey, must not a man be blind, not to discern that Calvinism is the religion of England, and that Arminianism is the heresy of Rome (z); yet far be it from me to think, that all, among us, who espouse the Arminian tenets, are intentional papists, or have any affection for popery, as such. But this I cannot help believing, that Arminianism is the forerunner which prepares the way for Romanism, and, if not discarded in time, will one day open the door to it.

(z) So Heylin expressly owns; Life of Land, p. 33. After which he adds, impudently, "so near, &c." p. 36, and wishes for a reconciliation with Rome, ib.

To close all, our doctrines are the precious depositum, committed, in a particular manner, to the guardianship of us, who have the honour to minister in holy things. How those, who make no scruple to betray this inestimable trust, which they have so solemnly and repeatedly engaged to preserve, can answer it in conscience, must be submitted to God and themselves. For a clergyman to subscribe to our articles in the presence of his bishop, and after his admission to a benefice, to read over those articles in his church, deliberately, and word by word; and there, in the presence of God, and in the hearing of his own parishioners, publicly to testify his unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing therein contained; while he disbelieves, and it may be, the same day, contradicts in the pulpit, what he had so lately assented to from the desk; is, I believe, a species of guilt, unknown to any protestant nation but this. I fear, such a clergyman, if such a clergyman is to be found, may take home those awful words to himself, Thou hast not only lied unto men, but unto God.

We have had long experience of the sad effects, that have attended that mere ethical way of preaching which has been in fashion ever since the restoration. When that happy event took place, the generality of the clergy ran so fast and so far from puritanism, that they outran the thirty-nine articles (a), and lost sight of the church itself. "Good works, good works," was the cry of that age, and is the cry of the present. I heartily wish, good works abounded more among us, than they do: but I am certain they never will, until they are enforced on Christian principles; even the doctrines of grace. Under a pretence of magnifying good works, we have almost kicked faith out of doors: whereas they will always stand or fall together. There can be no good works which do not flow from faith; and no true faith but what is productive of good works. I appeal to demonstration, the life of argument. Faith is banished, and good works are posting after it as fast as they can. Contempt of gospel doctrines, and neglect of gospel morals, are inseparable. That morality, which does not result from faith, is, (as Luther says of free-will) no more than titulus et nomen sine re. Faith according to the united determinations of scripture, and our own church, is the root and source of all true obedience. And shall we idly think to render the tree more fruitful, by severing it from its root? or to enlarge the stream by cutting off its communication with the fountain? When the genuine doctrines of the church of England are restored to her sons, then, and not till then, will good works flourish and abound.

(a) See Hume's Hist. vol. v.

Veneration and affection for the church of England, gave birth to the preceding pages. I have endeavoured to rub off the extraneous varnish, with which you, sir, have disguised her; and to restore her complexion to its native beauty and simplicity. The doctrines which she avows cannot but appear amiable in the eyes of all her genuine sons: and upon a nearer view, Calvinism, I would hope, is not found to be that horrid, hideous thing, which they would make it, who first dress up the dove in raven's plumes, and then cry out, “How black she looks!”

I shall conclude, with apologizing for this freedom; which, however, I should not have taken, had not you first made so free with the church. I have no interest, abstracted from hers, to promote; no resentment, to gratify; no party, to serve. I never had, to my knowledge, the pleasure of so much as seeing the author of Pietas Oxoniensis; nor have I the least acquaintance with any one of the expelled students. So far, at least, as the doctrines of the church are concerned, it seems incumbent on you to retract what you have done. The ablest lawyers, when they find themselves embarked in an absolutely indefensible cause, think it no disparagement, but a point of honour, to throw up their briefs. However, as I am addressing myself to a clergyman, I shall remind you of a very great man, an ornament to his country, as well as to the church, who, after having long been a zealous Arminian, sacrificed his prejudices, submitted to superior evidence, and boldly avowed those Calvinistic doctrines, which once he laboured to destroy. You will readily guess, that I mean the justly famous Dr. South, who, moreover, was, like you, public orator of Oxford. After the mention of such a name, it can be no insult to Dr. Nowell, to wish, that he may go and do likewise. The doctrines of the church have not been changed, since she happily emerged at the reformation. Religious truths are not, like lead, or any other fusible metal, to be melted down, and thrown into what form we please: but, like their adorable author, are the same, yesterday, today, and for ever. Nor, until the church changes, should we.

You will excuse my not subjoining my name. Where truth is sought, names are of little account. An arrow from an unknown hand, may do as much execution, as if the contending parties were acquainted. I shall, therefore, only subscribe myself, with undissembled respect,

Rev. Sir,

Your most obedient

and most humble Servant,

CLERUS.

London, Feb. 13, 1769.

The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination - Preface

THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION STATED AND ASSERTED: WITH A PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE ON THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.

TRANSLATED IN GREAT MEASURE, FROM THE LATIN OF JEROM ZANCHIUS; WITH SOME ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE.

Quamvis ad infimae Caveae Plausum facile ambiant Universalis Gratiae Assertores; et, ex Ambone, hoc Argumentum multis Phaleris splendide adornari possit; tamen, ubi penitius excutitur, Argutiae omnes evanescunt, et ascendendum, tandem, ad Deum discriminantem, aeterno Decreto suo, Hominem ab Homine: quo, in aliquibus, Gratiae suae; in aliis, Justitiae suae: in Utrisque, Gloriae suae polupoikilhv, exstet Documentum.

SPANHEM. Syntagm. Disp. p. 236.

PREFACE.

WHEN I consider the absolute independency of God, and the necessary, total dependence of all created things on him their first cause; I cannot help standing astonished at the pride of impotent, degenerate man, who is so prone to consider himself as a being possessed of sovereign freedom, and invested with a power of self-salvation, able, he imagines, to counteract the designs even of infinite wisdom, and to defeat the agency of Omnipotence itself. Ye shall be as gods, said the tempter, to Eve, in Paradise: and ye are as gods, says the same tempter, now, to her apostate sons. One would be apt to think, that a suggestion so demonstrably false and flattering, a suggestion the very reverse of what we feel to be our state; a suggestion alike contrary to scripture and reason, to fact and experience; could never meet with the smallest degree of credit. And yet, because it so exactly coincides with the natural haughtiness of the human heart, men not only admit, but even relish, the deception; and fondly incline to believe, that the father of lies does, in this instance at least, speak truth.

The scripture doctrine of predetermination lays the axe to the very root of this potent delusion. It assures us, that all things are of God. That all our times, and all events, are in his hand. Consequently, that man's business below, is to fill up the departments, and to discharge the several offices, assigned him, in God's purpose, from everlasting: and that, having lived his appointed time, and finished his allotted course of action and suffering, he, that moment, quits the stage of terrestrial life, and removes to the invisible state.

The late deservedly celebrated Dr. Young, though he affected great opposition to some of the doctrines called Calvinistic, was compelled, by the force of truth, to acknowledge, that “there is not a fly, but has had infinite wisdom concerned, not only in its structure, but in its destination." Nor did the late learned and excellent bishop Hopkins go a jot too far, in asserting as follows: “A sparrow, whose price is but mean, two of them valued at a farthing (which some make to be the 10th part of a Roman penny, and was certainly one of their least coins), and whose life therefore is but contemptible, and whose flight seems giddy and at random; yet it falls not to the ground, neither lights any where, without your father. His all-wise providence hath before appointed what bough it shall pitch on; what grains it shall pick up; where it shall lodge, and where it shall build; on what it shall live, and when it shall die. Our Saviour adds, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. God keeps an account, even of that stringy excrescence. Do you see a thousand little motes and atoms wandering up and down in a sunbeam? It is God that so peoples it; and he guides their innumerable and irregular strayings. Not a dust flies in a beaten road, but God raiseth it, conducts its uncertain motion, and, by his particular care, conveys it to the certain place he had before appointed for it; nor shall the most fierce and tempestuous wind hurry it any farther. Nothing comes to pass, but God hath his ends in it, and will certainly make his own ends out of it. Though the world seem to run at random, and affairs to be huddled together in blind confusion and rude disorder; yet, God sees and knows the concatenation of all causes and effects, and so governs them, that he makes a perfect harmony out of all those seeming jarrings and discords. It is most necessary, that we should have our hearts well established in the firm and unwavering belief of this truth, that whatsoever comes to pass, be it good or evil, we may look up to the hand and disposal of all, to God. In respect of God, there is nothing casual, nor contingent, in the world. If a master should send a servant to a certain place, and command him to stay there, till such a time; and presently after, should send another servant to the same [place], the meeting of these two is wholly casual, in respect of themselves; but ordained and foreseen by the master who sent them. So it is in all fortuitous events here below. They fall out unexpectedly, as to us; but not so as to God. He foresees, and he appoints, all the vicissitudes of things (c)."

(c) Sermon on Providence; from Mt 10:29-30.

To illustrate this momentous doctrine, especially so far as God's sovereign distribution of grace and glory is concerned, was the chief motive that determined me to the present publication. In perusing the works of that most learned and evangelical divine, one of whose performances now appears in an English dress, I was particularly taken with that part of his confession of faith (presented A. D. 1562, to the senate of Strasburgh), which relates to predestination. It is, from beginning to end, a regular chain of solid argument, deduced from the unerring word of divine revelation, and confirmed by the coincident testimonies of some of the greatest lights that ever shone in the Christian Church. Such were Austin, Luther, Bucer. Names, that will be precious and venerable, as long as true religion has a friend remaining upon earth.

Excellent as Zanchy's original piece is, I yet have occasionally ventured, both to retrench and to enlarge it in the translation. To this liberty I was induced, by a desire of rendering it as complete a treatise, on the subject, as the allotted compass would allow. I have endeavoured, rather to enter into the spirit of the admirable author; than, with a scrupulous exactness, to retail his very words. By which means the performance will prove, I humbly trust, the more satisfactory to the English reader: and, for the learned one, he can at any time, if he pleases, by comparing the following version with the original Latin, both perceive wherein I have presumed to vary from it; and judge for himself, whether my omissions, variations, and enlargements, are useful and just.

The Arminians (I know not, whether through ignorance, or to serve a turn) affect, at present, to give out, that Luther and Calvin were not agreed in the article of predestination. A more palpable mistake was never advanced. So far is it from being true, that Luther (as I can easily prove, if called to it) went as heartily into that doctrine, as Calvin himself. He even asserted it with much more warmth, and proceeded to much harsher lengths in defending it, than Calvin ever did, or any other writer I have met with, of that age. In the following performance, I have for the most part, carefully retained Zanchy's quotations from Luther; that the reader, from the sample there given, might form a just idea of Luther's real sentiments concerning the points in question.

Never was a publication of this kind, more seasonable than at present. Arminianism is the grand religious evil of this age and country. It has more or less, infected every protestant denomination amongst us, and bids fair for leaving us, in a short time, not so much as the very profession of godliness. The power of Christianity has, for the most part, taken its flight long ago; and even the form of it seems to be on the point of bidding us farewell. Time has been, when the Calvinistic doctrines were considered and defended as the palladium of our established church, by her bishops and clergy; by the universities and the whole body of the laity. It was during the reigns of Edward VI. queen Elizabeth, James I, and the greater part of Charles I., as difficult to meet with a clergyman, who did not preach the doctrines of the church of England; as it is now, to fmd one who does. We have generally forsaken the principles of the reformation; and Ichabod, or thy glory is departed, has been written, on most of our pulpits and church-doors, ever since.

Thou, O God, hast brought a vine out of Egypt; thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it.

Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root; and it filled the land.

The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars.

She sent out her boughs to the sea, and her branches unto the river.

Why hast thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they who pass by the way, do pluck her?

The boar, out of the wood, doth waste it; and the wild beast of the field doth devour it.

Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts! Look down from heaven, and behold and visit this vine;

And the vineyard, which thy right hand hath planted; and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself!

So will we not go back from thee: quicken us, and we shall call upon thy name.

Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts! cause thy face to shine, and we shall yet be saved. Ps 80.

Never was description more strikingly expressive of the state our national church is at present in! Never was supplication more pertinently adapted to the lips of her genuine sons!

In vain do we lament the progress of popery; in vain do we shut up a few private mass-houses; while our presses teem, and our pulpits ring, with the Romish doctrines of merit and free-will; doctrines, whose native and inevitable tendency is to smooth the passage for our fuller coalition with antichrist. If we are really desirous to shun committing spiritual adultery with the mother of harlots and abominations, we must withdraw our feet from the way that leadeth to her house.

Blessed be God, the doctrines of grace are again beginning to lift up their heads amongst us; a sign, it is to be hoped, that the holy Spirit hath not quite forsaken us, and that our redemption, from the prevailing errors of the day, draweth near. Now, if ever, is the time, for all who love our church and nation in sincerity, to lend a helping hand to the ark; and contribute, though ever so little, to its return.

The grand objection usually made to that important truth, which is the main subject of the ensuing sheets, proceeds on a supposition of partiality in God, should the Calvinistic doctrine be admitted. If this consequence did really follow, I see not how it would authorize man to arraign the conduct of Deity. Should an earthly friend make me a present of £10,000 would it not be unreasonable, ungrateful, and presumptuous in me to refuse the gift, and revile the giver, only because it might not be his pleasure to confer the same favour on my next door neighbour? In other cases, the value of a privilege, or of a possession, is enhanced by its scarceness. A virtuoso sets but little esteem on a medal, a statue, or a vase, so common, that every man who pleases, may have one of the same kind; he prizes that alone as a rarity, which really is such; and which is not only intrinsically valuable, but which lies in few hands. Were all men, here upon earth, qualified and enabled to appear as kings, the crown, the sceptre, the robe of state, and other ensigns of majesty, would presently sink into things hardly noticeable. The distinguishing grandeurs of royalty, by ceasing to be uncommon, would quickly cease to be august and striking. Upon this principle it was, that Henry IV. of France, said, on his birthday, "I was born as on this day; and, no doubt, taking the world through, thousands were born on the same day with me; yet, out of all those thousands, I am perhaps the only one, whom God hath made a king. How signally am I indebted to the peculiar bounty of his providence!" Similar are the reflections, and the acknowledgments, of such persons, as are favoured with the sense of their election in Christ to holiness and heaven.

“But what becomes of the non-elect?" You have nothing to do with such a question, if you find yourself embarrassed and distressed by the consideration of it. Bless God, for his electing love; and leave him to act as he pleases by them that are without. Simply acquiesce in the plain scripture account; and wish to see no farther, than revelation holds the lamp. It is enough for you to know, that the Judge of the whole earth will do right. Yet will you reap much improvement from the view of predestination in its full extent, if your eyes are able stedfastly to look at all which God hath made known concerning it. But if your spiritual sight is weak, forego the enquiry, so far as reprobation is concerned; and be content to know but in part, till death transmits you to that perfect state, where you shall know even as you are known. Say not, therefore, as the opposers of these doctrines did in St. Paul's days; "Why doth God find fault with the wicked? For who hath resisted his will? If he who only can convert them, refrains from doing it,what room is there for blaming them that perish, seeing it is impossible to resist the will of the Almighty?" Be satisfied with St. Paul's answer: Nay, but who art thou, O man, that repliest against God? The apostle hinges the matter entirely on God's absolute sovereignty. There he rests it; and there we ought to leave it (e).

(e) Some of the more considerate heathens treated God's hidden will with an adoring reverence, which many of our modern Arminians would do well to imitate. Thus Bion (Kleod. kai Murs. 10.) It is not for man, to sit in judgment on the actions of God.

So Theoguis (gnwm. 141, 142.): We men are foolish in our imaginations, and know nothing; but the gods accomplish all things according to their own mind.

And again, (Lin. 687, 688): It is not lawful for mortals, to enter the lists with the gods, nor to bring in an accusation against them.

Were the whole of mankind equally loved of God, and promiscuously redeemed by Christ; the song, which believers are directed to sing, would hardly run in these admired strains: To him that hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, &c. Re 1:5-6. An hymn of praise like this, seems evidently to proceed on the hypothesis of peculiar election, on the part of God; and of a limited redemption, on the part of Christ: which we find still more explicitly declared. Re 5:9. where we have a transcript of that song, which the spirits of just men made perfect are now singing, before the throne, and before the Lamb: Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us unto God, by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation. Whence the elect are said to have been redeemed from among men. Re 14:4.

In short, there is no such thing as casualty, or accident, even in things of temporal concern, much less, in matters spiritual and everlasting. If the universe had a maker, it must have a governor: and if it has a governor, his will and providence must extend to all things, without exception. For my own part, I can discern no medium between absolute predestination, and blank atheism.

Mr. Rollin (f), if I mistake not, has somewhere, a fine observation, to this effect: that "it is usual, with God so carefully to conceal himself, and to hide the agency of his providence behind second causes, as to, render that very often, undiscernable, and indistinguishable from these." Which wisdom of conduct, and gentleness of operation (not less efficacious, because gentle and invisible), instead of exciting the admiration they deserve; have, on the contrary, given occasion to the setting up of that unreal idol of the brain, called chance. Whereas, to use the lovely lines of our great moral poet,

All nature is but art unknown to thee;

All chance, direction which thou canst not see.

(f) Since the above was written, I have met with the fine passage to which it refers: "Providence delights to conceal its wonders under the veil of human operations." Rollin's Arts and Sciences of the Ancients, vol. iii. p. 480.

Mr. Hervey has likewise a most beautiful and judicious paragraph to the same effect; where, speaking of what is commonly termed accidental death, this admirable writer asks: Was it then a random stroke? doubtless, the blow came from an aiming, though invisible hand. God presideth over the armies of heaven. God ruleth among the inhabitants of the earth. And God conducteth what men call chance. Nothing, nothing comes to pass, through a blind and undiscerning fatality. If accidents happen, they happen according to the exact foreknowledge, and conformably to the determinate counsels of eternal wisdom. The Lord, with whom are the issues of death, signs the warrant, and gives the high commission. The seemingly fortuitous disaster, is only the agent, or instrument, appointed to execute the supreme decree. When the king of Israel was mortally wounded it seemed to be a casual shot. A certain man drew a bow at a venture, (1Ki 22:34.) At a venture, as he thought. But his hand was strengthened by an omnipotent aid; and the shaft levelled by an unerring eye. So that, what we term casualty, is really providence; accomplishing deliberate designs, but concealing its own interposition. How comforting this reflection! Admirably adapted to sooth the throbbing anguish of the mourners, and compose their spirits into a quiet submission! Excellently suited to dissipate the fears of godly survivors; and create a calm intrepidity, even amidst innumerable perils!" Hervey's Meditations, vol. i. p 27,

Words are only so far valuable, as they are the vehicles of meaning. And meaning, or ideas, derive their whole value, from their having some foundation in reason, reality, and fact. Was I, therefore, to be concerned in drawing up an expurgatory index to language, I would, without mercy, cashier and proscribe such words as chance, fortune, luck, casualty, contingency, and mishap. Nor unjustly. For, they are voces et praeterea nihil. Mere terms, without ideas. Absolute expletives, which import nothing. Unmeaning cyphers, either proudly invented to hide man's ignorance of real causes, or sacrilegiously designed to rob the Deity of the honours due to his wisdom, providence, and power.

Reason and revelation are perfect unisons, in assuring us, that God is the supreme, independent, first cause; of whom, all secondary and inferior causes are no more the effects. Else, proper originality and absolute wisdom, unlimited supremacy and almighty power, cease to be attributes of Deity. I remember to have heard an interesting anecdote of king William, and bishop Burnet. The Arminian prelate affected to wonder, “How a person, of his majesty's piety and good sense, could so rootedly believe the doctrine of absolute predestination."The royal Calvinist replied; did I not believe absolute predestination, I could not believe a providence. For, it would be most absurd, to suppose, that a being of infinite wisdom would act without a plan; for which plan, predestination is only another name.

What, indeed, is predestination, but God's determinate plan of action? and what is providence, but the evolution of that plan? In his decree, God resolved within himself, what he would do, and what he would permit to be done: by his providence, this effective and permissive will passes into external act, and has its positive accomplishment. So that the purpose of God, as it were, draws the outlines; and providence lays on the colours. What that designed, this completes: what that ordained, this executes. Predestination is analogous to the mind and intention; providence to the hand and agency of the artificer. Hence, we are told, that God worketh [there is his providence] all things, after the counsel of his own will [there is his decree], Eph 1:11. And again, he doth according to his will, in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand [i. e. his will, and the execution of it, are irresistible], nor say unto him, what dost thou? i. e. his purpose and providence are sovereign, and for which he will not be accountable to his creatures. Da 4:35.

According, therefore, to the scripture representation, providence neither acts vaguely and at random, like a blind archer, who shoots uncertainly in the dark, as well as he can; nor yet pro re nata, or as the unforeseen exigence of affairs may require: like some blundering statesman, who plunges (it may be) his country and himself into difficulties, and then is forced to unravel his cobweb, and reverse his plan of operations, as the best remedy for those disasters, which the court-spider had not the wisdom to foresee. But shall we say this of God? It were blasphemy. He that dwelleth in heaven, laugheth all these miserable after thoughts to scorn. God, who can neither be over-reached, nor overpowered, has all these wretched post-expedients in derision. He is incapable of mistake. He knows no levity of will. He cannot be surprised with any unforeseen inconveniences. His throne is in heaven, and his kingdom ruleth over all. Whatever, therefore, comes to pass, comes to pass as a part of the original plan: and is the offspring of that prolific series of causes and effects, which owes its birth to the ordaining and permissive will of him, in whom we all live, and are moved (g), and have our being. Providence in time, is the hand that delivers God's purpose, of those beings and events with which that purpose was pregnant from everlasting. The doctrine of equivocal generation is not more absurd, in philosophy; than the doctrine of unpredestinated events is, in theology.

(g) Kinoumeqa, Ac 17:28.

Thus, the long train of things is, though

A mighty maze, yet not without a plan.

Gods sovereign will is the first link; his unalterable decree is the second; and his all-active providence the third; in the great chain of causes. What his will determined, that his decree established, and his providence, either mediately or immediately, effects. His will was the adorable spring of all: his decree marked out the channel: and his providence directs the stream.

"If so," it may be objected, "it will follow, that whatever is, is right." Consequences cannot be helped. No doubt, God, who does nothing in vain; who cannot do any thing to no purpose, and still less to a bad one; who both acts and permits with design; and who weighs the paths of men; has, in the unfathomable abyss of his counsel, very important (though to us, secret) reasons, for permitting the first entrance of moral evil, and for suffering both (h) moral and natural evil still to reign over so great a part of the creation. Unsearchable are his judgments [krimata, decrees] and his ways [the methods and dispensations of his providence] past finding out. Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? For, of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. Ro 2:29,29,29. As to myself, I can through grace, most heartily adopt the maxim of Bengelius, non plus sumere, non minus accipere: I neither wish to know more than God has revealed; nor to remain ignorant of what he has revealed. I desire to advance, and to halt, just when and where the pillar of God's written word stays, or goes forward. I am content, that the impenetrable veil, divinely interposed, between his purposes and my comprehension, be not drawn aside, until faith is lost in sight, and my spirit return to him who gave it. But of this I am assured, that echo does not reverberate sound so punctually, as the actual disposal of things answers to God's predetermination concerning them. This cannot be denied, without dethroning providence, as far as in us lies, and setting up fortune in its room. There is no alternative. I defy all the sophistry of man, to strike out a middle way. He that made all things, either directs all things he has made, or has consigned them over to chance. But, what is chance? a name for (k) nothing. Arminianism, therefore, is atheism.

(h) Grolius himself is forced to own, "quae vero permittuntur Scelera, non carent interim suo fructu," i. e. even the crimes which God permits the perpetration of, are not without their good consequences. (De Veritat. Rel. 1. 1. sect. 19.) A bold saying, this! But the sayer was an Arminian; and, therefore, we hear no outcry on the occasion.

(k) The late learned and indefatigable Mr. Chambers has in his valuable Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, under the word Chance, two or three observations, so pertinent and full to this remark, (viz; of chance being a name for nothing) that I cannot help transcribing them. "Our ignorance and precipitancy lead us to attribute effects to chance, which have a necessary and determinate cause.

"When we say a thing happens by chance, we really mean no more, than that its cause is unknown to us: and not, as some vainly imagine, that chance itself can be the cause of any thing. From this consideration, Dr. Bentley takes occasion to expose the folly of that old tenet. The World was made by Chance.

"The case of the painter, who, unable to express the foam at the mouth of the horse he had painted, threw his sponge in despair at the piece, and by chance did that which he could not before do by design, is an eminent instance of the force of chance. Yet, it is obvious, all we here mean by chance, is that the painter was not aware of the effect: or, that he did not throw the sponge with such a view. Not but that he actually did every thing necessary to produce the effect. Insomuch that, considering the direction wherein he threw the sponge, together with its form, and specific gravity; the colours wherewith it was smeared, and the distance of the hand from the piece; it was impossible, on the present system of things, that the effect should not follow."

I grant, that the twin doctrines of predestination and providence, are not without their difficulties. But the denial of them is attended with ten thousand times more and greater. The difficulties, on one side, are but as dust upon the balance: those on the other, as mountains in the scale. To imagine, that a being of boundless wisdom, power and goodness, would create the universe, and not sit at the helm afterwards, but turn us adrift, to shift for ourselves, like a huge vessel without a pilot; is a supposition, that subverts every notion of Deity, gives the lie to every page in the Bible, contradicts our daily experience, and insults the common reason of mankind.

Say'st thou, the course of nature governs all?

The course of nature is the art of God.

The whole creation, from the seraph down to the indivisible atom, ministers to the supreme will, and is under the special observation, government, and direction of the Omnipotent Mind - who sees all, himself unseen; who upholds all, himself unsustained; who guides all, himself guided by none; and who changes all, himself unchanged.

"But does not this doctrine tend to the establishment of fatality?” Supposing it even did, were it not better to be a Christian fatalist, than to avow a set of loose Arminian principles, which, if pushed to their natural extent, inevitably terminate in the rankest atheism? For, without predestination, there can be no providence; and, without providence, no God.

After all, what do you mean by fate? If you mean a regular succession of determined events, from the beginning to the end of time; an uninterrupted chain, without a single chasm; all depending on the eternal will and continued influence of the great first cause: if this is fate, it must be owned, that it and the scripture predestination are, at most, very thinly divided; or, rather, entirely coalesce. But if, by fate, is meant, either a constitution of things antecedent to the will of God; by which he himself was bound, ab origine; and which goes on, of itself, to multiply causes and effects, to the exclusion of the all-pervading power and unintermitting agency of an intelligent, perpetual, and particular providence; neither reason nor Christianity allows of any such fate as this. Fate, thus considered, is just such an extreme on one hand, as chance is, on the other. Both are alike unexistable.

It having not been unusual, with the Arminian writers, to tax us with adopting the fate of the ancient Stoics, I thought it might not be unacceptable to the English reader, to subjoin a brief view of what those philosophers generally held (for they were not all exactly of a mind) as to this particular. It will appear, to every competent reader, from what is there given, how far the doctrine of fate, as believed and taught by the Stoics, may be admitted, upon Christian principles. Having large materials by me, for such a work, it would have been very easy for me to have annexed a dissertation of my own, upon the subject; but I chose to confine myself to a small extract from the citations and remarks of the learned Lipsius; who seems, in his Physiologia Stoicorum, to have almost exhausted the substance of the argument, with a penetration and precision, which leave little room either for addition or amendment. In a cause, therefore, where the interest of truth is so eminently concerned, I would rather retain the ablest counsel, when it can be had, than venture to be, myself, her sole advocate.

For my own particular part, I frankly confess, that, as far as the coincidence of the Stoical fate, with the Bible predestination (l), holds good; I see no reason, why we should he ashamed to acknowledge it. St. Austin, and many other great and excellent men, have not scrupled to admit both the word [viz. the word fate] and the thing, properly understood (m). I am quite of Lipsius' mind: “et vero non aversabor Stoici nomen; sed Stoici Christiani:” I have no objection to being called a Stoic, so you but prefix the word Christian to it.

(l) “Now I am in some measure enlightened' (says the Rev. Mr. Newton of Olney), "I can easily perceive, that it is in the adjustment and concurrence of seemingly fortuitous circumstances, that the ruling power and wisdom of God are most evidently displayed in human affairs. How many such casual events may we remark in the history of Joseph, which had each a necessary influence in his ensuing promotion! If the Midianites had passed by a day sooner, or a day later; If they had sold him to any person, but Potiphar; If his mistress had been a better woman; If Pliaraoh's officers had not displeased their lord; or, if any, or all these things had fallen out in any other manner, or time, than they did; all that followed, had been prevented; the promises and purposes of God concerning Israel, their bondage, deliverances, polity, and settlement, must have failed: and as all these things tended to and centred in Christ, the promised Saviour; the desire of all nations would not have appeared. Mankind had been still in their sins, without hope; and the counsels of God's eternal love, in favour of sinners, defeated. Thus we may see a connection between Joseph's first dream, and the death of our Lord Christ, with all its glorious consequences. So strong, though secret, is the concatenation between the greatest and the smallest events! What a comfortable thought is this to a believer, to know, that, amidst all the various, interfering designs of men, the Lord has one constant design, which he cannot, will not, miss: namely, his own glory, in the complete salvation of his people! And that he is wise, and strong, and faithful, to make even those things, which seem contrary to this design, subservient to promote it!" See p. 96 et seq. of a most entertaining and instructive piece, entitled, 'An authentic Narrative of some remarkable and interesting Particulars in the Life of ********, in a Series of Letters. 1765.

(m) For a sample, the learned reader may peruse the judicious chapter, De Fato, in Archbishop. Bradwardin's immortal book De Causa Dei, Lib. i. cap. 28.

Here ended the first lesson: i. e. here ended the preface to the former edition of this tract. A tract, whose publication has raised the indignant quills of more than one Arminian porcupine.

Among those enraged porcupines, none has hitherto bristled up so fiercely, as the high and mighty Mr. John Wesley. He even dipt his quills in the ink of forgery, on the occasion; as Indians tinge the points of their arrows with poison, in hope of their doing more effectual execution. The quills, however, have reverberated, and with ample interest, on poor Mr. John's own pate. He felt the unexpected pain, and he has squeaked accordingly. I will not, here, add to the well-deserved chastisement he has received: which, from more than one quarter, has been such, as will probably keep him sore, while his surname begins with W. Let him, for his own sake, learn, as becomes a very sore man, to lie still. Rest may do him good: motion will but add to his fever, by irritating his humours already too peccant. Predestination is a stone, by rashly falling on which, he has more than once been lamentably broken. I wish him to take heed, in due season, lest that stone, at length, fall on him. For, notwithstanding all his delinquencies, I would still have him avoid, if possible, the catastrophe of being ground to powder.

Some Account of the Life of Jerom Zanchius

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE LIFE OF JEROM ZANCHIUS.

It has been asserted (o), that this great divine was born at Alzano, a town of Italy, situate in the valley of Seri, or Serio. Bat the learned John Sturmius, who was not only Zanchy's contemporary, but one of his most intimate friends, expressly affirms, in a (p) speech delivered on a public and important occasion, that he was nobili natus familia Bergomi; born of an illustrious family, at Bergamo, the capital of a little province, in the north-west of Italy: anciently, a part of Gallia Cispadana; but, A. D. 1428, made a parcel of the Venetian territory; as it still continues (q). I look upon Sturmius' testimony, as decisive: it being hardly credible, that he could mistake the native place of a colleague, whom he so highly valued, who was living at the very time, and with whom he had opportunity of conversing daily. Sturmius adds, that there was then remaining, at Bergamo, a fortress (built by some of Zanchy's ancestors) known by the name of The Zanchian Tower.

(o) Melch. Adam. Vit. Theolog. Exteror. p. 148. and Bayle's Hist. Dict, under the article Zanchius.

(p) Addressed, by Sturmius, to the Senate of Strasburg, March 20, 1562, and inserted, afterwards, into the Works of Zanchy, tom. vii. part 2. col. 408.

(q) Complete Syst. of Geog. vol. i. p. 843.

In this city was our author born, Feb. 2, 1516. At the time of his birth, part of the public service, then performing, was, A light to lighten the Gentiles, &c. And, by God's good providence the Reformation broke forth, the very next year, in Germany, under the auspices of Luther; and began to spread far and wide.

At the age of twelve years, Zanchy lost his father (r), who died of the plague, A. D. 1528. His (s) mother survived her husband but three years. Deprived thus, of both his parents, Zanchy resolved on a monastic life: and, accordingly, joined himself to a society of canons regular (t). He did this partly to improve himself in literature; and partly for the sake of being with some of his relations, who had, before, entered themselves of that house. Here he continued nineteen years: chiefly devoting his studies to Aristotle, the languages, and school-divinity.

(r) Francis Zanchius: who seems to have been a native of Venice; and was, by profession, a counsellor.

(s) Barbara; sister to Marc Antony Mutius, a nobleman of great worth and distinction.

(t) At Lucca. See the Biogr. Dict. vol. viii. p. 267, under the article Peter Martyr.

It was his happiness, to become acquainted, very early in life, with Celsus Maximian, count of Martinengo; who, from being, like Zanchy, a bigotted papist, by education; became, afterwards, a burning and shining light in the reformed church. Of our author's intimacy with this excellent nobleman, and its blessed effects, himself gives us the following account: "I left Italy for the gospel's sake; to which I was not a little animated, by the example of count Maximian, a learned and pious personage, and my most dear brother in the Lord. We had lived together, under one roof, and in a state of the strictest religious friendship, for the greater part of sixteen years; being, both of us, canons regular; of nearly the same age and standing; unisons in temper and disposition; pursuing the same course of studies; and, which was better still, joint hearers of Peter Martyr, when that apostolic man publicly expounded St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, and gave private lectures on the Psalms to us his monks.” From this memorable period, we are evidently to date the aera of Zanchy's awakening to a true sight and experimental sense of divine things. His friend the count, and the learned Tremellius, were also converted, about the same time, under the ministry of Martyr.

This happy change being effected, our authors studies began to run in a new channel. "The count," says he, and myself betook ourselves to a diligent reading of the holy scriptures: to which we joined a perusal of the best of the fathers, and, particularly, St. Austin. For some years, we went on thus, in private; and, in public we preached the gospel, as far as we were able, in its purity. The count, whose gifts and graces were abundantly superior to mine, preached with much greater enlargement of spirit, and freedom of utterance, than I could ever pretend to: it was, therefore, no wonder that he found himself constrained to fly his country, before I was. The territory of the Grisons was his immediate place of retreat: whence removing soon after, he settled at Geneva; where he commenced the first pastor of the protestant Italian church in that city. Having faithfully executed this sacred office, for some years, he, at length, comfortably fell asleep in Christ," A. D. 1558, after having, on his death-bed, commended the oversight of his flock to the great Calvin.

It was in the year 1550, that Peter Martyr himself was obliged to quit Italy; where he could no longer preach, nor even stay, with safety. Toward the latter end of the same year, eighteen of his disciples were forced to follow their master from their native land: of which number Zanchy was one. Being thus a refugee, or, as himself used to express it, “delivered from his Babylonish captivity;" he went into Grisony, where he continued upwards of eight months: and then to Geneva, where, after a stay of near a twelvemonth, he received an invitation to England (upon the recommendation of Peter Martyr, then in this kingdom), to fill a divinity professorship here; I suppose, at Oxford, where Martyr had been for some time settled. Zanchy embraced the offer, and began his journey: but was detained, on his way, by a counter invitation, to Strasburgh; where the divinity chair had been lately vacated by the death of the excellent Caspar Hedio.

Zanchy was fixed at Strasburgh A. D. 1553, and taught there, almost eleven years: but not without some uneasiness to himself, occasioned by the malicious opposition of several, who persecuted him for much the same reason that Cain hated righteous Abel, 1Jo 3:12. Matters, however, went on tolerably, during the life-time of Sturmius; who was then at the head of the university, and Zanchius' fast friend. At Strasburgh it was that he presented the famous declaration of his faith concerning predestination, final perseverance, and the Lord's Supper. He gave it in to the senate, October 22, 1562. Of this admirable performance (i. e. of that part of it which respects the first of these points) the reader may form some judgment, by the following translation.

In proportion as the old senators and divines died off, one by one, Zanchy's situation, at Strasburgh, grew more and more uncomfortable. Matters, at length, came to that height, that he was required to subscribe to the Augsburgh confession, on pain of losing his professorship. After mature deliberation he did indeed subscribe: but with this declared restriction, modo orthodoxe intelligatur. Notwithstanding the express limitation, with which he fettered his subscription, still this great and good man seems, for peace's sake, to have granted too much, concerning the manner of Christ's presence in the Lord's Supper: as appears, by the first of the three theses, maintained by him at this time: 1. Verum Christi corpus, pro nobis traditum; et verum ejus sanguinem, in peccatorum nostrorum remissionem effusum, in Coena vere manducari et bibi. Though the other two positions do effectually explain his meaning: 2. Verum id, non ore, et dentibus corporis, sed vera fide. 3. Ideoque, a solis fidelibus. I shall here beg leave to interpose one question, naturally arising from the subject. What good purpose do the imposition and the multiplication of unnecessary subscriptions to forms of human composition, tend to promote? It is a fence, far too low, to keep out men of little or no principle; and too high, sometimes, for men of real integrity to surmount. It often opens a door of ready admission, to the abandoned; who, ostrich like, care not what they swallow, so they can but make subscription a bridge to secular interest: and for the truly honest, it frequently either quite excludes them from a sphere of action, wherein they might be eminently useful; or obliges them to testify their assent, in such terms, and with such open, professed restrictions, as render subscription a mere nothing.

Not content with Zanchy's concessions, several of the Strasburgh bigots (y) persisted in raising a controversial dust. They tendered accusations against him, of errors in point of doctrine: particularly, for his supposed heterodoxy concerning the nature of the Lord's supper; his denial of the ubiquity of Christ's natural body, and his protesting against the lawfulness of images, &c. Nay, they even went so far, as to charge him with unsound opinions concerning predestination and the perseverance of the truly regenerate: so early did some of Luther's pretended disciples, after the death of that glorious reformer (and he had not been dead at this time above fifteen years), begin to fall off from the doctrines he taught, though they still had the effrontery to call themselves by his name!

(y) Particularly John Marbach, native of Schawben, or Swabia: a turbulent, unsteady theologist; pedantic, and abusive; a weak, but fiery disputer, who delighted to live in the smoke of contention and virulent debate. He was, among the rest of his good qualities, excessively loquacious: which made Luther say of him, on a very public occasion, Ori hujus Suevi nunquam araneae poerunt telas texere; "This talkative Swabian need not be afraid of spiders: for he keeps his lips in such constant motion, that no spider will ever be able to weave a cobweb on his mouth."

A grand occasion of this dissension, was a book concerning the eucharist, and in defence of consubstantiation, written by one Heshusius; a fierce, invidious preacher, who lavished the opprobrious names of heretic and atheist on all, without distinction, whose religious system went an hair's breadth above or below his own standard. In his preface, he grossly reflected (z) on the elector Palatine (Frederic IIL) Peter Martyr, Bullinger, Calvin, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and other great divines of that age. Zanchy, in mere respect to these venerable names, did in concert with the learned Sturmius, prevail with the magistrates of Strasburgh to prohibit the impression. Mr. Bayle is so candid, as to acknowledge, that "Zanchy caused this book to be suppressed, not on account of its doctrine, which he left to the judgment of the church; but for the calumnies of the preface." Zanchy was a zealous friend to religious liberty. He had too great a share of good sense and real religion, to pursue any measures, which simply tended, either to restrain men from declaring their principles with safety, or to shackle the human mind in its inquiries after truth. But he ardently wished to see the contending parties, of every denomination, carry on their debates with Christian meekness, modesty, and benevolence: and, where these amiable ingredients were wanting, he looked upon disputation as a malignant fever, endangering the health, peace, and safety of the church. When candour is lost, truth is rarely found. Zanchy's own ohservations subjoined below, exhibit a striking picture of that moderation, detachment from bigotry, and liberality of sentiment, which strongly characterize the Christian and the protestant.

Notwithstanding the precautions taken by the magistrates, Heshusius' incendiary piece stole through the press: and Zanchy's efforts, to stifle its publication, were looked upon, by the author's party, as an injury never to be forgiven. They left no methods unessayed, to remove him from his professorship. Many compromising expedients were proposed, by the moderate of both parties. The chapter of St. Thomas (of which Zanchy himself was a canon) met, to consider what course should be pursued. By them, it was referred to a select committee of thirteen. Zanchy offered to debate the agitated points, in a friendly and peaceable manner, with his opponents: which offer not being accepted, he made several journies to other churches and universities in different parts of Germany, and requested their opinions: which he brought with him in writing. Things, however, could not be settled, until the senate of Strasburgh convened an assembly, from other districts, consisting, partly of divines; and partly of persons learned in the laws. These referees, after hearing both sides, recurred to the old, fruitless expedient, of agreeing on certain articles, to which they advised each party to subscribe. Zanchy, desirous of laying these unchristian heats, and, at the same time, no less determined to preserve integrity and a good conscience; subscribed in these cautious terms: Hanc doctrinae formulam ut piam agnosco, ita etiam recipio: "I acknowledge this summary of doctrine to be pious, and so I admit it.” This condescension, on Zanchy's part, was not followed by those peaceful effects which were expected. The peace was too loosely patched up, to be of any long duration. His adversaries began to worry him afresh; and, just as measures were bringing on the carpet, for a new and more lasting compromise, our divine received an invitation to the church of Chiavenna, situate on the borders of Italy, and in the territory of the Grisons.

Augustin Mainard, pastor of that place, was lately dead; and a messenger arrived, to let Zanchy know, that he was chosen to succeed him. Having very slender prospect of peace at Strasburgh, he obtained the consent of the senate to resign his canonry of St. Thomas, and professorship of divinity. Whilst the above debates were depending, he had received separate invitations to Zurich, Geneva, Leyden, Heidelberg, Marpurg, and Lausanne: but until he had seen the result of things at Strasburgh, he did not judge any of these calls sufficiently providential to determine his removal.

He left Strasburgh (b), in November, 1563, and entered on his pastoral charge at Chiavenna, the beginning of January following. But he had not long been there, before the town was visited by a dismal pestilence, which, within the space of seven months, carried off twelve hundred of the inhabitants. Zanchy, however, continued to exercise his ministry, as long as there was an assembly to preach to. At length, the far greater part of the townsmen being swept away, he retreated for awhile, with his family, to an adjoining mountain. His own account is this (tom. vii. part 1. col. 36, 37): “Mainard, my pious predecessor, had often foretold the calamity, with which the town of Chiavenna has been since visited. All the inhabitants have been too well convinced, that that holy man of God did not prophesy at random. When the plague actually began to make havock, I enforced repentance and faith, while I had a place to preach in, or any congregation to hear. Many being dead, and others having fled the town (like shipwrecked mariners, who, to avoid instant destruction, make towards what coast they can); but very few remained; and of these remaining few, some were almost terrified to death, others were solely employed in taking care of the sick, and others in guarding the walls. They concurred in advising me to consult my own safety, by withdrawing for a time, until the indignation should be overpassed. I betook myself, therefore, with all my family, to a high mountain, not a vast way from the town, yet remote from human converse, and peculiarly formed for contemplation and unmolested retirement. Here we led a solitary life, for three months and a half. I devoted my time chiefly to meditation and writing; to prayer, and reading the scriptures. I never was happier in my own soul, nor enjoyed a better share of health." Afterwards, the plague beginning to abate, he quitted his retreat, and resumed the public exercise of his function.

(b) Attended by his servant, Frederic Syllaepurg, a native of Hesse; concerning whom Zanchy writes thus: “Discessi argentina, una cum fido, non tam famulo, quam amico et fratre, Frederico Syllaepurgio, Hesso; juvene bonorum literarum studioso, et sanae doctrinae amanti." A learned youth, and a lover of the gospel; whom I look upon, not so much in the light of a domestic, as of a faithful friend and a Christian brother. - Oper. T. vii. part 1. col. 36.

I hardly know which were most extraordinary; the good qualities of the servant; or the gratitude and humility of the master.

After four years' continuance at Chiavenna, Frederic III. elector palatine, prevailed with him to accept a divinity professorship, in the university of Heidelberg, upon the decease of the famous Zachary Ursin. In the beginning of the year 1568, Zanchy entered on his new situation: and, shortly after, opened the chair, with an admirable oration, De conservando in ecclesia puro puto verbo Dei. In the same year, he received his doctor's degree: the elector palatine and his son, prince Cassimir, honouring the ceremony with their presence.

He had not been long settled in the palatinate, when the elector (one of the most amiable and religious princes of that age) strongly solicited him to confirm and elucidate the doctrine of the Trinity, by writing a professed treatise on that most important subject; desiring him, moreover, to be very particular and explicit, in canvassing the arguments made use of by the Socinians; who had then fixed their head quarters in Poland and Transylvania, and were exhausting every artifice of sophistry and subterfuge to degrade the Son and Spirit of God to the level of mere creatures. Zanchy, accordingly, employed his leisure hours in obeying this pious command. His masterly and elaborate treatise De Dei natura; and that De tribus Elohim uno eodemque Jehova; were written on this occasion: treatises fraught with the most solid learning and argument; breathing at the same time, the amiable spirit of genuine candour and transparent piety. Among a variety of interesting particulars, he does not omit to inform his readers that Laelius Socinus, and other favourers of the Servetian hypothesis, had spared neither pains nor art, to pervert his judgment, and win him over to their party; but that, finding him inflexible, they had broke off all intercourse with him; and from artful adulators, commenced his determined enemies. An event this, which he even looked upon as a blessing, and for which he conceived himself bound to render his best thanks to the supreme head of the church, Christ Jesus. He retained his professorship at Heidelberg ten years: when, the elector Frederic being dead, he removed to Newstadt, the residence of prince John Casimir, count palatine. Here he chose to fix his station for the present, in preference to two invitations he had just received: one from the university of Leyden, then lately opened; the other from the protestant church at Antwerp. The conduct of divine providence, respecting Zanchy's frequent removals, is very observable. He was a lover of peace, and passionately fond of retirement. But he was too bright a luminary, to be always continued in one place. The salt of the earth must be sprinkled here and there, in order to be extensively useful, and to season the church throughout. Hence, God's faithful ministers, like the officers in a monarch's army, are quartered in various places; stationed and remanded hither and thither, as may most conduce to their master's service.

The church of Newstadt enjoyed our author upwards of seven years. Being, by that time, far advanced in life; and the infirmities of age coming on him very fast, he found himself obliged to cease from that constant series of labour, and intenseness of application, which he had so long, and so indefatigably undergone. He was, at his own request, dismissed from public service at Newstadt, by the elector Casimir; receiving at the same time, very substantial marks of respect and favour from that religious and generous prince.

From Newstadt he repaired once more to Heidelberg; chiefly with a view to see some of his old friends. This proved his last removal on earth; for shortly after, his soul, now ripe for glory, dropt the body, and ascended to heaven, about six in the morning of November 19, 1590, aet. 75. His remains were interred at Heidelberg, in the college chapel of St. Peter; where a small monumental stone was set up to his memory, with this inscription:

Hieronymi hic sunt condita ossa Zanchii,

Itali; exulantis, Christi amore, a patria:

Qui theologus quantus fuerit et philosophus,

Testantur hoc, libri editi ab eo plurimi;

Testantur hoc, quos voce docuit in scholis;

Quique audiere eum docentem ecclesias.

Nunc ergo, quamvis hinc migrarit spiritu,

Claro tamen nobis remansit nomine (c).

Decessit A. MDXC. Die 19. Novemb.

(c) Here Zanchy rests, whom love of truth constrain'd

To quit his own and seek a foreign land.

How good and great he was, how form'd to shine,

How fraught with science, human and divine;

Sufficient proof his num'rous writings give,

And those who heard him teach and saw him live.

Earth still enjoys him, tho' his soul is fled:

His name is deathless, tho' his dust is dead.

I cannot help lamenting, that no more is to be collected, concerning this incomparable man, than a few outlines of his life; comprising little else but a dry detail of dates and removals.

As to his person, I can find no description of it, except from some very old and scarce prints, most of which were struck from engravings on wood. These represent him, as extremely corpulent, even to unwieldiness. And yet, from the astonishing extent, profoundness, and exquisite activity, of his learning, judgment, and genius, one might well nigh be induced to imagine, that he consisted entirely of soul, without any dead weight of body at all. For, of his mind, his writings presents us with the loveliest image. He seems to have been possessed, and in a very superior degree, of those graces, virtues, and abilities, which ennoble and exalt human nature to the highest elevation it is capable of below. His clear insight into the truths of the gospel, is wonderful: especially, considering that the church of God was but just emerging from the long and dismal night of popish darkness; and himself, previous to his conversion, as deeply plunged in the shades as any. It is a blessing, which but few are favoured with, to step, almost at once, out of midnight, into meridian day. He was thoroughly experienced in the divine life of the soul; and a happy subject of that internal kingdom of God, which lies in righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. This enabled him to sustain that impetus of opposition, which he almost constantly met with. Few persons have ordinarily borne a larger share of the cross; and, perhaps, none ever sustained it better. In him were happily centred all the meek benevolence of charity, and all the adamantine firmness of intrepidity; qualities, alas! not constantly united in men of orthodoxy and learning.

He was intimately conversant with the writings of the fathers, and of the philosophers of that and the preceding times. His modesty and humility were singular. No man was ever more studious to preserve peace in the church of Christ, nor more highly relished the pleasures of learned and religious friendship. For some time before his decease, it pleased God to deprive him of his eye-sight: for this I take to be the moaning of the excellent Melchior Adamus, (d) to whom I am indebted for much of the preceding account. His works, which, with his letters, and some other small pieces included, are divided into nine tomes, were collected and published by his executors, some years after his death, and are usually bound together in 3 vols, folio. He was twice married, and had several children; none of which, so far as I can find, appear to have survived him.

(d) His words concerning Zanchy, are: “In senecta, quae nunquam sola venit, fato Isaaci obnoxius.”

He is said, by Mr. Leigh (e) to have been one "of the most scholastical among the protestants:" which however, may be questioned; his style, and manner of treating an argument, being rather plain and solid, than subtile and metaphysical. If scholism be an excellence in a writer, it is certain that the elder Spanhemius, and the great Francis Turretin, have since, much exceeded Zanchy in that respect. Our learned countryman, Mr. Matthew Poole, terms him (f) Theologus non e multis; cujus commentaria, singulari eruditione atque acumine composita, auctorem suum doctissimum referunt. “A divine of the first class; whose expositions, written with extraordinary learning and ability, prove him to have been a most accomplished scholar." Even Mr. Bayle, who never seems to have been better pleased, than when he could pick a hole in the gown of an ecclesiastic, though himself was the son of one, yet allows our author to have been "one of the most celebrated protestant divines, and that few ministers have been so moderate as he."

(e) Account of religious and learned men, p. 370.

(f) Synops. Criticor, vol. iv. pars 2. in Praeloqu. ad Lect.

Nor must I omit the honour put upon him, by our university of Cambridge, within five years after his death. One William Barrett, (g) fellow of Gonville and Caius college, ventured, April 29, 1595, to preach an Arminian sermon, in the face of the university, at St. Mary's. I say ventured; for it was a bold and dangerous attempt, at that time, when the church of England was in her purity, for any man to propagate Arminianism; (h) and indeed, Barrett himself paid dear for his innovating rashness; which ended in his ruin. The university were so highly offended, both at his presumption, in daring to avow his novel, heterodox opinions; and for mentioning some great divines, among whom Zanchy was one, in terms of the highest rancor and disrespect; that he was enjoined to make a public recantation in that very pulpit, whence he had so lately vented his errors. This he did, the 5th of May following. Part of his recantation ran (i) thus: “Lastly, I rashly uttered these words against John Calvin (a person, than whom none has deserved better of the church), namely, that he had presumed to exalt himself above the Son of God; in saying which, I acknowledge that I greatly injured that most learned and truly pious man; and I do most humbly intreat, that you will all forgive this my rashness. I also threw out, in a most rancorous manner, some reflections against P. Martyr, Theodore Beza, Jerom Zanchy, Francis Junius, and others of the same religion, who were the lights and ornaments of our church, calling them by the malicious name of Calvinists, and branding them with other reproachful terms. I did wrong in assailing the reputation of these persons, and in endeavouring to lessen the estimation in which they are held, and in dissuading any from reading their most learned works, seeing our church holds these divines in deserved reverence."

(g) See Fuller's Hist. of Cambridge, p. 150.

(h) As every reader may not have a clear, determinate idea of what Arminianism precisely is; it may to such be satisfactory to know, that it consists chiefly, of five particulars. (1.) The Arminians will not allow election to be an eternal, peculiar, unconditional, and irreversible act of God. (2.) They assert, that Christ died, equally and indiscriminately, for every individual of mankind; for them that perish, no less than for them that are saved. (3.) That saving grace is tendered to the acceptance of every man, which he may, or may not receive, just as he pleases. Consequently, (4.) That the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit is not invincible; but is suspended, for its efficacy on the will of man. (5.) That saving grace is not an abiding principle; but that those who are loved of God, ransomed by Christ, and born again of the Spirit, may (let God wish and strive ever so much to the contrary) throw all away, and perish eternally at last.

To these, many Arminians tack a variety of errors beside. But the above may be considered as a general skeleton of the leading mistakes which characterize the sect.

(i) Postremo, temere haec verba effudi adversus Johannem Calvinum, virum de ecclesia Christi optime meritum; Eum nimirum ausum fuisse sese attolere supra altissimi et omnipotentis Dei vere altissimum et omnipotentem Filium. Quibus verbis me viro doctissimo, vereque pio, magnam injuriam fecisse fateor: temeritatemque hanc meam ut omnes condonetis, humillime precor. Turn etiam quod nonnulla adversus P. Martyrem, Theodorum Bezam, Hieronymum Zanchium, Franciscum Junium, et caeteros ejusdem religionis, ecclesiae nostrae lumina et ornamenta, acerbissime effuderim; eos odioso nomine appellans Calvinistas, et aliis verbis ignominae gravissimam infamiae notam inurens. Quos quia ecclesia nostra merito reveretur, non erat aequum, et ego eorum famam violarem, aut existimationem aliqua ratione imminuerem; aut aliquos e nostris dehortarer, ne eorum doctissima Scripta legerent. - Strype's Life of Whitgift. Appendix, p. 186.

I cannot help observing one more particular, respecting this famous recantation; wherein the recanter thus expressed himself: Secundo, Petri fidem deficere non potuisse, asserui; at aliorum posse, &c. i.e. "I asserted that Peter's faith, indeed, could not fail; but that the faith of other believers might; whereas, now being by Christ's own word, brought to a better and sounder mind, I acknowledge that Christ prays for the faith of each believer in particular; and that, by the efficacy of Christ's prayer, all true believers are so supported, that their faith cannot fail." Barrett asserted, rank Arminian as he was, that Peter's faith did not actually fail. But we have had a recent instance of an Arminian preacher, who avers, without ceremony, that Peter's faith did fail. The passage, verbatim, without adding a jot, or diminishing a tittle, stands thus: "Peter's faith failed, though Christ himself prayed it might not." See a sermon, on 1Co 9:27 preached before the university of Oxford, Feb. 19, 1769. by John Allen, M. A. Vice-principal of Magdalen Hall, p.17.

This is Arminianism double distilled. The common, simple Arminianism, that served Barrett, and Laud, and Heylin, will not do now, for our more enlightened divines. Whether Peter's faith failed or not; that Mr. Allen's modesty has failed him, is, I believe, what nobody can deny.

I would hope, as our articles of religion have not been changed, but stand just as they did at that very time, that the church of England, in the year 1769, still considers the above great men (and Zanchy among the rest) as some of her ancient lights and ornaments: and that she holds them, and their writings, in the same deserved reverence, as did the church of England in the year 1595.

Observations on the Divine Attributes;...

OBSERVATIONS ON THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES;

NECESSARY TO BE PREMISED, IN ORDER TO OUR BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION.

Although the great and ever blessed God is a being absolutely simple, and infinitely remote from all shadow of composition; he is, nevertheless, in condescension to our weak and contracted faculties, represented in scripture, as possessed of divers properties, or attributes, which, though seemingly different from his essence, are, in reality, essential to him, and constitutive of his very nature.

Of these attributes, those on which we shall now particulary descant (as being more immediately concerned in the ensuing subject), are the following ones; 1. His eternal wisdom and foreknowledge. 2. The absolute freedom and liberty of his will. 3. The perpetuity and unchangeableness both of himself and his decrees. 4. His omnipotence. 5. His justice. 6. His mercy.

Without an explication of these, the doctrine of predestination cannot be so well understood: we shall, therefore, brielly consider them, by way of preliminary to the main subject.

188 Observations on the Divine Attributes.

1. With respect to the divine wisdom and foreknowledge, I shall lay down the following positions.

Pos. 1. God is, and always was, so perfectly wise, that nothing ever did, or does, or can, elude his knowledge. He knew, from all eternity, not only what he himself intended to do, but also what he would incline and permit others to do. Ac 15:18. "Known unto God are all his works, ap' aiwnov, from eternity."

Pos. 2. Consequently, God knows nothing now, nor will know any thing hereafter, which he did not know and foresee from everlasting: his foreknowledge being co-eternal with himself, and extending to every thing that is or shall be done. Heb 4:13. All things, which comprises past, present, and future, are naked and open to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Pos. 3. This foreknowledge of God is not conjectural and uncertain, (for then it would not be foreknowledge) but most sure and infallible: so that whatever he foreknows to be future, shall necessarily and undoubtedly come to pass. For, his knowledge can be no more frustrated, or his wisdom be deceived, than he can cease to be God. Nay, could either of these be the case, he actually would cease to be God; all mistake and disappointment being absolutely incompatible with the divine nature.

Pos. 4. The influence, which the divine foreknowledge has on the certain futurition of the things foreknown, does not render the intervention of second causes needless, nor destroy the nature of the things themselves.

My meaning is, that the prescience of God does not lay any coercive necessity on the wills of beings naturally free. For instance, man, even in his fallen state, is endued with a natural freedom of will; yet be acts, from the first to the last moment of his life, in absolute subserviency (though, perhaps, he does not know it, nor design it) to the purposes and decrees of God concerning him; notwithstanding which he is sensible of no compulsion, but acts as freely and voluntarily, as if he was sui juris, subject to no control, and absolutely lord of himself. This made Luther, after he had shown how all things necessary and inevitably come to pass, in consequence of the sovereign will and infallible foreknowledge of God, say, that “We should carefully distinguish between a necessity of infallibility, and a necessity of co-action; since both good and evil men, though by their actions they fulfil the decree and appointment of God, yet are not forcibly constrained to do any thing, but act willingly.”

Pos. 5. God's foreknowledge, taken abstractedly, is not the sole cause of beings and events; but his will and foreknowledge together. Hence we find, Ac 2:23, that his determinate counsel and foreknowledge act in concert; the latter resulting from, and being founded on the former.

We pass on,

II. To consider the will of God: with regard to which we assert as follows:

Pos. 1. The Deity is possessed not only of infinite knowledge, but likewise of absolute liberty of will: so that whatever he does, or permits to be done, he does and permits freely, and of his own good pleasure.

Consequently, it is his free pleasure to permit sin; since, without his permission, neither men nor devils can do any thing. Now, to permit, is, at least, the same as not to hinder, though it be in our power to hinder if we please: and this permission, or non-hinderance, is certainly an act of the divine will. Hence Austin says, "Those things, which, seemingly, thwart the divine will, are, nevertheless, agreeable to it; for, if God did not permit them, they could not be done: and whatever God permits, he permits freely and willingly. He does nothing, neither suffers any thing to he done, against his own will." And Luther observes, that “God permitted Adam to fall into sin, because he willed that he should so fall."

Pos. 2. Although the will of God, considered in itself, is simply one and the same; yet, in condescension to the present capacities of men, the divine will is very properly distinguished into secret and revealed. Thus it was his revealed will, that Pharaoh should let the Israelites go; that Abraham should sacrifice his son; and that Peter should not deny Christ: but, as was proved by the event, it was his secret will that Pharaoh should not let Israel go, Ex 4:21, that Abraham should not sacrifice Isaac, Ge 22:12, and that Peter should deny his Lord, Mt 26:34.

Pos. 3. The will of God, respecting the salvation and condemnation of men, is never contrary to itself: he immutably wills the salvation of the elect, and vice versa: nor can he ever vary or deviate from his own will in any instance whatever, so as that should be done, which he willeth not; or that not be brought to pass, which he willeth. Isa 46:10. My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. - Ps 33:11. The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, and the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Job 23:13-14. He is in one mind, who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doth; for he performeth the thing that is appointed for me; and many such things are with him. Eph 1:11. Being predestinated, according to the purpose of him, who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.

Thus, for instance, Hophni and Phineas hearkened not to the voice of their father, who reproved them for their wickedness, because the Lord would slay them, 1Sa 2:25. And Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not receive the peaceable message sent him by Moses, because the Lord God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into the hand of Israel, De 2:26,30. Thus also, to add no more, we find that there have been, and ever will be some, whose eyes God blindeth, and whose hearts he hardeneth, i. e. whom God permits to continue blind and hardened, on purpose to prevent their seeing with their eyes, and understanding with their hearts, and to hinder their conversion to God, and spiritual healing by him, Isa 6:9. Joh 12:39-40.

Pos. 4. Because God's will of precept may, in some instances, appear to thwart his will of determination; it does not follow, either, 1. That he mocks his creatures, or, 2. That they are excusable for neglecting to observe his will of command.

(1.) He does not hereby mock his creatures; for, if men do not believe his word, nor observe his precepts, the fault is not in him, but in themselves: their unbelief and disobedience are not owing to any ill infused into them by God, but to the vitiosity of their depraved nature, and the perverseness of their own wills. Now, if God invited all men to come to him, and then shut the door of mercy against any who were desirous of entering: his invitation would be a mockery, and unworthy of himself: but we insist on it, that he does not invite all men to come to him in a saving way; and that every individual person, who is, through his gracious influence on his heart, made willing to come to him, shall, sooner or later, be surely saved by him, and that with an everlasting salvation. (2.) Man is not excusable for neglecting God's will of command. Pharaoh was faulty, and therefore justly punishable, for not obeying God's revealed will, though God's secret will rendered that obedience impossible. Abraham would have committed sin, had he refused to sacrifice Isaac; and, in looking to God's secret will, would have acted counter to his revealed one. So Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the reprobate Jews, were justly condemned for putting Christ to death, inasmuch as it was a most notorious breach of God's revealed will. "Thou shalt do no murder;" yet, in slaying the Messiah, they did no more than God's hand and his counsel, i. e. his secret, ordaining will, determined before should be done. Ac 4:27-28. and Judas is justly punished for perfidiously and wickedly betraying Christ, though his perfidy and wickedness were (but not with his design) subservient to the accomplishment of the decree and word of God.

The brief of the matter is this; secret things belong to God, and those that are revealed belong to us: therefore, when we meet with a plain precept, we should simply endeavour to obey it, without tarrying to enquire into God's hidden purpose. Venerable Bucer, after taking notice how God hardened Pharaoh's heart, and making some observations on the apostle's simile of a potter and his clay; adds that, "though God has at least the same right over his creatures, and is at liberty to make them what he will, and direct them to the end that pleaseth himself, according to his sovereign and secret determination; yet it by no means follows, that they do not act freely and spontaneously, or that the evil they commit is to be charged on God."

Pos. 5. God's hidden will is peremptory and absolute; and therefore cannot be hindered from taking effect.

God's will is nothing else than God himself willing: consequently, it is omnipotent and unfrustrable. Hence we find it termed, by Austin and the schoolmen, voluntas omnipotentissima; because, whatever God wills, cannot fail of being effected. This made Austin say, "Evil men do many things contrary to God's revealed will; but so great is his wisdom, and so inviolable his truth, that he directs all things into those channels which he foreknew." And again, “No free-will of the creature can resist the will of God; for man cannot so will, or nill, as to obstruct the divine determination, or overcome the divine power." Once more, "It cannot be questioned, but God does all things, and ever did, according to his own purpose: the human will cannot resist him, so as to make him do more or less than it is his pleasure to do; quandoquidem etiam de ipsis hominum voluntatibus quod vult facit, since he does what he pleases even with the wills of men."

Pos. 6. Whatever comes to pass, comes to pass by virtue of this absolute, omnipotent will of God, which is the primary and supreme cause of all things. Re 9:11. Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Ps 115:3. Our God is in the heavens; he hath done whatsoever he pleased. Da 4:35. He doth according to his will, in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, what dost thou? Ps 135:6. Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places. Mt 10:29. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father. To all which Austin subscribes, when he says, “Nothing is done, but what the Almighty wills should be done, either efficiently or permissively." As does Luther, whose words are these, “This therefore must stand; to wit, the unsearchable will of God, without which nothing exists or acts." And again, c. 160. "God would not be such, if he was not almighty, and if any thing could be done without him." And elsewhere, c. 158, he quotes these words of Erasmus: "Supposing there was an earthly prince, who could do whatever he would, and none were able to resist him; we might safely say of such an one, that he would certainly fulfil his own desire: in like manner, the will of God, which is the first cause of all things, should seem to lay a kind of necessity upon our wills." This Luther approves of and subjoins, "Thanks be to God, for this orthodox passage in Erasmus' discourse! but, if this be true, what becomes of his doctrine of free-will, which he, at other times, so strenuously contends for?"

Pos. 7. The will of God is so the cause of all things, as to be itself, without cause; for nothing can be the cause of that, which is the cause of every thing.

So that the divine will is the ne plus ultra of all our enquiries: when we ascend to that, we can go no farther. Hence, we find every matter resolved ultimately into the mere sovereign pleasure of God, as the spring and occasion of whatsoever is done in heaven and earth. Mt 11:25. Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. Lu 12:32. It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom Mt 8:3. I will: be thou clean. Mr 3:13. He went up into a mountain, and called unto him whom he would. Jas 1:18. Of his own will begat he us, with the word of truth. Joh 1:13. Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Ro 9:15,18. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion, on whom I will have compassion. Therefore, he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. And no wonder that the will of God should be the main spring that sets all inferior wheels in motion, and should likewise be the rule by which he goes in all his dealings with his creatures; since nothing out of God, i. e. exterior to himself, can possibly induce him to will or nill one thing, rather than another. Deny this, and you at one stroke, destroy his immutability and independency: since he can never be independent, who acts pro re nata, as emergency requires, and whose will is suspended on that of others; nor unchangeable, whose purposes vary and take all shapes, according as the persons or things vary, who are the objects of those purposes. The only reason, then, that can be assigned, why the Deity does this, or omits that, is, because it is his own free pleasure. Luther, in answer to that question, “Whence it was, that Adam was permitted to fall, and corrupt his whole posterity; when God could have prevented his falling," &c. says, "God is a being, whose will acknowledges no cause: neither is it for us to prescribe rules to his sovereign pleasure, or call him to account for what he does. He has neither superior nor equal: and his will is the rule of all things. He did not therefore will such and such things, because they were in themselves right, and he was bound to will them; but they are therefore equitable and right, because he wills them. The will of man, indeed, may be influenced and moved; but God's will never can. To assert the contrary, is to undeify him." Bucer likewise observes, "God has no other motive for what he does, than ipsa voluntas, his own mere will; which will is so far from being unrighteous, that it is justice itself."

Pos. 8. Since, as was lately observed, the determining will of God, being omnipotent, cannot be obstructed or made void; it follows, that he never did, nor does he now, will that every individual of mankind should be saved.

If this was his will, not one single soul could ever be lost; (for who hath resisted his will?) and he would surely afford all men those effectual means of salvation, without which it cannot be had. Now, God could afford these means as easily to all mankind, as to some only: but experience proves that he does not; and the reason is equally plain, namely, that he will not; for whatsoever the Lord pleaseth, that does he in heaven and on earth. It is said indeed, by the apostle, that God would have all men saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth; i. e. as Austin, consistently with other scriptures, explains the passage, “God will save some out of the whole race of mankind,” that is, persons of all nations, kindreds and tongues. Nay, he will save all men, i. e. as the same father observes, "every kind of men, or men of every kind,” namely, the whole election of grace, be they bond or free, noble or ignoble, rich or poor, male or female. Add to this, that it evidently militates against the majesty, omnipotence, and supremacy of God, to suppose that he can either will any thing in vain, or that any thing can take effect against his will: therefore Bucer observes, very rightly, ad Ro 9. “God doth not will the salvation of reprobates; seeing he hath not chosen them, neither created them to that end." Consonant to which are those words of Luther, "This mightily offends our rational nature, that God should, of his own mere, unbiased will, leave some men to themselves, harden them, and then condemn them: but he has given abundant demonstration, and does continually, that this is really the case; namely, that the sole cause why some are saved, and others perish, proceeds from his willing the salvation of the former, and the perdition of the latter, according to that of Paul, He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.”

Pos. 9. As God doth not will that each individual of mankind should be saved; so neither did he will that Christ should properly and immediately die for each individual of mankind: whence it follows, that, though the blood of Christ, from its own intrinsic dignity, was sufficient for the redemption of all men; yet, in consequence of his Father's appointment, he shed it intentionally, and therefore effectually and immediately, for the elect only.

This is self-evident. God, as we have before proved, wills not the salvation of every man: but he gave his Son to die for them whose salvation he willed; therefore his Son did not die for every man. All those for whom Christ died, are saved; and the divine justice indispensably requires, that to them the benefits of his death should be imparted: but only the elect are saved; they only partake of those benefits; consequently, for them only he died and intercedes. The apostle, Ro 8 asks, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies, i. e. his elect, exclusively of others: who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died for them, exclusively of others. The plain meaning of the passage is, that those whom God justifies, and for whom Christ died (justification and redemption being of exactly the same extent), cannot be condemned. These privileges are expressly restrained to the elect: therefore, God justifies and Christ died for them alone.

In the same chapter, Paul asks; “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, [i. e. for all us elect persons] how shall he not with him, also freely give us all things? i. e. salvation, and all things necessary to it. Now, it is certain, that these are not given to every individual; and yet if Paul says true, they are given to all those for whom Christ was delivered to death: consequently, he was not delivered to death for every individual. To the same purpose St. Austin argues, in Johan. tract. 45. col. 335. Hence that saying of Ambrose, "si non credis, non tibi passus est, i. e. if you are an unbeliever, Christ did not die for you.” Meaning, that whoever is left under the power of final unbelief, is thereby evidenced to be one of those for whom Christ did not die: but that all, for whom he suffered, shall be in this life, sooner or later, endued with faith. The church of Smyrna, in their letter to the dioceses of Pontus, insist every where on the doctrine of special redemption. Bucer, in all parts of his works, observes, that "Christ died restrictively for the elect only; but for them universally."

Pos. 10. From what has been laid down, it follows, that Austin, Luther, Bucer, the scholastic divines, and other learned writers, are not to be blamed for asserting that "God may, in some sense, be said to will the being and commission of sin." For, was this contrary to his determining will of permission, either he would not be omnipotent, or sin could have no place in the world: but he is omnipotent, and sin has place in the world; which it could not have, if God willed otherwise; for who hath resisted his will? Ro 9. No one can deny that God permits sin; but he neither permits it ignorantly nor unwillingly; therefore, knowingly and willingly. Vid. Aust. Enchir. c. 96. Luther stedfastly maintains this in his book De Serv. Arbitr. and Bucer in Ro 1. However, it should be carefully noticed, (1.) That God's permission of sin does not arise from his taking delight in it: on the contrary, sin, as sin, is the abominable thing that his soul hateth: and his efficacious permission of it is for wise and good purposes. Whence that observation of Austin, "God, who is no less omnipotent, than he is supremely and perfectly holy, would never have permitted evil to enter among his works, but in order that he might do good even with that evil," i. e. overrule it for good in the end. (2.) That God's free and voluntary permission of sin lays no man under any forcible or compulsive necessity of committing it: consequently, the Deity can by no means be termed the author of moral evil; to which he is not, in the proper sense of the word accessary, but only remotely or negatively so, inasmuch as he could, if he pleased, absolutely prevent it.

We should, therefore, be careful not to give up the omnipotence of God, under a pretence of exalting his holiness: he is infinite in both, and therefore neither should be set aside or obscured. To say that God absolutely nills the being and commission of sin, while experience convinces us that sin is acted every day, is to represent the Deity as a weak, impotent being, who would fain have things go otherwise than they do, but cannot accomplish his desire. On the other hand, to say that he willeth sin, doth not in the least detract from the holiness and rectitude of his nature; because, whatever God wills, as well as whatever he does, cannot be eventually evil: materially evil it may be; but, as was just said, it must ultimately be directed to some wise and just end, otherwise he could not will it: for his will is righteous and good, and the sole rule of right and wrong, as is often observed by Austin, Luther, and others.

Pos. 11. In consequence of God's immutable will and infallible foreknowledge, whatever things come to pass, come to pass necessarily; though, with respect to second causes, and us men, many things are contingent: i. e. unexpected, and seemingly accidental.

That this was the doctrine of Luther, none can deny, who are in any measure acquainted with his works: particularly with his treatise De Servo Arbitrio, or free-will a slave: the main drift of which book is, to prove, that the will of man is by nature enslaved to evil only, and because it is fond of that slavery, is therefore said to be free. Among other matters, he proves there, that "whatever man does, he does necessarily, though not with any sensible compulsion: and that we can only do what God from eternity willed and foreknew we should; which will of God must be effectual, and his foresight must be certain.” Hence we find him saying, " It is most necessary and salutary for a Christian to be assured, that God foreknows nothing uncertainly; but that he determines, and foresees, and acts, in all things, according to his own eternal, immutable, and infallible will; adding, “Hereby, as with a thunderbolt, is man's free-will thrown down and destroyed." A little after, he shows in what sense he took the word necessity; "by it," says he, "I do not mean that the will suffers any forcible constraint or co-action; but the infallible accomplishment of those things, which the immutable God decreed and foreknew concerning us." He goes on: "Neither the divine nor human will does any thing by constraint: but, whatever man does, be it good or bad, he does with as much appetite and willingness, as if his will was really free. But, after all, the will of God is certain and unalterable, and is the governess of ours." Exactly consonant to all which are those words of Luther's friend and fellow-labourer, Melancthon: (f) “All things turn out according to divine predestination; not only the works we do outwardly, but even the thoughts we think inwardly:" adding, in the same place, "There is no such thing as chance, or fortune; nor is there a readier way to gain the fear of God, and to put our whole trust in him, than to be thoroughly versed in the doctrine of predestination." I could cite, to the same purpose, Austin, Aquinas, and many other learned men; but, for brevity's sake, forbear. That this is the doctrine of scripture, every adept in those sacred books cannot but acknowledge. - See, particularly, Ps 135:6. Mt 10:29. Pr 16:1. Mt 26:54. Lu 22:22. Ac 4:28. Eph 1:11. Isa 46:10.

(f) In Eph 1.

Pos. 12. As God knows nothing now, which he did not know from all eternity: so he wills nothing now, which he did not will from everlasting.

This position needs no explanation nor enforcement: it being self-evident, that, if any thing can accede to God de novo, i. e. if he can at any time be wiser than he always was, or will that at one time, which he did not will from all eternity; these dreadful consequences must ensue. (1.) That the knowledge of God is not perfect, since what is absolutely perfect, non recipit magis et minus, cannot admit either of addition, or detraction. If I add to any thing, it is from a supposal that that thing was not complete before; if I detract from it, it is supposed that that detraction renders it less perfect than it was. But the knowledge of God, being infinitely perfect, cannot, consistently with that perfection, be either increased or lessened. (2.) That the will of God is fluctuating, mutable, and unsteady; consequently, that God himself is so, his will coinciding with his essence, contrary to the avowed assurances of scripture, and the strongest dictates of reason, as we shall presently show, when we come to treat of the divine immutability.

Pos. 13. The absolute will of God is the original spring and efficient cause of his people's salvation.

I say, the original and efficient; for, sensu complexo, there are other intermediate causes of their salvation, which, however, all result from, and are subservient to, this primary one, the will of God. Such are his everlasting choice of them to eternal life; the eternal covenant of grace, entered into by the Trinity, in behalf of the elect; the incarnation, obedience, death and intercession of Christ for them; all which are so many links in the great chain of causes: and not one of these can be taken away, without marring and subverting the whole gospel plan of salvation by Jesus Christ. We see, then, that the free, unbiased, sovereign will of God is the root of this tree of life, which bears so many glorious branches, and yields such salutary fruits: he therefore loved the elect, and ordained them to life, because he would; according to that of the apostle, having predestinated us according to the good pleasure of his will; Eph 1:5. Then, next after God's covenant for his people, and promises to them, comes in the infinite merit of Christ's righteousness and atonement: for we were chosen to salvation in him, as members of his mystic body; and through him, as our surety and substitute, by whose vicarious obedience to the moral law, and submission to its curse and penalty, all we, whose names are in the book of life, should never incur the divine hatred, or be punished for our sins, but continue to eternity, as we were from eternity, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. But still, the divine grace and favour (and God extends these to whom he will) must be considered as what gave birth to the glorious scheme of redemption; according to what our Lord himself teaches us, Joh 3:16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, &c. and that of the apostle, 1Jo 4:9. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that he sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

Pos. 14. Since this absolute will of God is both immutable and omnipotent; we infer, that the salvation of every one of the elect is most infallibly certain, and can by no means be prevented. This necessarily follows from what we have already asserted and proved, concerning the divine will; which as it cannot be disappointed or made void, must undoubtedly secure the salvation of all whom God wills should be saved.

From the whole of what has been delivered under this second head, I would observe, that the genuine tendency of these truths is, not to make men indolent and careless, or lull them to sleep on the lap of presumption and carnal security; but, (1.) To fortify the people of Christ against the attacks of unbelief, and the insults of their spiritual enemies. And what is so fit, to guard them against these, as the comfortable persuasion of God's unalterable will to save them, and of their unalienable interest in the sure mercies of David? (2.) To withdraw them entirely from all dependance whether on themselves, or any creature whatever; to make them renounce their own righteousness, no less than their sins, in point of reliance, and to acquiesce sweetly and safely in the certain perpetuity of his rich favour. (3.) To excite them, from a trust of his good-will toward them, to love that God, who hath given such great and numberless proofs of his love to men; and in all their thoughts, words, and works, to aim, as much as possible, at his honour and glory. We were to consider,

III. The unchangeableness, which is essential to himself and his decrees.

Pos. 1. God is essentially unchangeable in himself. Were he otherwise, he would be confessedly imperfect; since whoever changes, must change either for the better, or for the worse: whatever alteration any being undergoes, that being must, ipso facto, either become more excellent than it was, or lose some of the excellency which it had. But neither of these can be the case with the Deity: he cannot change for the better, for that would necessarily imply that he was not perfectly good before; he cannot change for the worse, for then he could not be perfectly good after that change. Ergo, God is unchangeable. And this is the uniform voice of scripture. Mal 3:6. I am the Lord, I change not. Jas 1:17. With him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Ps 102:27. Thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Pos. 2. God is likewise absolutely unchangeable with regard to his purposes and promises. Nu 23:19. God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or, hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? 1Sa 15:29. The strength of Israel will not lie, nor repent; for he is not a man that he should repent. Job 23:13. He is in one mind, and who can turn him? Eze 24:14. I, the Lord, have spoken it, it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent. Ro 11:29. The gifts and calling of God are without repentance. 2Ti 2:13. He abideth faithful, and cannot deny himself.

By the purpose, or decree of God, we mean his determinate counsel, whereby he did from all eternity pre-ordain whatever he should do, or would permit to be done in time. In particular, it signifies his everlasting appointment of some men to life, and of others to death: which appointment flows entirely from his own free and sovereign will. Ro 9. The children not yet being born, neither 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, the elder shall serve the younger: as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The apostle, then, in the very next words, anticipates an objection, which, he foresaw, men of corrupt minds would make to this: What shall we say, then? is there unrighteousness with God? which he answers with, God forbid! and resolves the whole of God's procedure with his creatures into his own sovereign and independent will: for he said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

We assert, that the decrees of God are not only immutable as to himself, it being inconsistent with his nature to alter in his purposes, or change his mind; but that they are immutable likewise with respect to the objects of those decrees: so that, whatsoever God hath determined, concerning every individual person or thing, shall surely and infallibly be accomplished in and upon them. Hence we find, that he actually sheweth mercy on whom he decreed to show mercy, and hardeneth whom he resolved to harden, Ro 9:18. For his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure, Isa 46:10. Consequently, his eternal predestination of men and things must be immutable as himself, and, so far from being reversible, can never admit of the least variation.

Pos. 3. "Although," to use the words of Gregory, "God never swerves from his decree, yet he often varies in his declarations:" that is always sure and immoveable; these are sometimes seemingly discordant. So, when he gave sentence against the Ninevites by Jonah, saying, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown, the meaning of the words is, not that God absolutely intended, at the end of that space, to destroy the city, but, that, should God deal with those people according to their deserts, they would be totally extirpated from the earth: and should be so extirpated, unless they repented speedily.

Likewise, when he told king Hezekiah, by the prophet Isaiah, Set thine house in order, for thou shalt die, and not live; the meaning was, that, with respect to second causes, and considering the king's bad state of health and emaciated constitution, he could not, humanly speaking, live much longer. But still, the event showed that God had immutably determined, that he should live fifteen years more; and, in order to that, had put it into his heart to pray for the blessing decreed: just as, in the case of Nineveh, lately mentioned, God had resolved not to overthrow that city then; and, in order to the accomplishment of his own purpose in a way worthy of himself, made the ministry of Jonah the means of leading that people to repentance. All which, as it shows that God's absolute predestination does not set aside the use of means; so does it likewise prove, that, however various the declarations of God may appear, (to wit, when they proceed on a regard had to natural causes) his counsels and designs stand firm and immoveable, and can neither admit of alteration in themselves, nor of hinderance in their execution. See this farther explained by Bucer, in Ro 9., where you will find the certainty of the divine appointments solidly asserted and unanswerably vindicated. We now come,

IV. To consider the omnipotence of God.

Pos. 1. God is, in the most unlimited and absolute sense of the word. Almighty. Jer 32:17. Behold thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee. Mt 19:26. With God all things are possible. The schoolmen, very properly, distinguish the omnipotence of God into absolute and actual: by the former, God might do many things which he does not; by the latter, he actually does whatever he will. For instance, God might, by virtue of his absolute power, have made more worlds than he has. He might have eternally saved every individual of mankind, without reprobating any: on the other hand, he might, and that with the strictest justice, have condemned all men, and saved none. He could, had it been his pleasure, have prevented the fall of angels and men, and thereby have hindered sin from having footing in and among his creatures. By virtue of his actual power, he made the universe; executes the whole counsel of his will, both in heaven and earth; governs and influences both men and things, according to his own pleasure; fixes the bounds which they shall not pass; and, in a word, worketh all in all, Isa 45:7; Am 3:6. Joh 5:17. Ac 17:26. 1Co 12:6.

Pos. 2. Hence it follows that, since all things are subject to the divine control, God not only works efficaciously on his elect, in order that they may will and do that which is pleasing in his sight; but does, likewise, frequently and powerfully suffer the wicked to fill up the measure of their iniquities, by committing fresh sins. Nay, he sometimes, but for wise and gracious ends, permits his own people to transgress: for he has the hearts and wills of all men in his own hand, and inclines them to good, or delivers them up to evil, as he sees fit: yet without being the author of sin; as Luther, Bucer, Austin, and others have piously and scripturally taught.

This position consists of two parts: (1.) That God efficaciously operates on the hearts of his elect, and is thereby the sole author of all the good they do. See Eph 3:20. Php 2:13. 1 Thes 2:13. ii. Irf. Heb 13:21. St. Austin takes up no fewer than nineteen chapters, in proving that whatever good is in men, and whatever good they are enabled to do, is solely and entirely of God; who, says he, “works in holy persons all their good desires, their pious thoughts, and their righteous actions; and yet these holy persons, though thus wrought upon by God, will and do all these things freely: for it is he who rectifies their wills, which, being originally evil, are made good by him; and which wills, after he hath set them right and made them good, he directs to good actions and to eternal life; wherein he does not force their wills, but makes them willing." (2.) That God often lets the wicked go on to more ungodliness: which he does, 1. Negatively, by withholding that grace, which alone can restrain them from evil. 2. Remotely, by the providential concourse and mediation of second causes; which second causes, meeting and acting in concert with the corruption of the reprobate's unregenerate nature, produce sinful effects. 3. Judicially, or in a way of judgment. Pr 21:1. The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of waters; he turneth it whithersoever he will: and if the king's heart, why not the hearts of all men? La 3:38. Out of the mouth of the Most High proceeded not evil and good? Hence we find, that the Lord bid Shimei curse David, 2Sa 16:10. That he moved David himself to number the people, compare 1Ch 21:1 with 2Sa 24:1. Stirred up Joseph's brethren to sell him into Egypt, Ge 50:20. Positively and immediately hardened the heart of Pharaoh, Ex 4:21. Delivered up David's wives to be defiled by Absalom, 2Sa 12:11; 16:22. Sent a lying spirit to deceive Ahab, 1Ki 22:20-23. And mingled a perverse spirit in the midst of Egypt, i. e. made that nation perverse, obdurate and stiff-necked, Isa 19:14. To cite other instances, would be almost endless, and, after these, quite unnecessary; all being summoned up in that express passage, Isa 45:7. I make peace and create evil; I the Lord do all these things. See farther, 1Sa 16:14. Ps 105:25. Jer 13:12-13. Ac 2:23; 4:28. Ro 11:8. 2Th 2:11. Every one of which implies more than a bare permission of sin. Bucer asserts this, not only in the place referred to below, but continually throughout his works: particularly on Mt 6. s. 2, where this is the sense of his comments on that petition, lead us not into temptation; "It is abundantly evident, from most express testimonies of scripture, that God, occasionally in the course of his providence, puts both elect and reprobate persons into circumstances of temptation: by which temptation, are meant, not only those trials that are of an outward, afflictive nature; but those also that are inward and spiritual; even such as shall cause the persons so tempted, actually to turn aside from the path of duty to commit sin, and involve both themselves and others in evil. Hence we find the elect complaining, Isa 63:17. O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our hearts from thy fear? But there is also a kind of temptation, which is peculiar to the non-elect; whereby God, in a way of just judgment, makes them totally blind and obdurate: inasmuch as they are vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” See also his exposition of Ro 9.

Luther reasons to the very same effect: some of his words are these; “It may seem absurd to human wisdom, that God should harden, blind and deliver up some men to a reprobate sense; that he should first deliver them over to evil, and then condemn them for that evil: but the believing, spiritual man sees no absurdity at all in this; knowing that God would be never a whit less good, even though he should destroy all men." And again; “God worketh all things in all men; even wickedness in the wicked: for this is one branch of his own omnipotence." He very properly explains, how God may be said to harden men, &c. and yet not be the author of their sin: "It is not to be understood," says he, "as if God found men good, wise and tractable, and then made them wicked, foolish and obdurate; but God, finding them depraved, judicially and powerfully excites them just as they are (unless it is his will to regenerate any of them) and, by thus exciting them, they become more blind and obstinate than they were before." See this whole subject debated at large, in the places last referred to.

Pos. 3. God, as the primary and efficient cause of all things, is not only the author of those actions done by his elect, as actions; but also as they are good actions; whereas on the other hand, though he may be said to be the author of all the actions done by the wicked, yet he is not the author of them in a moral and compound sense, as they are sinful; but physically, simply, and sensu diviso, as they are mere actions, abstractedly from all consideration of the goodness or badness of them.

Although there is no action whatever, which is not, in some sense, either good or bad; yet we can easily conceive of an action, purely as such, without adverting to the quality of it; so that the distinction between an action itself, and its denomination of good or evil, is very obvious and natural.

In and by the elect, therefore, God not only produces works and actions, through his almighty power; but likewise, through the salutary influences of his Spirit, first makes their persons good, and then their actions so too; but in and by the reprobate, he produces actions, by his power alone; which actions, as neither issuing from faith, nor being wrought with a view to the divine glory, nor done in the manner prescribed by the divine word, are, on these accounts, properly denominated evil. Hence we see, that God does not, immediately and per se, infuse iniquity into the wicked; but, as Luther expresses it, powerfully excites them to action, and withholds those gracious influences of his Spirit, without which every action is necessarily evil. That God, either directly or remotely, excites bad men, as well as good ones, to action, cannot be denied by any but atheists, or by those who carry their notions of free-will and human independency so high, as to exclude the Deity from all actual operation in and among his creatures; which is little short of atheism. Every work performed, whether good or evil, is done in strength and by the power derived immediately from God himself, in whom all men live, move, and have their being. Ac 17:28. As at first, without him was not any thing made, which was made; so now, without him is not any thing done, which is done. We have no power or faculty, whether corporal or intellectual, but what we received from God, subsists by him, and is exercised in subserviency to his will and appointment. It is he who created, preserves, actuates and directs all things. But it by no means follows, from these premises, that God is therefore the cause of sin; for sin is nothing but anomia, illegality, want of conformity to the divine law, 1Jo 3:4, a mere privation of rectitude; consequently, being itself, a thing purely negative, it can have no positive or efficient cause, but only a negative and deficient one, as several learned men have observed.

Every action, as such, is undoubtedly good; it being an actual exertion of those operative powers given us by God for that very end: God therefore may be the author of all actions, (as he undoubtedly is) and yet not be the author of evil. An action is constituted evil, three ways: by proceeding from a wrong principle, by being directed to a wrong end, and by being done in a wrong manner. Now, though God, as we have said, is the efficient cause of our actions, as actions; yet, if these actions commence sinful, that sinfulness arises from ourselves. Suppose a boy, who knows not how to write, has his hand guided by his master, and nevertheless makes false letters, quite unlike the copy set him; though his preceptor, who guides his hand, is the cause of his writing at all, yet his own ignorance and unskilfulness are the cause of his writing so badly. Just so, God is the supreme author of our action, abstractedly taken; but our own vitiosity is the cause of our acting amiss.

I shall conclude this article, with two or three observations. And, (1.) I would infer, that, if we would maintain the doctrine of God's omnipotence, we must insist upon that of his universal agency: the latter cannot be denied, without giving up the former. Disprove that he is almighty, and then we will grant that his influence and operations are limited and circumscribed. Luther says "God would not be a respectable being, if he were not almighty, and the doer of all things that are done; or if any thing could come to pass, in which he had no hand." God has, at least, a physical influence on whatsoever is done by his creatures, whether trivial or important, good or evil. Judas as truly lived, moved and had his being from God, as Peter; and satan himself, as nmch as Gabriel: for, to say that sin exempts the sinner from the divine government and jurisdiction, is abridging the power of God with a witness; nay, is raising it from its very foundation.

(2.) This doctrine of God's omnipotence has a native tendency to awaken in our hearts that reverence for, and fear of the divine majesty, which none can either receive or retain, but those who believe him to be infinitely powerful, and to work all things after the counsel of his own will. This godly fear is a sovereign antidote against sin; for, if I really believe, that God, by his unintermitted operation upon my soul, produces actions in me, which, being simply good, receive their malignancy from the corruption of my nature (and even those works that stand opposed to sins, are, more or less, infected with this moral leprosy); and if I consider, that, should I yield myself a slave to actual iniquity, God can, and justly might, as he has frequently done by others, give me up to a reprobate mind, and punish one sin, by leaving me to the commission of another; surely, such reflections as these must fill me with awful apprehensions of the divine purity, power and greatness, and make me watch continually, as well against the inward risings, as the outward appearance of evil.

(3.) This doctrine is also useful, as it tends to inspire us with true humility of soul; and to lay us, as impotent dust and ashes, at the feet of sovereign omnipotence. It teaches us, what too many are fatally ignorant of, the blessed lesson of self-despair; i. e. that, in a state of unregeneracy, our wisdom is folly, our strength weakness, and our righteousness nothing worth: that, therefore, we can do nothing, either to the glory of God, or the spiritual benefit of ourselves and others, but through the ability which he giveth; that in him our strength lieth, and from him all our help must come. Supposing we believe, that, whatsoever is done below or above, God doeth it himself; that all things depend, both as to their being and operation, upon his omnipotent arm and mighty support; that we cannot even sin, much less do any good thing, if he withdraw his aid; and that all men are in his hand, as clay in the hand of the potter; I say, did we really believe all these points, and see them in the light of the divine Spirit, how can it be reasonably supposed, that we could wax insolent against this great God, behave contemptuously and superciliously in the world, or boast of any thing we have or do? Luther informs us, that he "used to be frequently much offended at this doctrine, because it drove him to self-despair; but that he afterwards found, that this sort of despair was salutary and profitable, and near akin to divine grace."

(4.) We are hereby taught not only humility before God, but likewise dependence on him, and resignation to him. For, if we are thoroughly persuaded that, of ourselves, and in our own strength, we cannot either do good or evil; but that, being originally created by God, we are incessantly supported, moved, influenced, and directed by him, this way or that, as he pleases; the natural inference from hence will be, that, with simple faith, we cast ourselves entirely, as on the bosom of his providence; commit all our care and solicitude to his hand; praying, without hesitation or reserve, that his will may be done in us, on us, and by us; and that, in all his dealings with us, he may consult his own glory alone. This holy passiveness is the very apex of Christianity. All the desires of our great Redeemer himself were reducible to these two; that the will of God might be done, and that the glory of God might be displayed. These were the highest and supreme marks, at which he aimed, throughout the whole course of his spotless life, and inconceivable tremendous sufferings. Happy, thrice happy that man, who hath thus far attained the mind that was in Christ.

(5.) The comfortable belief of this doctrine, has a tendency to excite and keep alive within us that fortitude which is so ornamental to, and necessary for us, while we abide in this wilderness. For, if I believe, with the apostle, that all things are of God, 2Co 5:18, I shall be less liable to perturbation, when afflicted, and learn more easily to possess my soul in patience. This was Job's support; he was not overcome with rage and despair, when he received news that the Sabeans had carried off his cattle, and slain his servants, and that the remainder of both were consumed with fire; that the Chaldeans had robbed him of his camels; and that his seven sons were crushed to death, by the falling of the house where they were sitting: he resolved all these misfortunes into the agency of God, his power and sovereignty, and even thanked him for doing what he would with his own, Job 1:21. If another should slander me in word, or injure me in deed, I shall not be prone to anger, when, with David, I consider that the Lord hath bidden him, 2Sa 16:10.

(6.) This should stir us up to fervent and incessant prayer. For, does God work powerfully and benignly in the hearts of his elect? and is he the sole cause of every action they do, which is truly and spiritually good? Then it should be our prayer, that he would work in us likewise both to will and to do, of his good pleasure: and if, on self-examination, we find reason to trust, that, some good thing is wrought in us, it should put us upon thankfulness unfeigned, and cause us to glory, not in ourselves, but in him. On the other hand, does God manifest his displeasure against the wicked, by blinding, hardening, arid giving them up to perpetrate iniquity with greediness? which judicial acts of God, are both a punishment for their sin; and also eventual additions to it: we should be the more incited to deprecate these tremendous evils, and to beseech the king of heaven, that he would not thus lead us into temptation. So much concerning the omnipotence of God. I shall now,

V. Take notice of his justice.

Pos. 1. God is infinitely, absolutely, and unchangeably just.

216 Observations on the Divine Attributes.

The justice of God may be considered either immanently, as it is in himself, which is, properly speaking, the same with his holiness; or transiently and relatively, as it respects his right conduct toward his creatures, which is properly justice. By the former, he is all that is holy, just, and good; by the latter, he is manifested to be so, in all his dealings with angels and men. For the first, see De 32:4. Ps 92:15; for the second, Job 8:3. Ps 145:17. Hence it follows, that whatever God either wills or does, however it may, at first sight, seem to clash with our ideas of right and wrong, cannot really be unjust. It is certain, that for a season, he sorely afiiicted his righteous servant Job; and on the other hand, enriched the Sabeans, an infidel and lawless nation, with a profusion of wealth, and a series of success: before Jacob and Esau were born, or had done either good or evil, he loved and chose the former, and reprobated the latter: He gave repentance to Peter, and left Judas to perish in his sin: and, as in all ages, so to this day, he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. In all which, he acts most justly and righteously, and there is no iniquity with him.

Pos. 2. The Deity may be considered in a threefold view: as God of all, as Lord of all, and as Judge of all.

(1.) As God of all, he created, sustains, and exhilirates the whole universe; causes his sun to shine, and his rain to fall upon the evil and the good. Mt 5. and is Swthr pantwn anqrwpwn, the preserver of all men, 1Ti 4:16. For, as he is infinitely and supremely good, so also is he communicative of his goodness; as appears not only from his creation of all things, but especially from his providential benignity. Every thing has its being from him, as creator; and its well-being from him as a bountiful preserver. (2.) As Lord, or Sovereign of all, he does as he will (and has a most unquestionable right to do so) with his own; and in particular, fixes and determines the everlasting state of every individual person, as he sees fit. It is essential to absolute sovereignty, that the sovereign have it in his power to dispose of those, over whom his jurisdiction extends, just as he pleases, without being accountable to any: and God, whose authority is unbounded, none being exempt from it; may, with the strictest holiness and justice, love or hate, elect or reprobate, save or destroy any of his creatures, whether human or angelic, according to his own free pleasure and sovereign purpose. (3.) As Judge of all, he ratifies what he does as Lord, by rendering to all according to their works; by punishing the wicked, and rewarding those whom it was his will to esteem righteous and to make holy.

Pos. 3. Whatever things God wills or does, are not willed and done by him because they were, in their own nature, and previously to his willing them, just and right; or because, from their intrinsic fitness, he ought to will and do them: but they are therefore just, right and proper, because he, who is holiness itself, wills and does them.

Hence Abraham looked upon it as a righteous action to slay his innocent son. Why did he so esteem it? because the law of God authorized murder? No; for, on the contrary, both the law of God and the law of nature peremptorily forbad it: but the holy patriarch well knew, that the will of God is the only rule of justice, and that what he pleases to command, is on that very account, just and righteous (m). It follows,

(m) Compare also Ex 3:22 with Ex 20:15.

Pos. 4. That, although our works are to be examined by the revealed will of God, and be denominated materially good or evil, as they agree or disagree with it; yet, the works of God himself cannot be brought to any test whatever: for, his will being the grand, universal law, he himself cannot be, properly speaking, subject to, or obliged by any law superior to that. Many things are done by him, (such as choosing and reprobating men) without any respect had to their works; suffering people to fall into sin, when, if it so pleased him, he might prevent it; leaving many backsliding professors to go on and perish in their apostasy, when it is in the divine power to sanctify and set them right; drawing some by his grace, and permitting many others to continue in sin and unregeneracy; condemning those to future misery, whom, if he pleased, he could undoubtedly save, with innumerable instances of the like nature, (which might be mentioned) and which, if done by us, would be apparently unjust, inasmuch as they would not square with the revealed will of God, which is the great and only safe rule of our practice. But, when he does these and such like things, they cannot but be holy, equitable, and worthy of himself: for, since his will is essentially and unchangeably just, whatever he does, in consequence of that will, must be just and good likewise. From what has been delivered under this fifth head, I would infer, that they, who deny the power God has of doing as he will with his creatures, and exclaim against unconditional decrees, as cruel, tyrannical, and unjust; either know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm; or are wilful blasphemers of his name, and perverse rebels against his sovereignty: to which, at last, however unwillingly, they will be forced to submit.

I shall conclude this introduction with briefly considering, in the

Sixth and last place, the mercy of God.

Pos. 1. The Deity is, throughout the scriptures, represented as infinitely gracious and merciful, Ex 34:6. Ne 9:17. Ps 103:8. 1Pe 1:3.

When we call the divine mercy infinite, we do not mean that it is, in a way of grace, extended to all men, without exception; (and supposing it was, even then it would be very improperly denominated infinite on that account, since the objects of it, though all men taken together, would not amount to a multitude strictly and properly infinite) but, that his mercy towards his own elect, as it knew no beginning, so is it infinite in duration, and shall know neither period nor intermission.

Pos. 2. Mercy is not in the Deity, as it is in us, a passion, or affection; every thing of that kind being incompatible with the purity, perfection, independency and unchangeableness of his nature: but, when this attribute is predicated of him, it only notes his free and eternal will, or purpose, of making some of the fallen race happy, by delivering them from the guilt and dominion of sin, and communicating himself to them in a way consistent with his own inviolable justice, truth and holiness. This seems to be the proper definition of mercy, as it relates to the spiritual and eternal good of those who are its objects. But it should be observed,

Pos. 3. That the mercy of God, taken in its more large and indefinite sense, may be considered, (1.) as general, (2.) as special.

His general mercy is no other than what we commonly call his bounty; by which he is, more or less, providentially good to all mankind, both elect and non-elect: Mt 5:45. Lu 6:35. Ac 14:17; 17:25,28. By his special mercy, he, as Lord of all, hath, in a spiritual sense, compassion on as many of the fallen race, as are the objects of his free and eternal favour: the effects of which special mercy are, the redemption and justification of their persons, through the satisfaction of Christ; the effectual vocation, regeneration and sanctification of them, by his Spirit; the infallible and final preservation of them in a state of grace on earth; and their everlasting glorification in heaven.

Pos. 4. There is no contradiction, whether real or seeming, between these two assertions, (1.) That the blessings of grace and glory are peculiar to those whom God hath, in his decree of predestination, set apart for himself; and (2.) That the gospel declaration runs, that whosoever willeth may take of the water of life freely, Re 22:17. Since, in the first place, none can will, or unfeignedly and spiritually desire a part in these privileges, but those whom God previously makes willing and desirous; and, secondly, that he gives this will to, and excites this desire in, none but his own elect.

Pos. 5. Since ungodly men, who are totally and finally destitute of divine grace, cannot know what this mercy is, nor form any proper apprehensions of it, much less by faith embrace and rely upon it for themselves; and since daily experience, as well as the scriptures of truth, teaches us, that God doth not open the eyes of the reprobate, as he doth the eyes of his elect, nor savingly enlighten their understandings; it evidently follows, that his mercy was never, from the very first, designed for them, neither will it be applied to them: but, both in designation and application, is proper and peculiar to those only, who are predestinated to life; as it is written, the election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded, Ro 11:7.

Pos. 6. The whole work of salvation, together with every thing that is in order to it, or stands in connection with it, is sometimes in scripture, comprised under the single term mercy; to show, that mere love and absolute grace were the grand cause why the elect are saved, and that all merit, worthiness, and good qualifications of theirs were entirely excluded from having any influence on the divine will, why they should be chosen, redeemed, and glorified above others. When it is said, Ro 9, he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, it is as much as if the apostle had said, "God elected, ransomed, justified, regenerates, sanctifies and glorifies whom he pleases:" every one of these great privileges being briefly summed up, and virtually included, in that comprehensive phrase, "He hath mercy.”

Pos. 7. It follows, that, whatever favour is bestowed on us; whatever good thing is in us, or wrought by us, whether in will, word, or deed; and whatever blessings else we receive from God, from election quite home to glorification; all proceed, merely and entirely, from the good pleasure of his will, and his mercy towards us in Christ Jesus. To him, therefore, the praise is due, who putteth the difference between man and man, by having compassion on some, and not on others.

The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, Stated & Asserted

THE DOCTRINE OF ABSOLUTE PREDESTINATION

STATED AND ASSERTED.

CHAPTER I.

Wherein the Terms commonly made use of in treating of this Subject are defined and explained.

Having considered the attributes of God, as laid down in scripture: and, so far, cleared our way to the doctrine of predestination; I shall, before I enter further on the subject, explain the principal terms, generally made use of, when treating of it, and settle their true meaning. In discoursing on the divine decrees, mention is frequently made of God's love, and hatred; of election, and reprobation; and of the divine purpose, foreknowledge and predestination: each of which we shall distinctly and briefly consider.

I. When love is predicated of God, we do not mean that he is possessed of it as a passion, or affection. In us, it is such; but if, considered in that sense, it should be ascribed to the Deity, it would be utterly subversive of the simplicity, perfection and independency of his being. Love, therefore, when attributed to him, signifies, (1.) his eternal benevolence, i. e. his everlasting will, purpose and determination to deliver, bless, and save his people. Of this no good works wrought by them, are, in any sense, the cause. Neither are even the merits of Christ himself to be considered as any way moving, or exciting this good will of God to his elect; since the gift of Christ, to be their Mediator and Redeemer, is itself an effect of this free and eternal favour, borne to them by God the Father. Joh 3:16. His love towards them arises merely from the good pleasure of his own will, without the least regard to any thing ad extra, or, out of himself. The term implies, (2.) Complacency, delight, and approbation. With this love God cannot love even his elect, as considered in themselves; because in that view, they are guilty, polluted sinners; but they were, from all eternity, objects of it, as they stood united to Christ, and partakers of his righteousness. Love implies, (3.) actual beneficence; which, properly speaking, is nothing else than the effect, or accomplishment of the other too: those are the cause of this. This actual beneficence respects all blessings, whether of a temporal, spiritual, or eternal nature. Temporal good things are, indeed, indiscriminately bestowed in a greater or less degree, on all, whether elect or reprobate; but they are given in a covenant way, and as blessings, to the elect only; to whom also the other benefits, respecting grace and glory, are peculiar. And this love of beneficence, no less than that of benevolence and complacency, is absolutely free, and irrespective of any worthiness in man.

II. When hatred is ascribed to God, it implies, (1.) a negation of benevolence; or, a resolution not to have mercy on such and such men, nor to endue them with any of those graces, which stand connected with eternal life. So Ro 9. Esau have I hated, i. e. I did, from all eternity, determine within myself not to have mercy on him. The sole cause of which awful negation, is not merely the unworthiness of the persons hated, but the sovereignty and freedom of the divine will. (2.) It denotes displeasure and dislike: for, sinners, who are not interested in Christ, cannot but be infinitely displeasing to, and loathsome in, the sight of eternal purity. (3.) It signifies a positive will to punish and destroy the reprobate for their sins; of which will, the infliction of misery upon them hereafter, is but the necessary effect, and actual execution.

III. The term election, that so very frequently occurs in scripture, is there taken in a fourfold sense; (1.) and most commonly signifies, “That eternal, sovereign, unconditional, particular, and immutable act of God, where he selected some from among all mankind, and of every nation under heaven, to be redeemed and everlastingly saved by Christ." (2.) It sometimes, and more rarely, signifies, "That gracious and almighty act of the divine Spirit, whereby God actually and visibly separates his elect from the world, by effectual calling." This is nothing but the manifestation and partial fulfilment of the former election; and, by it, the objects of predestinating grace are sensibly led into the communion of saints, and visibly added to the number of God's declared, professing people. Of this our Lord makes mention, Joh 15:19. Because I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Where, it should seem, the choice spoken of, does not refer so much to God's eternal, immanent act of election, as his open manifest one; whereby he powerfully and efficaciously called the disciples forth from the world of the unconverted, and quickened them from above, in conversion. (3.) By election is sometimes meant, "God's taking a whole nation, community, or body of men, into external covenant with himself, by giving them the advantage of revelation, or his written word, as the rule of their belief and practice, when other nations are without it." In this sense, the whole body of the Jewish nation was indiscriminately called elect, De 7:6, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Now, all that are thus elected, are not therefore necessarily saved; but many of them may be, and are reprobates: as those, of whom our Lord says, Mt 13:20, that they hear the word, and anon with joy receive it, &c. And the apostle John, 1Jo 2. They went out from us, i. e. being favoured with the same gospel revelation we were, they professed themselves true believers, no less than we; but they were not of us, i. e. they were not with us, chosen of God unto everlasting life, nor did they ever, in reality, possess that faith of his operation, which he gave to us; for, if they had, in this sense, been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us; they would have manifested the sincerity of their professions, and the truth of their conversion, by enduring to the end, and being saved. And even this external revelation, though it is not necessarily connected with eternal happiness, is nevertheless productive of very many and great advantages to the people and places where it is vouchsafed; and is made known to some nations, and kept back (Ps 147:19-20) from others, according to the good pleasure of Him, who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. (4.) And lastly, election sometimes signifies, "The temporary designation of some person or persons, to the filling up some particular station in the visible church or office in civil life." So Judas was chosen to the apostleship, Joh 6:70; and Saul to be the king of Israel. 1Sa 10:24. Thus much for the use of the word election. On the contrary,

IV. Reprobation denotes either (1.) God's eternal preterition of some men, when he chose others to glory, and his predestination of them to fill up the measure of their iniquities, and then to receive the just punishment of their crimes, even destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. This is the primary, most obvious, and most frequent sense, in which the word is used. It may likewise signify, (2.) God's forbearing to call by his grace, those whom he hath thus ordained to condemnation: but this is only a temporary preterition, and a consequence of that which was from eternity. (3.) And lastly. The word may be taken in another sense, as denoting God's refusal to grant to some nations, the light of the gospel revelation. This may be considered as a kind of national reprobation; which yet does not imply that every individual person, who lives in such a country, must therefore unavoidably perish for ever, any more than that every individual who lives in a land called Christian, is therefore in a state of salvation. There are, no doubt, elect persons among the former, as well as reprobate ones, among the latter. By a very little attention to the context, any reader may easily discover in which of these several senses the word elect and reprobate are used, whenever they occur in scripture.

V. Mention is frequently made, in scripture, of the purpose (o) of God: which is no other than his gracious intention, from eternity, of making his elect everlastingly happy in Christ.

(o) The purpose of God does not seem to differ at all, from predestination: that being:, as well as this, an eternal, free and unchangeable act of his will. Besides, the word purpose, when predicated of God in the New Testament, always denotes his design of saving his elect, and that only; Ro 8:28; 9:11. Eph 1:11; 3:11. 2Ti 1:9. As does the term predestination; which, throughout the whole New Testament, never signifies the appointment of the non-elect to wrath; but, singly and solely the fore-appointment of the elect to grace and glory: though in common theological writings, predestination is spoken of as extending to whatever God does, both in a way of permission and efficiency: as in the utmost sense of the term, it does. It is worthy of the reader's notice, that the original word proqesiv, which we render purpose, signifies not only an appointment, but a fore-appointment, and such a fore-appointment, as is efficacious, and cannot be obstructed, but shall most assuredly issue in a full accomplishment, which gave occasion to the following judicious remark of a late learned writer; "proqesiv a Paulo saepe usurpatur in electionis negotio, ad designandum, consilium hoc Dei non esse inanem quandam et inefficacem velleitatem; sed constans, determinatum, et immutabile Dei propositum. Vox enim est efficaciae summae, ut notant grammatici veteres; et signate vocatur a Paulo, proqesiv tou ta panta energountov, consilium illius, qui efficaciter omnia operatur ex beneplacito suo." Turretin. Institut. Tom. 1. loc. 4. quaest. 7. s. 12.

VI. When foreknowledge is ascribed to God, the word imports, (1.) that general prescience, whereby he knew, from all eternity, both what he himself would do, and what his creatures, in consequence of his efficacious and permissive decree, should do likewise. The divine foreknowledge, considered in this view, is absolutely universal; it extends to all beings that did, do, or ever shall exist; and to all actions, that ever have been, that are, or shall be done, whether good, or evil, natural, civil, or moral. (2.) The word often denotes that special prescience, which has for its objects his own elect, and them alone, whom he is, in a peculiar sense, said to know and foreknow, Ps 1:6. Joh 10:27. 2Ti 2:19. Ro 8:29. 1Pe 1:2. and this knowledge is connected with, or rather the same with, love, favour and approbation.

VII. We come now to consider the meaning of the word predestination, and how it is taken in scripture. The verb predestinate is of Latin original, and signifies, in that tongue, to deliberate beforehand with one's self, how one shall act; and, in consequence of such deliberation, to constitute, foreordain, and predetermine, where, when, how, and by whom any thing shall be done, and to what end it shall be done. So the Greek verb, proorizw, which exactly answers to the English word predestinate, and is rendered by it, signifies, to resolve, beforehand, within one's self, what to do; and, before the thing resolved on is actually effected, to appoint it to some certain use, and direct it to some determinate end. The Hebrew verb, habhdel, has likewise much the same signification.

Now, none but wise men are capable (especially in matters of great importance) of rightly determining what to do, and how to accomplish a proper end, by just, suitable and effectual means: and, if this is confessedly a very material part of true wisdom; who so fit to dispose of men, and assign each individual his sphere of action in this world, and his place in the world to come, as the all-wise God? and yet, alas! how many are there, who cavil at those eternal decrees, which, were we capable of fully and clearly understanding them, would appear to be as just as they are sovereign, and as wise as they are incomprehensible! Divine pre-ordination has for its objects, all things that are created; no creature, whether rational or irrational, animate or inanimate, is exempted from its influence. All beings whatever, from the highest angel to the meanest reptile, and from the meanest reptile to the minutest atom, are the objects of God's eternal decrees and particular providence. However, the ancient fathers only make use of the word predestination, as it refers to angels or men, whether good or evil: and it is used by the apostle Paul, in a more limited sense still; so as, by it, to mean only that branch of it, which respects God's election and designation of his people to eternal life, Ro 8:30. Eph 1:11.

But, that we may more justly apprehend the import of this word, and the ideas intended to be conveyed by it, it may be proper to observe, that the term predestination, theologically taken, admits of a fourfold definition: and may be considered as, (1.) "That eternal, most wise, and immutable decree of God, whereby he did, from before all time, determine and ordain to create, dispose of, and direct to some particular end, every person and thing to which he has given, or is yet to give, being; and to make the whole creation subservient to, and declarative of his own glory." Of this decree, actual providence is the execution. (2.) Predestination may be considered, as relating generally to mankind, and them only: and, in this view, we define it to be, "The everlasting, sovereign, and invariable purpose of God, whereby he did determine within himself, to create Adam in his own image and likeness, and then to permit his fall; and to suffer him, thereby, to plunge himself and his whole posterity (inasmuch as they all sinned in him, not only virtually, but also federally and representatively) “into the dreadful abyss of sin, misery and death." (3.) Consider predestination as relating to the elect only, and it is "that eternal, unconditional, particular, and irreversible act of the divine will, whereby, in matchless love, and adorable sovereignty, God determined within himself to deliver a certain number of Adam's degenerate (p) offspring, out of that sinful and miserable estate, into which, by his primitive transgression, they were to fall; and in which sad condition they were equally involved, with those who were not chosen: but, being pitched upon, and singled out, by God the Father, to be vessels of grace and salvation (not for any thing in them, that could recommend them to his favour, or entitle them to his notice, but merely because he would shew himself gracious to them), they were, in time, actually redeemed by Christ; are effectually called by his Spirit, justified, adopted, sanctified, and preserved safe to his heavenly kingdom. The supreme end of this decree, is the manifestation of his own infinitely glorious and amiably tremendous perfections: the inferior, or subordinate end, is the happiness and salvation of them who are thus freely elected. (4.) Predestination, as it regards the reprobate, is "That eternal, most holy, sovereign, and immutable act of God's will, whereby he hath determined to leave some men to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them."

(p) When we say, that the decree of predestination to life and death respects man as fallen, we do not mean, that the fall was actually antecedent to that decree: for the decree is truly and properly eternal, as all God's immanent acts undoubtedly are; whereas the fall took place in time. What we intend, then, is only this, viz. that God, (for reasons, without doubt, worthy of himself, and of which we are, by no means, in this life competent judges) having, from everlasting, peremptorily ordained to suffer the fall of Adam; did, likewise, from everlasting, consider the human race as fallen: and, out of the whole mass of mankind, thus viewed and foreknown as impure, and obnoxious to condemnation, vouchsafed to select some particular persons, (who, collectively, make up a very great, though precisely determinate, number) in and on whom he would make known the ineffable riches of his mercy.

CHAPTER II.

Wherein the Doctrine of Predestination is explained, as it relates in general to all men.

Thus much being premised, with relation to the scripture terms commonly made use of in this controversy, we shall now proceed to take a nearer view of this high and mysterious article. And,

I. We, with the scriptures, assert, That there is a predestination of some particular persons to life, for the praise of the glory of divine grace; and a predestination of other particular persons to death: which death of punishment they shall inevitably undergo, and that justly, on account of their sins. (1.) There is a predestination of some particular persons to life. So Mt 20:15. Many are called, but few chosen; i. e. the gospel revelation comes indiscriminately, to great multitudes; but few, comparatively speaking, are spiritually and eternally the better for it: and these few, to whom it is the savour of life unto life, are therefore savingly benefited by it, because they are the chosen or elect of God. To the same effect are the following passages, among many others; Mt 24:22. For the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened. Ac 13:48. As many as were ordained to eternal life believed, Ro 8:30. Whom he did predestinate, them he also called. And, Ro 8:33, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Eph 1:4-5. According as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, &c. Having predestinated us to the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ, unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2Ti 1:9. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose, and grace which was given us in Christ, before the world began. (2.) This election of certain individuals unto eternal life, was for the praise of the glory of divine grace. This is expressly asserted, in so many words, by the apostle, Eph 1:5-6. Grace or mere favour, was the impulsive cause of all: it was the main spring which set all the inferior wheels in motion. It was an act of grace in God, to choose any; when he might have passed by all: it was an act of sovereign grace, to choose this man, rather than that: when both were equally undone in themselves, and alike obnoxious to his displeasure. In a word, since election is not of works, and does not proceed on the least regard had to any worthiness in its objects; it must be of free, unbiased grace: but election is not of works, Ro 11:5-6; therefore, it is solely of grace. (3.) There is on the other hand, a predestination of some particular persons to death. 2Co 4:3. If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost. 1Pe 2:8, who stumble at the word, being disobedient; whereunto also they were appointed. 2Pe 2:12. These, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed. Jude 1:4. There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before, of old, ordained to this condemnation. Re 17:8. Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. But of this we shall treat professedly, and more at large, in the fifth chapter. (4.) This future death they shall inevitably undergo; for, as God will certainly save all whom he wills should be saved; so he will as surely condemn all, whom he wills shall be condemned; for he is the Judge of the whole earth, whose decree shall stand, and from whose sentence there is no appeal. Hath he said, and shall he not make it good? hath he spoken, and shall it not come to pass? And his decree is this; that these, i. e. the non-elect, who are left under the guilt of final impenitence, unbelief, and sin, shall go away into everlasting punishment; and the righteous, i. e. those who, in consequence of their election in Christ, and union to him, are justly reputed, and really constituted such, shall enter into life eternal. Mt 25:46. (5.) The reprobate shall undergo this punishment justly, and on account of their sins. Sin is the meritorious and immediate cause of any man's damnation. God condemns and punishes the non-elect, not merely as men, but as sinners: and, had it pleased the great Governor of the universe, to have entirely prevented sin from having any entrance into the world, it should seem as if he could not, consistently with his known attributes, have condemned any man at all. But as all sin is properly meritorious of eternal death; and all men are sinners; they who are condemned, are condemned most justly; and those who are saved, are saved in a way of sovereign mercy, through the vicarious obedience and death of Christ for them.

Now, this two-fold predestination, of some to life, and of others to death, (if it may be called two-fold, both being constituent parts of the same decree) cannot be denied, without likewise denying, 1. most express and frequent declarations of scripture, and, 2. the very existence of God: for, since God is a being perfectly simple, free from all accident and composition; and yet, a will to save some and punish others is very often predicated of him in scripture; and an immovable decree to do this, in consequence of his will, is likewise ascribed to him; and a perfect foreknowledge of the sure and certain accomplishment of what he has thus willed and decreed, is also attributed to him; it follows, that whoever denies this will, decree, and foreknowledge of God, does, implicitly and virtually, deny God himself: since his will, decree, and foreknowledge, are no other than God himself willing and decreeing and foreknowing.

II. We assert, that God did from eternity, decree, to make man in his own image; and also decreed to suffer him to fall from that image in which he should be created, and, thereby, to forfeit the happiness with which he was invested: which decree, and the consequences of it, were not limited to Adam only; but included, and extended to, all his natural posterity.

Something of this was hinted already, in the preceding chapter: we shall now proceed to the proof of it. And, (1.) That God did make man in his own image, is evident from scripture, Ge 1:27. (2.) That he decreed from eternity so to make man, is as evident; since, for God to do any thing without having decreed it, or fixed a previous plan in his own mind, would be a manifest imputation on his wisdom: and, if he decreed that now, or at any time, which he did not always decree, he could not be unchangeable. (3.) That man actually did fall from the divine image, and his original happiness, is the undoubted voice of scripture, Ge 3. And, (4.) That he fell in consequence of the divine decree (q), we prove thus: God was either willing that Adam should fall; or unwilling; or indifferent about it. If God was unwilling, that Adam should transgress, how came it to pass that he did? Is man stronger, and is satan wiser, than he that made them? Surely, no. Again; could not God had it so pleased him, have hindered the tempter's access to paradise? or have created man, as he did the elect angels, with a will invariably determined to good only, and incapable of being biased to evil? or, at least, have made the grace and strength, with which he indued Adam, actually effectual to the resisting of all solicitations to sin? None, but atheists, would answer these questions in the negative. Surely, if God had not willed the fall, he could, and no doubt would, have prevented it: but he did not prevent it, ergo, he willed it. And, if he willed it, he certainly decreed it; for the decree of God is nothing else but the seal and ratification of his will. He does nothing, but what he decreed; and he decreed nothing, which he did not will, and both will and decree are absolutely eternal, though the execution of both be in time. The only way to evade the force of this reasoning, is to say, that "God was indifferent and unconcerned, whether man stood or fell." But in what a shameful, unworthy light

(q) See this article judiciously stated, and nervously asserted, by Witsius, in his Oecon, 1. 1. cap. 8. s. 10-25.

does this represent the Deity! Is it possible for us to imagine, that God could be an idle, careless spectator, of one of the most important events that ever came to pass? Are not the very hairs of our head all numbered? or does a sparrow fall to the ground, without our heavenly Father? If, then, things the most trivial and worthless, are subject to the appointment of his decree, and the control of his providence; how much more is man, the masterpiece of this lower creation? and, above all, that man Adam, who, when recent from his Maker's hands, was the living image of God himself, and very little inferior to angels! and on whose perseverance, was suspended the welfare, not of himself only, but likewise that of the whole world. But, so far was God from being indifferent in this matter, that there is nothing whatever, about which he is so; for he worketh all things, without exception, after the counsel of his own will, Eph 1:11; consequently, if he positively wills whatever is done, he cannot be indifferent with regard to any thing. On the whole, if God was not unwilling that Adam should fall, he must have been willing that he should: since, between God's willing and nilling, there is no medium. And is it not highly rational, as well as scriptural; nay, is it not absolutely necessary, to suppose, that the fall was not contrary to the will and determination of God? since, if it was, his will (which the apostle represents as being irresistible, Ro 9:19) was apparently frustrated, and his determination rendered of worse than none effect. And how dishonourable to, how inconsistent with, and how notoriously subversive of, the dignity of God, such a blasphemous supposition would be, and how irreconcilable with every one of his allowed attributes, is very easy to observe. (5.) That man, by his fall, forfeited the happiness with which he was invested, is evident, as well from scripture as from experience, Ge 3:7,10,16-19,23-24; Ro 5:12. Ga 3:10. He first sinned (and the essence of sin lies in disobedience to the command of God) and then, immediately, became miserable; misery being, through the divine appointment, the natural and inseparable concomitant of sin. (6.) That the fall, and its sad consequences, did not terminate solely in Adam, but affect his whole posterity, is the doctrine of the sacred oracles. Ps 51:5. Ro 5:12,14-15,17-19. 1Co 15:22. Eph 2:3. Besides, not only spiritual and eternal, but likewise temporal death is the wages of sin, Ro 6:23. Jas 1:15. And yet, we see that millions of infants, who never, in their own persons, either did or could commit sin, die continually. It follows, that either God must be unjust, in punishing the innocent; or that these infants are, some way or other, guilty creatures; if they are not so in themselves, (I mean actually so, by their own commission of sin) they must be so in some other person; and who that person is, let scripture say, Ro 5:12,18. 1Co 15:22. And, I ask, how can these be, with equity, sharers in Adam's punishment, unless they are chargeable with his sin? and how can they be fairly chargeable with his sin, unless he was their federal head and representative, and acted in their name, and sustained their persons, when he fell?

III. We assert, that, as all men, universally, are not elected to salvation; so neither are all men, universally, ordained to condemnation. This follows from what has been proved already: however, I shall subjoin some farther demonstration of these two positions. (1.) All men universally are not elected to salvation. And, first, this may be evinced a posteriori: it is undeniable, from scripture, that God will not, in the last day, save every individual of mankind, Da 12:2. Mt 25:46. Joh 5:29. Therefore, say we, God never designed to save every individual: since, if he had, every individual would and must be saved, for his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure. See what we have already advanced, on this head, in the first chapter, under the second article. Position 8. Secondly, this may be evinced, also, from God's foreknowledge. The Deity, from all eternity, and, consequently, at the very time he gives life and being to a reprobate, certainly foreknew, and knows, in consequence of his own decree, that such an one would fall short of salvation: now, if God foreknew this, he must have predetermined it; because his own will is the foundation of his decrees, and his decrees are the foundation of his prescience; he therefore foreknowing futurities, because, by his predestination, he hath rendered their futurition certain and inevitable. Neither is it possible, in the very nature of the thing, that they should be elected to salvation, or ever obtain it, whom God foreknew should perish: for then the divine act of pretention would be changeable, wavering and precarious; the divine foreknowledge would be deceived, and the divine will impeded. All which are utterly impossible. Lastly, That all men are not chosen to life, nor created to that end is evident, in that there are some who were hated of God, before they were born, Ro 9:11-13, are fitted for destruction, Ro 9:22, and made for the day of evil, Pr 16:1.

But, (2.) All men universally are not ordained to condemnation. There are some who are chosen, Mt 20:16. An election, or elect number, who obtain grace and salvation, while the rest are blinded, Ro 11:7. a little flock, to whom it is the Father's good pleasure to give the kingdom, Lu 12:32. A people whom the Lord hath reserved, Jer 50:20. and formed for himself, Isa 43:21. A peculiarly favoured race, to whom it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; while, to others, it is not given, Mt 13:11. A remnant according to the election of grace, Ro 11:5. whom God hath not appointed to wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ, 1Th 5:9. In a word, who are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that they should show forth the praises of him, who hath called them out of darkness, into his marvellous light, 1Pe 2:9. And whose names, for that very end, are in the book of life, Php 4:3. and written in heaven, Lu 10:20. Heb 12:23. Luther observes, that in Ro 9; 10; 11, the apostle particularly insists on the doctrine of predestination; "Because," says he, "All things, whatever, arise from, and depend upon, the divine appointment? whereby it was pre-ordained, who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; who should be justified, and who condemned.”

IV. We assert, that the number of the elect, and also of the reprobate, is so fixed and determinate, that neither can be augmented or diminished.

It is written of God, that he telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all by their names. Ps 147:4. Now, it is as incompatible with the infinite wisdom and knowledge of the all-comprehending God, to be ignorant of the names and number of the rational creatures he has made, as that he should be ignorant of the stars, and the other inanimate products of his almighty power: and, if he knows all men in general, taken in the lump; he may well be said, in a more near and special sense, to know them that are his by election, 2Ti 2:19. And, if he knows who are his, he must, consequently, know who are not his, i. e. whom, and how many, he hath left in the corrupt mass, to be justly punished for their sins. Grant this, (and who can help granting a truth so self-evident?) and it follows, that the number, as well of the elect, as of the reprobate, is fixed and certain; otherwise God would be said to know that which is not true, and his knowledge must be false and delusive, and so no knowledge at all: since that which is, in itself, at best, but precarious, can never be the foundation of sure and infallible knowledge. But, that God does, indeed precisely know, to a man, who are, and are not, the objects of his electing favour, is evident from such scriptures as these, Ex 33:17. Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. Jer 1:5. Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee. Lu 10:20. Your names are written in heaven. Lu 12:7. The very hairs of your head are all numbered. Joh 13:18. I know whom I have chosen. Joh 10:14. I know my sheep, and am known of mine. 2Ti 2:19. The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, if the number of these is thus assuredly settled and exactly known, it follows, that we are right in asserting,

V. That the decrees of election and reprobation are immutable and irreversible.

Were not this the case, (1.) God's decree would be precarious, frustrable, and uncertain; and, by consequence, no decree at all. (2.) His foreknowledge would be wavering, indeterminate, and liable to disappointment; whereas it always has its accomplishment, and necessarily infers the certain futurity of the thing or things foreknown; Isa 46:9-10. I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and, from ancient times, the things that are not yet done; saying. My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. (3.) Neither would his word be true, which declares, that, with regard to the elect, the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, Ro 11:29; that whom he predestinated, them he also glorified, Ro 8:30. that whom he loveth, he loveth to the end, Joh 13:1; with numberless passages to the same purpose. Nor would his word be true, with regard to the non-elect, if it was possible for them to be saved; for it is there declared, that they are fitted for destruction, &c. Ro 9:22, fore-ordained unto condemnation, Jude 1:4, and delivered over to a reprobate mind, in order to their damnation, Ro 1:28. 2Th 2:12. (4.) If, between the elect and reprobate, there was not a great gulf fixed, so that neither can be otherwise than they are; then, the will of God (which is the alone cause why some are chosen and others are not) would be rendered inefficacious and of no effect. (5.) Nor could the justice of God stand, if he was to condemn the elect, for whose sins he hath received ample satisfaction at the hand of Christ; or if he was to save the reprobate, who are not interested in Christ, as the elect are. (6.) The power of God (whereby the elect are preserved from falling into a state of condemnation, and the wicked held down and shut up in a state of death) would be eluded, not to say utterly abolished. (7.) Nor would God be unchangeable, if they, who were once the people of his love, could commence the objects of his hatred; or if the vessels of his wrath, could be saved with the vessels of grace. Hence that of St. Austin: "Brethren," says he, "let us not imagine, that God puts down any man in his book, and then erases him; for, if Pilate could say, what I have written, I have written, how can it be thought, that the great God would write a person's name in the book of life, and then blot it out again?" And may we not, with equal reason, ask, on the other hand, how can it be thought, that any of the reprobate should be written in that book of life, which contains the names of the elect only? or, that any should be inscribed there, who were not written among the living from eternity? I shall conclude this chapter with that observation of Luther: "This," says he, “is the very thing that razes the doctrine of free-will from its foundations: to wit, that God's eternal love of some men, and hatred of others, is immutable and cannot be reversed." Both one and the other will have its full accomplishment.

CHAPTER III.

Concerning Election unto Life; or Predestination, as it Respects the Saints in Particular.

Having considered predestination, as it regards all men in general; and briefly shown, that, by it, some are appointed to wrath, and others to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ, 1Th 5:9. I now come to consider, more distinctly, that branch of it, which relates to the saints only, and is commonly styled election. Its definition I have given already, in the close of the first chapter; what I have farther to advance, from the scriptures, on this important subject, I shall reduce to several positions; and subjoin a short explanation and confirmation of each.

Pos. 1. Those, who are ordained unto eternal life, were not so ordained on account of any worthiness foreseen in them, or of any good works to be wrought by them; nor yet for their future faith: but, purely and solely, of free, sovereign grace, and according to the mere pleasure of God. This is evident, among other considerations, from this; that faith, repentance and holiness, are no less the free gifts of God, than eternal life itself, Eph 2:8. Faith is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Php 1:29. Unto you it is given to believe. Ac 5:31. Him hath God exalted with his right hand, for to give repentance. Ac 11:18. Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. In like manner, holiness is called the sanctification of the Spirit, 2Th 2:13, because the divine Spirit is the efficient of it in the soul, and of unholy, makes us holy. Now, if repentance and faith are the gifts, and sanctification is the work of God; then these are not the fruits of man's free-will, nor what he acquires of himself; and so can neither be motives to, nor conditions of his election, which is an act of the divine mind, antecedent to, and irrespective of all qualities, whatever, in the persons elected. Besides, the apostle asserts, expressly, that election is not of works, but of him that calleth; and that it passed, before the persons concerned had done either good or evil, Ro 9:11. Again, if faith or works were the cause of election, God could not be said to choose us, but we to choose him; contrary to the whole tenor of scripture; Joh 15:16. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. 1Jo 4:10,19. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us. We love him, because he first loved us. Election is, every where, asserted to be God's act, and not man's, Mr 13:20. Ro 9:17. Eph 1:4. 1Th 5:9. 2Th 2:13. Once more, we are chosen that we might be holy, not because it was foreseen we would be so, Eph 1:4; therefore, to represent holiness as the reason why we were elected, is to make the effect antecedent to the cause. The apostle adds, verse 5, having predestinated us according to the good pleasure of his will: most evidently implying, that God saw nothing extra se, had no motive from without, why he should either choose any at all, or this man before another. In a word, the elect were freely loved, Ho 14:4, freely chosen, Ro 11:5-6. and freely redeemed, Isa 52:3. they are freely called, 2Ti 1:9, freely justified, Ro 3:24. and shall be freely glorified, Ro 6:23. The great Augustin, in his book of Retractations, ingenuously acknowledges his error, in having once thought, that faith foreseen was a condition of election: he owns, that that opinion is equally impious and absurd; and proves, that faith is one of the fruits of election, and consequently, could not be, in any sense, a cause of it: “I could never have asserted," says he, "that God, in choosing men to life, had any respect to their faith, had I duly considered, that faith itself is his own gift." And in another treatise of his, he has these words; "Since Christ says, ye have not chosen me, &c. I would fain ask, whether it be scriptural, to say, we must have faith, before we are elected; and not, rather, that we are elected in order to our having faith?"

Pos. 2. As many as are ordained to eternal life, are ordained to enjoy that life in and through Christ, and on account of his merits alone, 1Th 5:9. Here let it be carefully observed, that not the merits of Christ, but the sovereign love of God only, is the cause of election itself: but then the merits of Christ are the alone procuring cause of that salvation, to which men are elected. This decree of God admits of no cause out of himself; but the thing decreed, which is the glorification of his chosen ones, may and does admit, nay, necessarily requires a meritorious cause; which is no other than the obedience and death of Christ.

Pos. 3. They, who are predestinated to life, are likewise predestinated to all those means, which are indispensably necessary in order to their meetness for, entrance upon, and enjoyment of, that life: such as repentance, faith, sanctification; and perseverance in these to the end.

Ac 13:48. As many as were ordained to eternal life, beheved. Eph 1:4. He hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love. Eph 2:10. For we [i. e. the same we, whom he hath chosen before the foundation of the world] are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath foreordained that we should walk in them. And the apostle assures the same Thessalonians, whom he reminds of their election, and God's everlasting appointment of them to obtain salvation, that this also was his will concerning them, even their sanctification, 1Th 1:4; 5:9; 4:3 and gives them a view of all these privileges at once, 2Th 2:13. God hath, from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. As does St. Peter, 1Pe 1:2. Elec - through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. Now, though faith and holiness are not represented as the cause wherefore the elect are saved; yet, these are constantly represented, as the means through which they are saved, or as the appointed way wherein God leads his people to glory, these blessings being always bestowed previous to that. Agreeable to all which, is that of Austin: “Whatsoever persons are, through the riches of divine grace, exempted from the original sentence of condemnation, are undoubtedly brought to hear the gospel (y); and when heard, they are caused to believe it, and are made likewise to endure to the end in the faith which works by love; and should they at any time go astray, they are recovered and set right again." A little after he adds; "All these things are wrought in them by that God, who made them vessels of mercy, and who, by the election of his grace, chose them in his Son, before the world began."

(y) We must understand this in a qualified sense; as intending, that all those of the elect, who live where the Christian dispensation obtains, are, sooner or later, brought to hear the gospel, and to believe it.

Pos. 4. Not one of the elect can perish, but they must all necessarily be saved. The reason is this; because God simply and unchangeably wills, that all and every one of those, whom he hath appointed to life, should be eternally glorified: and, as was observed toward the end of the preceding chapter, all the divine attributes are concerned in the accomplishment of this his will. His wisdom, which cannot err; his knowledge, which cannot be deceived; his truth, which cannot fail; his love, which nothing can alienate; his justice, which cannot condemn any for whom Christ died; his power, which none can resist; and his unchangeableness, which can never vary: from all which it appears, that we do not speak at all improperly, when we say, that the salvation of his people is necessary, and certain. Now, that is said to be necessary, quod nequit aliter esse, which cannot be otherwise than it is: and, if all the perfections of God are engaged to preserve and save his children, their safety and salvation must be, in the strictest sense of the word, necessary. See, Ps 103:17 and Ps 125:1-2. Isa 45:17 and Isa 54:9-10. Jer 31:38; 32:40. Joh 6:39; 10:28-29; 14:19; 17:12. Ro 8:30,38-39; 11:29. 1Co 1:8-9. Php 1:6. 1Pe 1:4-5.

Thus St. Austin: "Of those, whom God hath predestinated, none can perish, inasmuch as they are his own elect." And, ib. “They are the elect, who are predestinated, foreknown, and called according to purpose. Now, could any of these be lost, God would be disappointed of his will and expectation; but he cannot be so disappointed: therefore, they can never perish. Again, could they be lost, the power of God would be made void by man's sin; but his power is invincible: therefore, they are safe." And again, cap. 9. "The children of God are written, with an unshaken stability, in the book of their heavenly Father's remembrance." And, in the same chapter he hath these words; “Not the children of promise, but the children of perdition, shall perish: for the former are the predestinated, who are called according to the divine determination; not one of whom shall finally miscarry."So likewise Luther; "God's decree of predestination is firm and certain; and the necessity resulting from it, is in like manner, immoveable, and cannot but take place. For, we ourselves are so feeble, that, if the matter was left in our hands, very few, or rather none, would be saved: but satan would overcome us all." To which he adds; "Now, since this stedfast and inevitable purpose of God cannot be reversed nor disannulled by any creature whatever; we have a most assured hope, that we shall finally triumph over sin, how violently soever it may at present rage in our mortal bodies."

Pos. 5. The salvation of the elect was not the only, nor yet the principal end of their being chosen; but God's grand end, in appointing them to life and happiness, was, to display the riches of his own mercy, and that he might be glorified in and by the persons he had thus chosen.

For this reason, the elect are styled vessels of mercy; because, they were originally created, and, afterwards, by the divine Spirit, created anew, with this design, and to this very end, that the sovereignty of the Father's grace, the freeness of his love, and the abundance of his goodness, might be manifested in their eternal happiness. Now, God, as we have already, more than once, had occasion to observe, does nothing in time, which he did not, from eternity, resolve within himself to do; and if he, in time, creates and regenerates his people, with a view to display his unbounded mercy; he must, consequently, have decreed from all eternity, to do this, with the same view. So that the final causes of election appear to be these two: 1. and principally, the (b) glory of God; 2. and subordinately, the salvation of those he has elected: from which the former arises, and by which it is illustrated and set off. So, Pr 16:1. The Lord hath made all things for himself. And hence that of Paul, Eph 1. He hath chosen us - to the praise of the glory of his grace.

(b) Let it be carefully observed, that, when with the scriptures, we assert the glory of God to be the ultimate end of his dealings with angels and men, we do not speak this with respect to his essential glory, which he has as God, and which, as it is infinite, is not susceptible of addition, nor capable of diminution: but of that glory which is purely manifestative, and which Microelius in his Lexic. Philosoph. Col. 471, defines to be, "Clara rei, cum laude, notitia; cum, nempe, ipsa sua eminentia est magna, augusta et conspicua." And the accurate Mastricht, "Celebratio, ceu manifestatio, (quae magis proprie glorificatio, quam gloria, appellatur) qua, agnita intus eminentia, ejusque congrua aestimatio, propalatur et extollitur." Theolog. lib. 2. cap. 22. s. 8.

Pos. 6. The end of election, which, with regard to the elect themselves, is eternal life: I say, this end, and the means conducive to it, such as the gift of the Spirit, faith, &c. are so inseparably connected together, that whoever is possessed of these, shall surely obtain that; and none can obtain that, who are not first possessed of these. Ac 13:48. As many as were ordained to eternal life, and none else believed. Ac 5:31. Him hath God exalted - to give repentance unto Israel, and remission of sins: not to all men, or to those who were not, in the counsel and purpose of God, set apart for himself; but to Israel, all his chosen people, who were given to him, were ransomed by him, and shall be saved in him with an everlasting salvation. Tit 1:1. According to the faith of God's elect; so that, true faith is a consequence of election, is peculiar to the elect, and shall issue in life eternal. Eph 1. He hath chosen us that we might be holy; therefore, all who are chosen, are made holy, and none but they: and all who are sanctified, have a right to believe they were elected, and that they shall assuredly be saved. Ro 8:30. Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Which shows, that effectual calling and justification are indissolubly connected with election on one hand, and eternal happiness on the other; that they are a proof of the former, and an earnest of the latter. Joh 10:26. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep; on the contrary, they who believe, therefore believe because they are of his sheep. Faith, then, is an evidence of election, or, of being in the number of Christ's sheep; consequently, of salvation, since all his sheep shall be saved, Joh 10:28.

Pos. 7. The elect may, through the grace of God, attain to the knowledge and assurance of their predestination to life; and they ought to seek after it. The Christian may, for instance, argue thus: As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed: through mercy, I believe; therefore, I am ordained to eternal life. He that believeth, shall be saved: I believe: therefore, I am in a saved state. Whom he did predestinate, he called, justified, and glorified: I have reason to trust, that he hath called and justified me: therefore I can assuredly look backward on my eternal predestination, and forward to my certain glorification. To all which frequently accedes the immediate testimony of the divine Spirit, witnessing with the believer's conscience, that he is a child of God, Ro 8:16. Ga 4:6. 1Jo 5:10. Christ forbids his little fiock to fear, inasmuch as they might, on good and solid grounds, rest satisfied and assured, that it is the Father's unalterably good pleasure to give them the kingdom, Lu 12:32. And this was the faith of the apostle, Ro 8:38-39.

Pos. 8. The true believer ought not only to be thoroughly established in the point of his own election; but should likewise believe the election of all his other fellow believers and brethren in Christ. Now, as there are most evident and indubitable marks of election, laid down in scripture; a child of God, by examining himself, whether those marks are found on him, may arrive at a sober and well-grounded certainty of his own particular interest in that unspeakable privilege; and, by the same rule, whereby he judges of himself, he may likewise (but with caution) judge of others. If I see the external fruits and criteria of election, on this or that man; I may reasonably, and in a judgment of charity, conclude such an one to be an elect person. So, St. Paul, beholding the gracious fruits which appeared in the believing Thessalonians, gathered thence that they were elected of God, 1Th 1:4-5. and knew also the election of the Christian Ephesians, Eph 1:4-5, as Peter also did that of the members of the churches in Pontus, Galatia, &c. 1Pe 1:2. It is true, indeed, that all conclusions of this nature are not now infallible, but our judgments are liable to mistake: and God only, whose is the book of life, and who is the searcher of hearts, can absolutely know them that are his, 2Ti 3:17; yet we may, without a presumptuous intrusion into things not seen, arrive at a moral certainty in this matter. And I cannot see how Christian love can be cultivated; how we can call one another brethren in the Lord; or, how believers can hold religious fellowship and communion with each other, unless they have some solid and visible reason to conclude, that they are loved with the same everlasting love, were redeemed by the same Saviour, are partakers of like grace, and shall reign in the same glory.

But here let me suggest one very necessary caution; viz. that though we may, at least very probably, infer the election of some persons, from the marks and appearances of grace, which may be discoverable in them; yet, we can never judge any man whatever to be a reprobate. That there are reprobate persons, is very evident from scripture (as we shall presently show); but who they are, is known alone to him, who alone can tell who and what men are not written in the Lamb's book of life. I grant, that there are some particular persons, mentioned in the divine word, of whose reprobation no doubt can be made; such as Esau and Judas: but, now the canon of scripture is completed, we dare not, we must not pronounce any man living, to be non-elect, be he at present, ever so wicked. The vilest sinner may, for aught we can tell, appertain to the election of grace, and be one day wrought upon by the Spirit of God. This we know, that those who die in unbelief, and are finally unsanctified, cannot be saved: because God, in his word tells us so, and has represented these as marks of reprobation; but, to say that such and such individuals, whom, perhaps, we now see dead in sins, shall never be converted to Christ, would be a most presumptuous assertion, as well as an inexcusable breach of the charity which hopeth all things.

CHAPTER IV.

Of Reprobation; or Predestination, as it respects the Ungodly.

From what has been said in the preceding chapter, concerning the election of some, it would unavoidably follow, even supposing the scriptures had been silent about it, that there must be a rejection of others; as every choice does, most evidently and necessarily, imply a refusal: for, where there is no leaving out, there can be no choice. But, beside the testimony of reason, the divine word is full and express to our purpose; it frequently, and in terms too clear to be misunderstood, and too strong to be evaded, by any who are not proof against the most cogent evidence, attests this tremendous truth, that some are, of old, foreordained to condemnation. I shall, in the discussion of this awful subject, follow the method hitherto observed, and throw what I have to say into several distinct positions, supported by scripture.

Pos. 1. God did, from all eternity, decree to leave some of Adam's fallen posterity in their sins, and to exclude them from the participation of Christ and his benefits.

For the clearing of this, let it be observed, that, in all ages, the much greater part of mankind have been destitute even of the external means of grace; have not been favoured with the preaching of God's word, or any revelation of his will. Thus, anciently, the Jews, who were in number, the fewest of all people, were nevertheless for a long series of ages, the only nation to whom the Deity was pleased to make any special discovery of himself: and it is observable, that our Lord himself principally confined the advantages of his public ministry to that people; nay he forbad his disciples to go among any others. Mt 10:5-6; and did not commission them to preach the gospel, indiscriminately to Jews and Gentiles, until after his resurrection, Mr 16:15. Lu 24:47. Hence, many nations and communities never had the advantage of hearing the word preached; and, consequently, were strangers to the faith that cometh thereby. It is not indeed, improbable, but some individuals, in these unenlightened countries, might belong to the secret election of grace; and the habit of faith might be wrought in these: however, be that as it will, our argument is not effected by it; it is evident, that the nations of the world were, generally, ignorant, not only of God himself, but likewise of the way to please him, the true manner of acceptance with him, and the means of arriving at the everlasting enjoyment of him. Now, if God had been pleased to have saved those people, would he not have vouchsafed them the ordinary means of salvation? would he not have given them all things necessary in order to that end? but, it is undeniable matter of fact, that he did not; and, to very many nations of the earth, does not, at this day. If, then, the Deity can, consistently with his attributes, deny to some, the means of grace, and shut them up in gross darkness and unbelief; why should it be thought incompatible with his immensely glorious perfections, to exclude some persons from grace itself, and from that eternal life which is connected with it? especially, seeing he is equally the Lord and sovereign disposer of the end, to which the means lead; as of the means, which lead to that end? both one and the other are his; and he most justly may, as he most assuredly will, do what he pleases with his own.

Besides; it being also evident, that many, even of them who live in places where the gospel is preached, as well as of those among whom it never was preached, die strangers to God and holiness, and without experiencing any thing of the gracious influences of his Spirit: we may reasonably and safely conclude, that one cause of their so dying, is, because it was not the divine will to communicate his grace to them: since, had it been his will, he would actually have made them partakers thereof; and, had they been partakers of it, they could not have died without it. Now, if it was the will of God, in time, to refuse them this grace; it must have been his will from eternity: since his will is, as himself, the same yesterday, today, and for ever.

The actions of God being thus fruits of his eternal purpose, we may safely, and without any danger of mistake, argue from them to that; and infer, that God therefore does such and such things, because he decreed to do them: his own will being the sole cause of all his works. So that, from his actually leaving some men in final impenitency and unbelief, we assuredly gather, that it was his everlasting determination so to do: and consequently, that he reprobated some, from before the foundation of the world.

And, as this inference is strictly rational, so is it perfectly scriptural. Thus, the Judge will, in the last day, declare to those on the left hand, I never knew you, Mat 7:23. i. e. "I never, no, not from eternity, loved, approved, or acknowledged you for mine:” or in other words, "I always hated you." Our Lord, in Joh 17 divides the whole human race into two great classes: one he calls the world; the other, the men who were given him out of the world. The latter, it is said, the Father loved, even as he loved Christ himself (verse 23.): but he loved Christ before the foundation of the world, verse 24. i. e. from everlasting: therefore, he loved the elect so too: and, if he loved these from eternity, it follows, by all the rules of antithesis, that he hated the others as early. So, Ro 9., The children not being yet born, neither having done good or evil, that the purpose of God, &c. From the example of the two twins, Jacob and Esau, the apostle infers the eternal election of some men, and the eternal rejection of all the rest.

Pos. 2. Some men were, from all eternity, not only negatively excepted from a participation of Christ and his salvation; but, positively ordained to continue in their natural blindness, hardness of heart, &c. and that, by the just judgment of God. See Ex 9:1; 1Sa 2:25. 2Sa 17:14. Isa 6:9-11. 2Th 2:11-12. Nor can these places of scripture, with many others of like import, be understood of an involuntary permission on the part of God; as if God barely suffered it to be so, quasi invitus, as it were by constraint, and against his will; for he permits nothing, which he did not resolve and determine to permit. His permission is a positive, determinate act of his will; as Austin, Luther, and Bucer, justly observe. Therefore, if it be the will of God, in time, to permit such and such men to continue in their natural state of ignorance and corruption, the natural consequence of which is, their falling into such and such sins (observe God does not force them into sin; their actual disobedience being only the consequence of their not having that grace which God is not obliged to grant them); I say, if it be the will of God thus to leave them in time (and we must deny demonstration itself, even known, absolute matter of fact, if we deny that some are so left), then it must have been the divine intention, from all eternity, so to leave them: since, as we have already had occasion to observe, no new will can possibly arise in the mind of God. We see, that evil men actually are suffered to go on adding sin to sin: and if it be not inconsistent with the sacred attributes actually to permit this; it could not possibly be inconsistent with them to decree that permission, before the foundations of the world were laid.

Thus, God efficaciously permitted (having so decreed) the Jews to be, in effect, the crucifiers of Christ; and Judas to betray him; Ac 4:27-28. Mt 26:23-24. Hence we find St. Austin speaking thus; "Judas was chosen, but it was to do a most execrable deed: that, thereby, the death of Christ, and the adorable work of redemption by him, might be accomplished. When therefore, we hear our Lord say, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? we must understand it thus, that the eleven were chosen in mercy; but Judas in judgment: they were chosen to partake of Christ's kingdom; he was chosen and pitched upon to betray him, and be the means of shedding his blood."

Pos. 3. The non-elect were predestinated not only to continue in final impenitency, sin, and unbelief; but were, likewise, for such their sins, righteously appointed to infernal death hereafter.

This position is also self-evident; for it is certain, that, in the day of universal judgment, all the human race will not be admitted into glory, but some of them transmitted to the place of torment. Now, God does, and will do nothing, but in consequence of his own decree. Ps 135:6. Isa 46:11. Eph 1:9,11; therefore, the condemnation of the unrighteous was decreed of God; and, if decreed by him, decreed from everlasting, for all his decrees are eternal. Besides, if God purposed to leave those persons under the guilt and the power of sin, their condemnation must, of itself, necessarily follow; since, without justification and sanctification (neither of which blessings are in the power of man) none can enter heaven, Joh 13:8. Heb 12:14. Therefore, if God determined within himself, thus to leave some in their sins (and it is but too evident that this is really the case); he must also have determined within himself to punish them for those sins (final guilt and final punishment being correlatives which necessarily infer each other); but God did determine both to leave and to punish the non-elect; therefore, there was a reprobation of some from eternity. Thus, Mt 25., Go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels; for satan and all his messengers, emissaries, and imitators, whether apostate spirits, or apostate men. Now, if penal fire was, in decree, from everlasting, prepared for them; they, by all the laws of argument in the world, must have been in the counsel of God, prepared, i. e. designed, for that fire: which is the point I undertook to prove. Hence we read, Ro 9 of vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, kathrtismena eiv apwleian, put together, made up, formed, or fashioned, for perdition: who are, and can be no other than the reprobate. To multiply scriptures on this head, would be almost endless: for a sample, consult Pr 16:4. 1Pe 2:8. 2Pe 2:12. Jude 1:4. Re 13:8.

Pos. 4. As the future faith and good works of the elect, were not the cause of their being chosen; so neither were the future sins of the reprobate the cause of their being past by: but both the choice of the former, and the decretive omission of the latter, were owing, merely and entirely, to the sovereign will and determinating pleasure of God.

We distinguish between preteretion, or bare non-election, which is a purely negative thing; and condemnation, or appointment to punishment; the will of God was the cause of the former; the sins of the non-elect are the reason of the latter. Though God determined to leave, and actually does leave, whom he pleases in the spiritual darkness and death of nature, out of which he is under no obligation to deliver them; yet he does not, positively, condemn any of these, merely because he hath not chosen them, but because they have sinned against him; see Ro 1:21-24; 2:8-9. 2Th 2:12. Their preterition, or non-inscription in the book of life, is not unjust, on the part of God; because, out of a world of rebels, equally involved in guilt, God (who might, without any impeachment of his justice, have passed by all, as he did the reprobate angels) was, most unquestionably, at liberty, if it so pleased him, to extend the sceptre of his clemency to some; and to pitch upon whom he would, as the objects of it. Nor was this exemption of some, any injury to the non-elect: whose case would have been just as bad as it is, even supposing the others had not been chosen at all. Again, the condemnation of the ungodly (for it is under that character alone, that they are the subjects of punishment, and were ordained to it) is not unjust, seeing it is for sin, and only for sin. None are or will be punished, but for their iniquities; and all iniquity is properly meritorious of punishment: where then, is the supposed unmercifulness, tyranny, or injustice, of the divine procedure?

Pos. 5. God is the creator of the wicked, but not of their wickedness: he is the author of their being, but not the infuser of their sin.

It is, most certainly, his will, (for adorable and unsearchable reasons), to permit sin; but, with all possible reverence be it spoken, it should seem that he cannot, consistently with the purity of his nature, the glory of his attributes, and the truth of his declarations, be himself, the author of it. Sin, says the apostle, entered into the world by one man, meaning, by Adam: consequently, it was not introduced by the Deity himself. Though, without the permission of his will, and the concurrence of his providence, its introduction had been impossible; yet is he not, hereby the author of sin so introduced (d). Luther observes, (De Serv. Arb. c. 42.) "It is a great degree of faith, to believe, that God is merciful and gracious, though he saves so few, and condemns so many; and that he is strictly just, though in consequence of his own will, he made us not exempt from liableness to condemnation." And cap. 148. “Although God doth not make sin, nevertheless he ceases not to create and multiply individuals in the human nature, which, through the withholding of his Spirit, is corrupted by sin: just as a skilful artist may form curious statues out of bad materials. So, such as their nature is, such are men themselves: God forms them out of such a nature."

(d) It is a known and very just maxim of the schools, effectus soquitur causam proximam: " An effect follows from, and is to be ascribed to, the last immediate cause that produced it." Thus, for instance, if I hold a book, or a stone, in my hand, my holding it is the immediate cause of its not falling; but, if I let it go, my letting it go is not the immediate cause of its falling: it is carried downward by its own gravity, which is, therefore, the causa proxima effectus, the proper and immediate cause of its descent. It is true, if I had kept my hold of it, it would not have fallen; yet still, the immediate, direct cause of its fall, is its own weight, not my quitting my hold. The application of this, to the providence of God, as concerned in sinful events, is easy. Without God there could have been no creation; without creation, no creatures; without creatures, no sin. Yet is not sin chargeable on God: for effectus sequitur causam proximan.

Pos. 6. The condemnation of the reprobate is necessary and inevitable.

Which we prove thus: It is evident, from scripture, that the reprobate shall be condemned. But nothing comes to pass (much less can the condemnation of a rational creature), but in consequence of the will and decree of God. Therefore, the non-elect could not be condemned, was it not the divine pleasure and determination that they should. And, if God wills and determines their condemnation, that condemnation is necessary and inevitable. By their sins, they have made themselves guilty of death: and, as it is not the will of God to pardon those sins, and grant them repentance unto life; the punishment of such impenitent sinners is as unavoidable as it is just. It is our Lord's own declaration, Mt 7. that a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit: or, in other words, that a depraved sinner cannot produce in himself those gracious habits, nor exert those gracious acts, without which no adult person can be saved. Consequently, the reprobate must, as corrupt, fruitless trees (or fruitful in evil only), be hewn-down, and cast into the fire, Mt 3. This, therefore, serves as another argument, in proof of the inevitability of their future punishment: which argument, in brief, amounts to this: They, who are not saved from sin, must unavoidably perish: but the reprobate are not saved from sin, (for they have neither will nor power to save themselves, and God, though he certainly can, yet he certainly will not save them): therefore, their perdition is unavoidable. Nor does it follow, from hence, that God forces the reprobate into sin, and thereby into misery, against their wills; but that, in consequence of their natural depravity (which it is not the divine pleasure to deliver them out of, neither is he bound to do it, nor are they themselves so much as desirous that he would), they are voluntarily biased and inclined to evil: nay, which is worse still, they hug and value their spiritual chains, and even greedily pursue the paths of sin, which lead to the chambers of death. Thus, God does not (as we are slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, as the rider spurs forward an unwilling horse; God only says, in effect, that tremendous word, Let them alone. Mt 15:14. He needs but slacken the reins of providential restraint, and withhold the influence of saving grace; and apostate man will, too soon, and too surely, of his own accord, fall by his iniquity: he will presently be, spiritually speaking, a felo de se, and, without any other efficiency, lay violent hands on his own soul. So that, though the condemnation of the reprobate is unavoidable, yet the necessity of it is so far from making them mere machines, or involuntary agents, that it does not, in the least, interfere with the rational freedom of their wills, nor serve to render them less inexcusable.

Pos. 7. The punishment of the non-elect was not the ultimate end of their creation; but the glory of God.

It is frequently objected to us, that, according to our view of predestination, "God makes some persons on purpose to damn them:" But this we never advanced: nay, we utterly reject it, as equally unworthy of God to do, and of a rational being to suppose. The grand principal end, proposed by the Deity to himself, in his formation of all things, and of mankind in particular, was, The manifestation and display of his own glorious attributes. His ultimate scope, in the creation of the elect, is to evidence and make known, by their salvation, the unsearchable riches of his power and wisdom, mercy and love: and, the creation of the non-elect, is for the display of his justice, power, sovereignty, holiness, and truth. So that nothing can be more certain, than the declaration of the text we have frequently had occasion to cite, Pr 16. The Lord hath made all things for himself, even the wicked for the day of evil. On one hand, the vessels of wrath are fitted for destruction, in order that God may show his wrath, and make his power known, and manifest the greatness of his patience and long suffering, Ro 9:32. On the other hand, he afore prepared the elect to salvation, that, on them, he might demonstrate the riches of his glory and mercy, Ro 9:23. As, therefore, God himself is the sole author and efficient of all his own actions; so is he likewise the supreme end, to which they lead, and in which they terminate.

Besides, the creation and perdition of the ungodly answer another purpose (though a subordinate one), with regard to the elect themselves, who from the rejection of those, learn, (1.) to admire the riches of divine love towards themselves, which planned, and has accomplished the work of their salvation: while others, by nature on an equal level with them, are excluded from a participation of the same benefits. And such a view of the Lord's distinguishing mercy is, (2.) a most powerful motive to thankfulness, that, when they too might justly have been condemned with the world of the non-elect, they were marked out as heirs of the grace of life. (3.) Hereby they are taught, ardently to love their heavenly Father; (4.) to trust in him assuredly, for a continued supply of grace while they are on earth, and for the accomplishment of his eternal decree and promise, by their glorification in heaven; and, (5.) to live, as becomes those, who have received such unspeakable mercies from the hand of their God and Saviour. So Bucer somewhere observes. That the punishment of the reprobate “is useful to the elect; inasmuch as it influences them to a greater fear and abhorrence of sin, and to a firmer reliance on the goodness of God."

Pos. 8. Notwithstanding God did, from all eternity, irreversibly choose out and fix upon some to be partakers of salvation by Christ, and rejected the rest (who are therefore termed by the apostle, 'oi loipoi, the refuse, or those that remained and were left out); acting, in both, according to the good pleasure of his own sovereign will: yet, he did not herein act an unjust, tyrannical, or cruel part; nor yet show himself a respecter of persons.

1. He is not unjust, in reprobating some: neither can he be so; for the Lord is holy in all his ways, and righteous in all his works. Ps 145. But salvation and damnation are works of his: consequently, neither of them is unrighteous or unholy. It is undoubted matter of fact, that the Father draws some men to Christ, and saves them in him with an everlasting salvation; and that he neither draws nor saves some others: and, if it be not unjust in God, actually to forbear saving these persons after they are born, it could not be unjust in him to determine as much, before they were born. What is not unjust for God to do in time, could not, by parity of argument, be unjust in him to resolve upon and decree from eternity. And, surely, if the apostle's illustration be allowed to have any propriety, or to carry any authority, it can no more be unjust in God to set apart some, for communion with himself in this life and the next, and to set, aside others, according to his own free pleasure; than for a potter, to make, out of the same mass of clay, some vessels for honourable, and others for inferior uses. The Deity, being absolute Lord of all his creatures, is accountable to none, for his doings, and cannot be chargeable with injustice, for disposing of his own as he will.

Nor, 2. is the decree of reprobation a tyrannical one. It is, indeed, strictly sovereign; but lawful sovereignty and lawless tyranny are as really distinct, and different, as any two opposites can be. He is a tyrant, in the common acceptation of that word, who, (1.) either usurps the sovereign authority, and arrogates to himself a dominion to which he has no right: or, (2.) who, being originally a lawful prince, abuses his power, and governs contrary to law. But who dares to lay either of these accusations to the divine charge? God, as creator, has a most unquestionable and unlimited right over the souls and bodies of men; unless it can be supposed, contrary to all scripture and common sense, that, in making of man, he made a set of beings superior to himself and exempt from his jurisdiction. Taking it for granted, therefore, that God has an absolute right of sovereignty over his creatures; if he should be pleased (as the scriptures repeatedly assure us that he is) to manifest and display that right, by graciously saving some, and justly punishing others for their sins - Who are we, that we should reply against God?

Neither does the ever blessed Deity fall under the second notion of a tyrant; namely, as one who abuses his power, by acting contrary to law: for, by what exterior law is he bound, who is the supreme lawgiver of all the universe? The laws promulgated by him, are designed for the rule of our conduct, not of his. Should it be objected, that “his own attributes of goodness and justice, holiness and truth, are a law to himself;" I answer, that, admitting this to be the case, there is nothing in the decree of reprobation, as represented in scripture, and by us thence, which clashes with any of those perfections. With regard to the divine goodness, though the non-elect are not objects of it, in the sense the elect are, yet even they are not wholly excluded from a participation of it. They enjoy the good things of providence, in common with God's children, and, very often, in a much higher degree. Besides, goodness, considered as it is in God, would have been just the same infinite and glorious attribute, supposing no rational beings had been created at all, or saved when created. To which may be added, that the goodness of the Deity does not cease to be infinite in itself, only because it is more extended to some objects than it is to others. The infinity of this perfection, as residing in God and coinciding with his essence, is sufficiently secured, without supposing it to reach, indiscriminately, to all the creatures he has made. For, was this way of reasoning to be admitted, it would lead us too far, and prove too much: since, if the infinity of his goodness is to be estimated, by the number of objects, upon which it terminates; there would be an absolute, proper infinity of reasonable beings, to terminate that goodness upon: consequently, it would follow, from such premises, either that the creation is as truly infinite, as the Creator: or, if otherwise, that the Creator's goodness could not be infinite, because it has not an infinity of objects to make happy (e). Lastly, if it were not incompatible with God's infinite goodness, to pass by the whole body of fallen angels, and leave them under the guilt of their apostasy, much less can it clash with that attribute, to pass by some of fallen mankind, and resolve to leave them in their sins, and punish them for them. Nor is it inconsistent with the divine justice, to withhold saving grace from some; seeing the grace of God is not what he owes to any. It is a free gift, to those that have it; and it is not due to those that are without it: consequently, there can be no injustice, in not giving what God is not bound to bestow.

(e) The late most learned and judicious Mr. Charnock has, in my judgment at least, proved, most clearly and satisfactorily, that the exclusion of some individual persons from a participation of saving grace, is perfectly consistent with God's unlimited goodness. He observes, that "The goodness of the Deity is infinite, and circumscribed by no limits. The exercise of his goodness may be limited by himself; but his goodness, the principle, cannot: for, since his essence is infinite, and his goodness is not distinguished from his essence; it is infinite also. God is necessarily good, in his nature; but free in his communications of it. He is necessarily good, affective, in regard of his nature; but freely good, effective, in regard of the effluxes of it to this or that particular subject he pitcheth upon. He is not necessarily communicative of his goodness, as the sun of its light, or a tree of its cooling shade, which chooses not its objects, but enlightens all indifferently, without variation or distinction; this were to make God of no more understanding than the sun, which shines, not where it pleases, but where it must. He is an understanding agent, and hath a sovereign right to choose his own subjects. It would not be supreme, if it were not a voluntary goodness. It is agreeable to the nature of the highest good, to be absolutely free; and to dispense his goodness in what methods and measures he pleases, according to the free determinations of his own will, guided by the wisdom of his mind, and regulated by the holiness of his nature. He will be good to whom he will be good. When he doth act, he cannot but act well; so far it is necessary: yet he may act this good or that good, to this or that degree; so it is free: As it is the perfection of his nature, it is necessary: as it is the communication of his bounty, it is voluntary. The eye cannot but see, if it be open; yet it may glance on this or that colour, fix upon this or that object, as it is conducted by the will. What necessity could there be on God, to resolve to communicate his goodness [at all]? It could not be to make himself better by it; for he had [before] a goodness incapable of any addition. What obligation could there be from the creature? Whatever sparks of goodness any creature hath, are the free effusions of God's bounty, the offspring of his own inclination to do well, the simple favour of the donor. God is as unconstrained in his liberty, in all his communications, as [he is] infinite in his goodness, the fountain of them." Charnock's Works, vol. i. p. 583, &c. With whom agrees the excellent Dr. Bates (surnamed for his eloquence, the silver tongued); and who, if he had a silver tongue, had likewise a golden pen: "God," says he, "is a wise and free agent; and as he is infinite in goodness, so the exercise of it is voluntary, and only so far as he pleases.” Harm. of Div. Attrib. Chap. 3.

There is no end of cavilling at the divine dispensations, if men are disposed to do it. We might, with equality of reason, when our hand is in, presume to charge the Deity with partiality, for not making all his creatures angels, because it was in his power to do so; as charge him with injustice, for not electing all mankind. Besides, how can it possibly be subversive of his justice, to condemn, and resolve to condemn, the non-elect, for their sins; when those very sins were not atoned for by Christ, as the sins of the elect were? His justice, in this case, is so far from hindering the condemnation of the reprobate, that it renders it necessary and indispensible. Again, is the decree of sovereign preterition, and of just condemnation for sin, repugnant to the divine holiness? not in the least: so far from it, that it does not appear how the Deity could be holy, if he did not hate sin, and punish it. Neither is it contrary to his truth and veracity. Quite the reverse. For, would not the divine veracity fall to the ground, if the finally wicked were not condemned?

3. God, in the reprobation of some, does not act a cruel part. Whoever accused a chief magistrate, of cruelty, for not sparing a company of atrocious malefactors, and for letting the sentence of the law take place upon them by their execution? If, indeed, the magistrate please to pity some of them, and remit their penalty, we applaud his clemency: but the punishment of the rest is no impeachment of his mercy. Now, with regard to God, his mercy is free and voluntary. He may extend it to, and withhold it from, whom he pleases, Ro 9:15,18, and it is sad indeed, if we will not allow the sovereign, the all-wise Governor of heaven and earth, the same privilege and liberty, we allow to a supreme magistrate below.

Nor, 4. is God, in choosing some and rejecting others, a respecter of persons. He only comes under that title, who, on account of parentage, country, dignity, wealth, or for any other (f) external consideration, shews more favour to one person, than to another. But that is not the case with God. He considers all men as sinners by nature; and has compassion not on persons of this or that sect, country, sex, age, or station in life, because they are so circumstanced, but on whom, and because, he will have compassion. Pertinent to the present purpose, is that passage of St. Austin): “Forasmuch as some people imagine, that they must look on God as a respecter of persons, if they believe, that, without any respect had to the previous merits of men, he hath mercy on whom he will, and calls whom it is his pleasure to call, and makes good whom he pleases: The scrupulousness of such people arises from their not duly attending to this one thing, namely, that damnation is rendered to the wicked, as a matter of debt, justice, and desert; whereas, the grace, given to those who are delivered, is free and unmerited: so that the condemned sinner, cannot allege that he is unworthy of his punishment; nor the saint vaunt or boast, as if he were worthy of his reward. Thus, in the whole course of this procedure, there is no respect of persons. They, who are condemned, and they, who are set at liberty, constituted, originally, one and the same lump, equally infected with sin, and liable to vengeance. Hence, the justified may learn, from the condemnation of the rest, that would have been their own punishment, had not God's free grace stepped in to their rescue."

(f) proswpolhyia, personsae acceptio, quum magis huic favemus, quam illi, ob circumstantiam aliquam, ceu qualitatem, externam, ei adhaerentem; puta genus, dignitatem, opes, patriam, &c. Scapula, in voc.

So that elegant, accurate, and learned Dutch divine, Laurentius: Haec vero [i.e. proswpolhyia est, quando persona personae praefertur ex causa indebita: puta, si judex absolvat reum, vel quia dives est, vel quia potens, vel quia magistratus est, vel quia amicus et propinquus est. &c. "That is respect of persons, when one man is preferred to another on some sinister and undue account; as when a judge acquits a criminal, merely because he is rich, or powerful, or is his friend or relation, &c." Comment, in Epist. Jacob, p. 92.

Now, in the matter of election and preterition, God is influenced by no such motives; nor, indeed, by any exterior inducement, or any motive, extra se, out of himself. He does not, for instance, condemn any persons, on account of their poverty; but, on the reverse, hath chosen many, who are poor in this world. Jas 2:5. Nor does he condemn any, for being rich; for some even of the mighty and noble, are called by his grace. 1Co 1:26. He does not respect any man's parentage, or country; for the elect will be gathered together from the four winds, from under one end of heaven to the other, Mt 24:31. and he hath redeemed to himself a select number, out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation. Re 5:9; 7:9. So far is God from being in any sense, a respecter of persons, that, in Christ Jesus, there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, Ga 3:28. He does not receive one, nor reject another, merely for coming, or not coming, under any of these characters. His own sovereign will, and not their external or internal circumstances, was the sole rule, by which he proceeded, in appointing some to salvation, and decreeing to leave others in their sins: so that God is not herein a respecter of their persons, but a respecter of himself, and his own glory.

And as God is no respecter of persons, because he chooses some as objects of his favour, and omits others; all being on a perfect equality; so neither does it follow, that he is such, from his actually conferring spiritual and eternal blessings on the former, and denying them to the latter: Seeing these blessings are absolutely his own and which he may, therefore, without injustice, give, or not give, at his pleasure. Dr. Whitby himself, though so strenuous an adversary to every thing that looks like predestination, yet very justly observes (and such a concession, from such a pen, merits the reader's attention), Locum non habit [scil. proswpolhyia] in bonis mere liberis et gratuitis; neque in iis, in quibus, unum alteii praeferre, nostri arbitrii aut privilegii est. Ethic. Compend. 1. 2. c. 5. sect. 9. i.e. "the bestowing" [and, consequently, the withholding] "of such benefits, as are merely gratuitous and undeserved, does not argue respect of persons; neither is it respect of persons, to prefer one before another, when we have a right, and it is our pleasure so to do." I shall only add the testimony of Thomas Aquinas; a man of some genius, and much application; who, though, in very many things, a laborious trifler; was yet, on some subjects, a clear reasoner, and judicious writer. His words are, "Duplex est datio; una quidem pertinens ad justitiam; qua scilicet, aliquis dat alicui quod ei debetur: et circa tales dationes attenditur personarum acceptio. Alia est datio ad liberalitatem pertinens; qua scilicet, gratis datur alicui quod ei non debetur. Et talis est collatio munerum gratiae, per quae peccatores assumuntur a Deo. Et, in hac donatione, non habet locum personarum acceptio; quia quilibet, absque injustitia, potest de suo dare quantum vult, et cui vult: secundum illud. Mt 20. Annon licet mihi, quod volo, facere? tolle quod tuum est et vade." i.e. "There is a two-fold rendering or giving: the one a matter of justice, whereby that is paid to a man, which was due to him. Here it is possible for us to act partially, with respect of persons:" [Thus, for example's sake, I owe money to two men, one of whom is rich, the other poor; and I pay the rich man, because he has it in his power to sue me, but defraud the other, because of his inability to do himself justice; I should be a respecter of persons. But, as Aquinas goes on] "There is a second kind of rendering or giving; which is a branch of mere bounty and liberality: by which that is freely bestowed on any man which was not due to him: such are the gifts of grace, whereby sinners are received of God. In the bestowment of grace, respect of persons is absolutely out of the question: because every one may, and can, without the least shadow of injustice, give as much of his own, as he will, and to whom he will: according to that passage in Mt 20. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will [with my own]? take up that which is thine, and go thy way." Aquin. Summ. Theol. 2 - dae Qu. 63. A. 1.

On the whole, it is evident, that respect of persons can only have place in matters of justice, and is but another name for perversion of justice: consequently, it has nothing to do with matters of mere goodness and bounty, as all the blessings of grace and salvation are.

Before I conclude this head, I will obviate a fallacious objection, very common in the mouths of our opponents: "How," say they, "is the doctrine of reprobation reconcileable with the doctrine of a future judgment?" To which I answer, that there need no pains to reconcile these two, since they are so far from interfering with each other, that one follows from the other, and the former renders the latter absolutely necessary. Before the judgment of the great day, Christ does not so much act as the judge of his creatures, as their absolute Lord and Sovereign. From the first creation, to the final consummation of all things; he does in consequence of his own eternal and immutable purpose (as a divine person), graciously work in and on his own elect, and permissively harden the reprobate. - But, when all the transactions of providence and grace are wound up in the last day: he will then properly sit as Judge; and openly publish, and solemnly ratify, if I may so say, his everlasting decrees, by receiving the elect, body and soul, into glory, and by passing sentence on the non-elect (not for their having done what they could not help, but) for their wilful ignorance of divine things, and their obstinate unbelief; for their omissions of moral duty, and for their repeated iniquities and transgressions.

Pos. 9. Notwithstanding God's predestination is most certain and unalterable, so that no elect person can perish, nor any reprobate be saved; yet it does not follow from thence, that all precepts, reproofs, and exhortations, on the part of God, or prayers on the part of man, are useless, vain and insignificant.

(1.) These are not useless with regard to the elect; for they are necessary means of bringing them to the knowledge of the truth at first, afterwards, of stirring up their pure minds by way of remembrance, and of edifying and establishing them in faith, love, and holiness. Hence that of St. Austin: “The commandment will tell thee, O man, what thou oughtest to have; reproof will shew thee wherein thou art wanting; and praying will teach thee from whom thou must receive the supplies which thou wantest." Nor, (2.) are these vain with regard to the reprobate: for, precept, reproof, and exhortation, may, if duly attended to, be a means of making them careful to adjust their moral, external conduct, according to the rules of decency, justice, and regularity; and thereby, prevent much inconvenience to themselves, and injury to society. And, as for prayer, it is the duty of all, without exception. Every created being (whether elect or reprobate matters not, as to this point) is, as such, dependent on the Creator for all things: and, if dependent, ought to have recourse to him, both in a way of supplication and thanksgiving.

But, to come closer still. That absolute predestination does not set aside, nor render superfluous, the use of preaching, exhortation, &c. we prove from the examples of Christ himself and his apostles: who all taught and insisted upon the article of predestination; and yet took every opportunity of preaching to sinners, and enforced their ministry with proper rebukes, invitations, and exhortations, as occasion required. - Though they showed, unanswerably, that salvation is the free gift of God, and lies entirely at his sovereign disposal; that men can of themselves, do nothing spiritually good; and that it is God, who of his own pleasure, works in them both to will and to do: yet, they did not neglect to address their auditors, as beings possessed of reason and conscience, nor omitted to remind them of their duties as such; but showed them their sin and danger by nature, and laid before them the appointed way and method of salvation, as exhibited in the gospel. Our Saviour himself expressly, and in terminis, assures us, that no man can come to him, except the Father draw him: and yet he says, Come unto me, all ye that labour, &c. St. Peter, in Ac 2, told the Jews, that they had fulfilled the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, in putting the Messiah to death; and yet sharply rebukes them for it. St. Paul declares, It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; and yet exhorts the Corinthians so to run, as to obtain the prize. He assures us, Ro 8., that we know not what to pray for, as we ought; and yet, 1Th 5 directs us to pray without ceasing. He avers, 1Ti 2 that the foundation, or decree, of the Lord standeth sure; and yet cautions him who thinks he stands, to take heed, lest he fall. St. James, in hke manner, says, that every good and perfect gift cometh down from above; and yet exhorts those, who want wisdom, to ask it of God. So, then, all these being means, whereby the elect are frequently enlightened into the knowledge of Christ, and by which they are, after they have believed through grace, built up in him; and are means of their perseverance in grace to the end: these are so far from being vain and insignificant, that they are highly useful and necessary, and answer many valuable and important ends, without in the least shaking the doctrine of predestination in particular, or the analogy of faith in general. Thus St. Austin: “We must preach, we must reprove, we must pray; because they, to whom grace is given, will hear, and act accordingly; though they, to whom grace is not given, will do neither."

CHAPTER V.

Shewing that the Scripture doctrine of Predestination should he openly preached and insisted on; and for what Reasons.

Upon the whole, it is evident, that the doctrine of God's eternal and unchangeable predestination should neither be wholly suppressed and laid aside; nor yet be confined to the disquisition of the learned and speculative only; but, likewise, should be publicly taught from the pulpit and the press; that even the meanest of the people may not be ignorant of a truth, which reflects such glory on God, and is the very foundation of happiness to man. Let it, however, be preached with judgment and discretion: i.e. delivered, by the preacher, as it is delivered in scripture; and no otherwise. By which means, it can neither be abused to licentiousness, nor misapprehended to despair: but will eminently conduce to the knowledge, establishment, improvement and comfort of them that hear. That predestination ought to be preached, I thus prove:

I. The gospel is to be preached: and that not partially, and by piece-meal, but the whole of it. The commission runs, Go forth and preach the gospel; the gospel itself, even all the gospel, without exception or limitation, for, so far as the gospel is maimed, or any branch of the evangelical system is suppressed and passed over in silence, so far the gospel is not preached. Besides, there is scarce any other distinguishing doctrine of the gospel can be preached in its purity and consistency, without this of predestination. Election is the golden thread that runs through the whole Christian system; it is the leaven, that pervades the whole lump. Cicero says of the various parts of human learning, “Omnes artes, quae ad humanitatem pertinent, habent quoddam commune vinculum, et quasi cognatione quudam inter se continentur: i. e. ' The whole circle of arts have a kind of mutual bond and connection; and, by a sort of reciprocal relationship, are held together, and interwoven with each other.” Much the same may be said, of this important doctrine; it is the bond, which connects and keeps together the whole Christian system, which, without this, is like a system of sand, ever ready to fall to pieces. It is the cement, which holds the fabric together; nay, it is the very soul that animates the whole frame. It is so blended and interwoven with the entire scheme of gospel doctrine, that, when the former is excluded, the latter bleeds to death. An ambassador is to deliver the whole message with which he is charged. He is to omit no part of it; but must declare the mind of the sovereign he represents fully and without reserve. He is to say neither more nor less than the instructions of his court require. Else, he comes under displeasure; perhaps loses his head. Let the ministers of Christ weigh this well.

Nor is the gospel to be preached only, but preached to every creature: i. e. to reasonable beings, promiscuously, and at large; to all, who frequent the Christian ministry, of every state and condition of life; whether high or low, young or old, learned or illiterate. All, who attend on the ministrations of Christ's ambassadors, have a right to hear the gospel fully, clearly, and without mincing. Preach it, says Christ, Mr 16:15. khrucate, publish it abroad; be its criers and heralds; proclaim it aloud; tell it out; keep back no part of it; spare not; lift up your voices like trumpets. Now, a very considerable branch of this gospel is, the doctrine of God's eternal, free, absolute, and irreversible election of some persons, in Christ, to everlasting life. The saints were singled out, in God's eternal purpose and choice, ut crederent, to be endued with faith, and thereby fitted for their destined salvation. By their interest in the gratuitous, unalienable love of the blessed Trinity, they come to be, subjectively, saints and believers: so that their whole salvation, from the first plan of it in the divine mind, to the consummation of it in glory, is at once a matter of mere grace, and of absolute certainty. While they, who die without faith and holiness, prove thereby, that they are not included in this elect number, and were not written in the book of life. The justice of God's procedure herein is unquestionable. Out of a corrupt mass, wherein not one was better than another, he might (as was observed before) love and choose whom and as many as he pleased. It was, likewise, without any shadow of injustice, at his option, whom, and how many, he would pass by. His not choosing them was the fruit of his sovereign will; but his condemning them, after death, and in the last day, is the fruit (not of their non-election, which was no fault of theirs; but) of their own positive transgressions. The elect, therefore, have the utmost reason to love and glorify God, which any beings can possibly have: and the sense of what he has done for them, is the strongest motive to obedience. On the other hand, the reprobates have nothing to complain of; since, whatever God does, is just and right: and so it will appear to be (however darkly matters may appear to us now), when we see him as he is, and know him even as we are known.

And now, why should not this doctrine be preached and insisted upon in public? a doctrine which is of express revelation; a doctrine that makes wholly for the glory of God; which conduces, in a most peculiar manner, to the conversion, comfort, and sanctification of the elect; and leaves even the ungodly themselves without excuse!

But, perhaps, you may still be inclined to question, whether predestination be indeed a scripture doctrine. If so, let me, by way of sample, beg you to consider the following declarations, 1. of Christ, 2. of his apostles.

Mt 11. If the mighty works, that have been done in thee, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented, &c. whence it is evident, that the Tyrians and Sidonians, at least the majority of them, died in a state of impenitency; but that, if God had given them the same means of grace, afforded to Israel, they would not have died impenitent; yet those means were not granted them. How can this be accounted for? only on the single principle of peremptory predestination, flowing from the sovereign will of God. No wonder, then, that our Lord concludes that chapter, with these remarkable words: I thank thee, Holy Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. Where Christ thanks the Father, for doing that very thing, which Arminians exclaim against as unjust, and censure as partial!

Mt 13. To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Mt 20:23. To sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, all' 'oiv n toimazai upo tou watrov mou, except to them for whom it hath been prepared by my Father: q.d. Salvation is not a precarious thing: the seats in glory were disposed of long ago, in my Father's intention and destination: I can only assign them to such persons, as they were prepared for, in his decree.

Mt 22. Many are called, but few chosen: i. e. All who live under the sound of the gospel, will not be saved; but those only who are elected unto life.

Mt 24. For the elect's sake, those days shall be shortened, and ibid. If it were possible, they should deceive the very elect: where, it is plain, Christ teaches two things; (1.) that there is a certain number of persons, who are elected to grace and glory; and, (2.) that it is absolutely impossible for these to be deceived into total or final apostasy.

Mt 25. Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

Mr 11. Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but, to them that are without, i. e. out of the pale of election, all these things are done in parables; that, seeing, they may see, and not perceive; and, hearing, they may hear, and not understand: lest, at any time, they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Lu 10. Rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

Lu 12. It is your Father's good pleasure, to give you the kingdom.

Lu 17. One shall be taken, and the other shall be left,

Joh 6. All that the Father hath given me, shall come unto me: as much as to say. These shall, but the rest cannot.

Joh 8. He that is of God, heareth God's words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God: nor chosen of him.

Joh 10. Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep.

Joh 15. Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.

I come now, 2. to the apostles.

Joh 12:37,40. They believed not on him, that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled which he spake; Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said again. He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their hearts; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, and be converted, and I should heal them. Without certain prescience, there could be no prophecy; and, without predestination, no certain prescience. Therefore, in order to the accomplishment of prophecy, prescience, and predestination, we are expressly told that these persons could not believe ouk ndunanto, they were not able; it was out of their power. In short, there is hardly a page in St. John's gospel, which does not, either expressly or implicitly, make mention of election and reprobation.

St. Peter says of Judas, Ac 1. Men and brethren, the scriptures must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before, concerning Judas. So, verse 25. That he might go to his own place: to the place of punishment appointed for him.

Ac 2. Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and, with wicked hands, have crucified and slain.

Ac 4. Herod and Pontius Pilate, and the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done; wrowrise genesqai, predestinated should come to pass.

Ac 13. And as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed: tetagmenoi, designed, destined, or appointed unto life.

Concerning the apostle Paul, what shall I say? every one that has read his epistles, knows that they teem with predestination, from beginning to end (k). I shall only give one or two passages: and begin with that famous chain, Ro 8. whom he did foreknow (or fore-love, for to know often signifies, in scripture, to love) he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren: that as in all things else, so in the business of election, Christ might have the pre-eminence; he being first chose, as a Saviour, and they in him to be saved by him: moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom be called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

(k) A friend of mine, who has a large property in Ireland, was conversing one day, with a popish tenant of his, upon religion. Among other points, they discussed the practice of having public prayers in an unknown tongue. My friend took down a New Testament from his book case, and read part of 1Co 14. When he had finished, the poor, zealous papist rose up from his chair, and said, with great vehemence, "I verily believe St. Paul was a heretic."

Can the person, who carefully reads the epistles of this great apostle, doubt of his having been a thorough-paced predestinarian?

The 9th, 10th, and 11th chapters (Ro 9; 10; 11) of the same epistle are professed dissertations on, and illustrations of, the doctrine of God's decrees; and contain likewise, a solution of the principal objections brought against that doctrine.

Ga 1. Who separated me from my mothers womb, and called me by his grace.

The first chapter of Ephesians (Eph 1) treats of little else but election and predestination.

2Th 2. After observing, that the reprobates perish wilfully; the apostle, by a striking transition, addresses himself to the elect Thessalonians, saying: But we are bound to give thanks unto God, always, for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath, from the beginning, chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

2Ti 1. Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ, before the world began.

St. Jude, on the other hand, describes the reprobate as ungodly men, who were of old, fore-ordained to this condemnation.

Another apostle makes this peremptory declaration; Who stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed; but ye are a chosen generation [genov eklekton, an elect race], a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, laov eiv weripohsin, a people purchased to be his peculiar property and possession, 1Pe 2:8-9. To all which may be added,

Re 17:8. Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.

All these texts are but as a handful to the harvest: and yet are both numerous and weighty enough to decide the point, with any who pay the least deference to scripture authority. And let it be observed, that Christ and his apostles delivered these matters, not to some privileged persons only, but to all, at large, who had ears to hear, and eyes to read. Therefore, it is incumbent on every faithful minister, to tread in their steps, by doing likewise: nor is that minister a faithful one, faithful to Christ, to truth, and to souls, who keeps back any part of the counsel of God, and buries those doctrines in silence, which he is commanded to preach upon the house tops.

The great St. Austin, in his valuable treatise De Bono Persever., effectually obviates the objections of those who are for burying the doctrine of predestination in silence. He shows, that it ought to be publicly taught; describes the necessity and usefulness of preaching it; points out the manner of doing it to edification. And since some persons have condemned St. Austin, by bell, book, and candle, for his stedfast attachment to, and nervous, successful defences of, the decrees of God; let us hear what Luther, that great light in the church, thought, respecting the argument before us.

Erasmus (in most other respects, a very excellent man) affected to think that it was of dangerous consequence to propagate the doctrine of predestination, either by preaching or writing. His words are these: “What can be more useless, than to publish this paradox to the world? namely, that whatever we do, is done, not by virtue of our own free-will, but in a way of necessity, &c. What a wide gap does the publication of this tenet open among men, for the commission of all ungodliness! What wicked person will reform his life? Who will dare to believe himself a favourite of heaven? Who will fight against his own corrupt inclinations? Therefore, where is either the need, or the utility, of spreading these notions, from whence so many evils seem to flow?"

To which, Luther replies: "If, my Erasmus, you consider these paradoxes (as you term them) to be no more than the inventions of men; why are you so extravagantly heated on the occasion? In that case, your arguments affect not me: for there is no person, now living in the world, who is a more avowed enemy to the doctrines of men, than myself. But, if you believe the doctrines, in debate between us, to be (as indeed they are) the doctrines of God: you must have bid adieu to all sense of shame and decency, thus to oppose them. I will not ask, Whither is the modesty of Erasmus fled? but, which is much more important, where, alas! are your fear and reverence of the Deity, when you roundly declare, that this branch of truth, which he has revealed from heaven, is at best, useless, and unnecessary to be known? What! shall the glorious Creator be taught, by you his creature what is fit to be preached, and what to be suppressed? Is the adorable God so very defective in wisdom and prudence, as not to know, till you instruct him, what would be useful, and what pernicious? Or could not he, whose understanding is infinite, foresee, previous to his revelation of this doctrine, what would be the consequences of his revealing it, until those consequences were pointed out by you? You cannot, you dare not say this. If, then, it was the divine pleasure to make known these things in his word; and to bid his messengers publish them abroad, and leave the consequences of their so doing to the wisdom and providence of him, in whose name they speak, and whose message they declare; who art thou, O Erasmus, that thou shouldest reply against God, and say, to the Almighty, What doest thou? St. Paul, discoursing of God, declares peremptorily, Whom he will he hardeneth: and again, God willing to show his wrath, &c. And the apostle did not write this, to have it stifled among a few persons, and buried in a corner; but wrote it to the Christians at Rome: which was, in effect, bringing this doctrine upon the stage of the whole world; stamping an universal imprimatur upon it; and publishing it to believers at large, throughout the earth. - What can sound harsher in the uncircumcised ears of carnal men, than those words of Christ, Many are called, but few chosen? and elsewhere, I know whom I have chosen. Now, these and similar assertions of Christ and his apostles, are the very positions, which you, 0 Erasmus, brand as useless and hurtful. You object, If these things are so, who will endeavour to amend his life? I answer; Without the Holy Ghost, no man can amend his life to purpose. Reformation is but varnished hypocrisy, unless it proceed from grace. The elect and truly pious are amended by the Spirit of God: and those of mankind, who are not amended by him, will perish. - You ask, moreover, Who will dare to believe himself a favourite of heaven? I answer; It is not in man's own power to believe himself such, upon just grounds, until he is enabled from above. But the elect shall be so enabled: they shall believe themselves to be what indeed they are. As for the rest, who are not endued with faith, they shall perish; raging and blaspheming, as you do now. But, say you, these doctrines open a door to ungodliness. I answer; Whatever door they may open to the impious and profane; yet, they open a door of righteousness to the elect and holy, and show them the way to heaven, and the path of access unto God. Yet you would have us abstain from the mention of these grand doctrines, and leave our people in the dark, as to their election of God: the consequence of which would be, that every man would bolster himself up with a delusive hope of share in that salvation, which is supposed to lie open to all; and, thus, genuine humility, and the practical fear of God, would be kicked out of doors. This would be a pretty way indeed, of stopping up the gap Erasmus complains of! Instead of closing up the door of licentiousness, as is falsely pretended; it would be, in fact, opening a gulf into the nethermost hell. Still you urge, Where is either the necessity, or utility, of preaching predestination? God himself teaches it, and commands us to teach it: and that is answer enough. We are not to arraign the Deity, and bring the motives of his will to the test of human scrutiny; but simply to revere both him and it. He, who alone is all-wise and all-just, can in reality (however things appear to us), do wrong to no man; neither can he do any thing unwisely or rashly. And this consideration will suffice, to silence all the objections of truly religious persons. However, let us, for argument's sake, go a step farther. I will venture to assign, over and above, two very important reasons, why these doctrines should be publicly taught: 1. For the humiliation of our pride, and the manifestation of divine grace. God hath assuredly promised his favour to the truly humble. By truly humble, I mean, those who are endued with repentance, and despair of saving themselves: for a man can never be said to be really penitent and humble, until he is made to know that his salvation is not suspended, in any measure whatever, on his own strength, machinations, endeavours, free-will, or works; but entirely depends on the free pleasure, purpose, determination, and efficiency of another; even of God alone. Whilst a man is persuaded, that he has it in his power to contribute any thing, be it ever so little, to his own salvation; he remains in carnal confidence: he is not a self-despairer, and therefore he is not duly humbled before God: so far from it, that he hopes some favourable juncture or opportunity will offer, when he may be able to lend a helping hand to the business of his salvation. - On the contrary, whoever is truly convinced that the whole work depends singly and absolutely on the will of God, who alone is the author and finisher of salvation; such a person despairs of all self-assistance: he renounces his own will, and his own strength: he waits and prays for the operation of God: nor waits and prays in vain. For the elects' sake, therefore, these doctrines are to be preached: that the chosen of God, being humbled by the knowledge of his truths; self-emptied, and sunk, as it were, into nothing in his presence; may be saved in Christ, with eternal glory. This, then, is one inducement to the publication of the doctrine; that the penitent may be made acquainted with the promise of grace, plead it in prayer to God, and receive it as their own. 2. The nature of the Christian faith requires it. Faith has to do with things not seen. - And this is one of the highest degrees of faith, steadfastly to believe that God is infinitely merciful, though he saves (comparatively) but few, and condemns so many; and that he is strictly just, though, of his own will, he makes such numbers of mankind necessarily liable to damnation. Now, these are some of the unseen things, whereof faith is the evidence. Whereas, was it in my power to comprehend them, or clearly to make out, how God is both inviolably just, and infinitely merciful, notwithstanding the display of wrath and seeming inequality in his dispensations respecting the reprobate, faith would have little or nothing to do. But now, since these matters cannot be adequately comprehended by us, in the present state of imperfection; there is room for the exercise of faith. The truths, therefore, respecting predestination in all its branches, should be taught and published: they, no less than the other mysteries of Christian doctrine, being proper objects of faith, on the part of God's people.”

With Lnther the excellent Bucer agrees; particularly on Eph 1 where his words are, "There are some who affirm, that election is not to be mentioned publicly to the people. But they judge wrongly. The blessings, which God bestows on man, are not to be suppressed, but insisted and enlarged upon; and, if so, surely the blessing of predestination unto life, which is the greatest blessing of all, should not be passed over." And a little after, he adds, "Take away the remembrance and consideration of our election, and then, good God! what weapons have we left us wherewith to resist the temptations of satan? As often as he assaults our faith (which he is frequently doing), we must, constantly, and without delay, have recourse to our election in Christ, as to a city of refuge. Meditation upon the Father's appointment of us to eternal life, is the best antidote against the evil surmisings of doubtfulness and remaining unbelief. If we are entirely void of all hope and assurance, respecting our interest in this capital privilege, what solid and comfortable expectation can we entertain, of future blessedness? How can we look upon God as our gracious Father, and upon Christ as our unchangeable redeemer? without which, I see not how we can ever truly love God; and if we have no true love towards him, how can we yield acceptable obedience to him? Therefore, those persons are not to be heard, who would have the doctrine of election laid (as it were) asleep, and seldom or never make its appearance in the congregations of the faithful."

To what these great men have so nervously advanced; permit me to add, that the doctrine of predestination is not only useful, but absolutely necessary to be taught and known. For,

I. Without it, we cannot form just and becoming ideas of God. Thus, unless he certainly foreknows, and foreknew from everlasting, all things that should come to pass, his understanding would not be infinite: and a Deity of limited understanding is no Deity at all. Again, we cannot suppose him to have foreknown any thing, which he had not previously decreed; without setting up a series of causes, extra Deum, and making the Deity dependent, for a great part of the knowledge he has, upon the will and works of his creatures, and upon a combination of circumstances exterior to himself. Therefore, his determinate plan, counsel, and purpose, (i. e, his own predestination of causes and effects), is the only basis of his foreknowledge: which foreknowledge could neither be certain, nor independent, but as founded on his own antecedent decree. 2. He alone is entitled to the name of True God, who governs all things, and without whose will (either efficient or permissive) nothing is or can be done. And such is the God of the scriptures: against whose will, not a sparrow can die, nor an hair fall from our heads, Mt 10. Now what is predestination, but the determining will of God? I defy the subtilest semi-pelagian in the world, to form, or convey, a just and worthy notion of the Supreme Being, without admitting him to be the great cause of all causes else, himself dependent on none: who willed from eternity, how he would act in time; and settled a regular, determinate scheme of what he would do, and permit to be done, from the beginning to the consummation of the world. A contrary view of the Deity is as inconsistent with reason itself, and with the very religion of nature, as it is with the decisions of revelation. Nor can we, rationally, conceive of an independent, all-perfect first cause, without allowing him to be, (3.) unchangeable in his purposes. His decrees and his essence coincide: consequently, a change in those, would infer an alteration in this. Nor can that being be the true God, whose will is variable, fluctuating, and indeterminate: for, his will is himself willing. A Deity without decrees, and decrees without immutability, are, of all inventions that ever entered the heart of man, the most absurd. (4.) Without predestination, to plan; and without providence, to put that plan in execution; what becomes of God's omnipotence? It vanishes into air. It becomes a mere nonentity. For, what sort of omnipotence is that, which may be baffled and defeated, by the very creatures it has made? Very different is the idea of this attribute, suggested by the Psalmist, Ps 113. Whatsoever the Lord willed, that did he, in heaven and in earth, in the sea, and in all deep places: i. e. he not only made them when he would, but orders them when made. (5.) He alone is the true God, according to scripture representation, who saves, by his mere mercy and voluntary grace, those whom he hath chosen; and righteously condemns (for their sins) those whom he thought fit to pass by. But, without predestination, there could be no such thing, either as sovereign mercy, or voluntary grace. For, after all, what is predestination, but his decree, to save some, of his mere goodness; and to condemn others, in his just judgment? Now, it is most evident, that the scripture doctrine of predetermination, is the clearest mirror, wherein to see and contemplate these essential attributes of God. Here they all shine forth, in their fulness of harmony and lustre. Deny predestination, and you deny (though, perhaps, not intentionally, yet by necessary consequence) the adorable perfections of the Godhead; in concealing that, you throw a veil over these; and, in preaching that, you hold up these, to the comfort, the establishment, and the admiration of the believing world.

II. Predestination is to be preached, because the grace of God (which stands opposed to all human worthiness) cannot be maintained without it. The excellent St. Austin makes use of this very argument. "If," says he, "these two privileges" [namely, faith itself, and final perseverance in faith] “are the gifts of God; and if God foreknew on whom he would bestow these gifts; (and who can doubt of so evident a truth?) it is necessary for predestination to be preached, as the sure and invincible bulwark of that true grace of God, which is given to men without any consideration of merit." Thus argued St. Austin, against the Pelagians, who taught, that grace is offered to all men alike; that God, for his part, equally wills the salvation of all; and, that it is in the power of man's free-will to accept, or reject, the grace and salvation so offered. Which string of errors do, as Austin justly observes, centre in this grand point, gratiam secundum nostra merita dari; that God's grace is not free, but the fruit of man's desert. Now the doctrine of predestination batters down this delusive Babel of free-will and merit. It teaches us, that if we do indeed will and desire to lay hold on Christ and salvation by him; this will and desire are the effect of God's secret purpose and effectual operation: for he it is, who worketh in us, both to will and to do, of his own good pleasure; that he that glorieth, should glory in the Lord. There neither is, nor can be, any medium, between predestinating grace, and salvation by human merit. We must believe and preach one, or the other, for they can never stand together. No attempts to mingle and reconcile these two incompatible opposites, can ever succeed; the apostle himself being judge: If, says he, it [namely election] be by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace; but, if it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work is no more work, Ro 11:6. Exactly agreeable to which, is that of St. Austin; "Either predestination is to be preached, as expressly as the scriptures deliver it, viz. That with regard to those whom he hath chosen, the gifts and calling of God, are without repentance; or we must roundly declare, as the Pelagians do, that grace is given according to merit." Most certain it is, that the doctrine of gratuitous justification through Christ, can only be supported on that of our gratuitous predestination in Christ: since the latter is the cause and foundation of the former.

III. By the preaching of predestination, man is duly humbled, and God alone is exalted: human pride is levelled, and the divine glory shines untarnished, because unrivalled. This the sacred writers positively declare. Let St. Paul be spokesman for the rest (Eph 1:5-6.) having predestinated us - to the praise of the glory of his grace. But how is it possible for us to render unto God the praises due to the glory of his grace, without laying this threefold foundation? (1.) That whosoever are, or shall be saved, are saved by his alone grace in Christ, in consequence of his eternal purpose, passed before they had done any one good thing. (2.) That what good thing soever is begun to be wrought in our souls (whether it be illumination of the understanding, rectitude of will, or purity of affections), was begun altogether of God alone; by whose invincible agency, grace is at first conferred, afterwards maintained, and finally crowned. (3.) That the work of internal salvation (the sweet and certain prelude to eternal glory) was not only begun in us, of his mere grace alone; but that its continuance, its progress, and increase, are no less free, and totally unmerited, than its first original donation. Grace alone makes the elect gracious; grace alone keeps them gracious; and the same grace alone will render them everlastingly glorious, in the heaven of heavens.

Conversion and salvation must, in the very nature of things, be wrought and effected, either by ourselves alone; or by ourselves and God together; or, solely by God himself. The Pelagians were for the first. The Arminians are for the second. True believers are for the last; because, the last hypothesis, and that only, is built on the strongest evidence of scripture, reason, and experience. It most effectually hides pride from man; and sets the crown of undivided praise upon the head, or rather casts it at the feet of that glorious triune God, who worketh all in all. But this is a crown, which no sinners ever yet cast before the throne of God, who were not first led into the transporting views of his gracious decree to save, freely, and of his own will, the people of his eternal love. Exclude, therefore, O Christian, the article of sovereign predestination, from thy ministry, or from thy faith; and acquit thyself, if thou art able, from the charge of robbing God.

When God does, by the omnipotent exertion of his Spirit, effectually call any of mankind in time, to the actual knowledge of himself in Christ; when he likewise goes on to sanctify the sinners he has called, making them to excel in all good works, and to persevere, in the love and resemblance of God, to their lives end; the observing part of the unawakened world may be apt to conclude, that these converted persons might receive such measure of grace from God, because of some previous qualifications, good dispositions, or pious desires, and internal preparations, discovered in them by the all-seeing eye; which, if true, would indeed transfer the praise from the creator, and consign it to the creature. But the doctrine of predestination - absolute, free, unconditional predestination - here steps in, and gives God his own. It lays the axe to the root of human boasting, and cuts down (for which reason, the natural man hates it) every legal, every independent, every self-righteous imagination that would exalt itself against the grace of God and the glory of Christ. It tells us that God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in his Son; according as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, in order to our being afterwards made holy and blameless before him in love, Eph 1 Of course, whatever truly and spiritually good thing is found in any person, it is the special gift and work of God, given and wrought in consequence of eternal, unmerited election to grace and glory. Whence, the greatest saint cannot triumph over the most abandoned sinner; but is led to refer the entire praise of his salvation, both from sin and hell, to the mere good will and sovereign purpose of God, who hath graciously made him to differ from that world which lieth in wickedness. Such being the tendency of this blessed doctrine, how injurious both to God and man, would the suppression of it be! Well does St. Austin argue; "As the duties of piety ought to be preached up, that he who hath ears to hear, may be instructed how to worship God aright; and as chastity should be publicly recommended and enforced, that he who hath ears to hear, may know how to possess himself in sanctification; and as charity, moreover, should be inculcated from the pulpit, that he who hath ears to hear, may be excited to the ardent love of God, and his neighbour; in like manner, should God's predestination of his favours, be openly preached, that he who hath ears to hear, may learn to glory not in himself, but in the Lord."

IV. Predestination should be publicly taught and insisted upon, in order to confirm and strengthen true believers in the certainty and confidence of their salvation (p). For, when regenerate persons are told, and are enabled to believe, that the glorification of the elect is so assuredly fixed in God's eternal purpose, that it is impossible for any of them to perish; and when the regenerate are led to consider themselves as actually belonging to this elect body of Christ; what can establish, strengthen, and settle their faith, like this? Nor is such a faith presumptuous; for, every converted man may and ought to conclude himself elected, since God the Spirit renews those only, who were chosen by God the Father, and redeemed by God the Son. This is a hope which maketh not ashamed, nor can possibly issue in disappointment, if entertained by those into whose hearts the love of God is poured forth, by the Holy Ghost given unto them, Ro 5:5.

(p) Our venerable reformers, in the 17th of our XXXIX Articles, make the very same observation, and, nearly in the same words: - "The godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of everlasting salvation, to be enjoyed through Christ, &c.

The holy triumph and assurance, resulting from this blessed view, are expressly warranted by the apostle, Ro 8., where he deduces effectual calling, from a prior predestination; and infers the certainty of final salvation, from effectual calling: whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. How naturally, from such premises, does the apostle add, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Who, and where is he that condemneth them? Who, and what, shall separate us from the love of Christ? In all these things we are, and shall be, more than conquerors, through him that hath loved us: for I am persuaded [wepeismai, I am most clearly and assuredly confident], 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 Lord. So, elsewhere, The foundation of the Lord, i. e. his decree or purpose, according to election, standeth sure; having this seal. The Lord knoweth them that are his: which is particularly noted by the apostle, lest true believers might be discouraged, and begin to doubt of their own certain perseverance to salvation, either from a sense of their remaining perfections, or from observing the open apostasy of unregenerate professors, 2Ti 2. How little obliged, therefore, are the flock of Christ, to those persons, who would, by stifling the mention of predestination, expunge the sense and certainty of everlasting blessedness from the list of Christian privileges!

V. Without the doctrine of predestination, we cannot enjoy a lively sight and experience of God's special love and mercy towards us in Christ Jesus. Blessings, not peculiar, but conferred, indiscriminately, on every man, without distinction or exception, would neither be a proof of peculiar love in the donor, nor calculated to excite peculiar wonder and gratitude in the receiver. For instance, rain from heaven, though an invaluable benefit, is not considered as an argument of God's special and peculiar favour, to some individuals, above others: and why? because it falls on all alike: as much on the rude wilderness, and the barren rock, as on the cultivated garden, and the fruitful field. But the blessing of election, somewhat like the Sibylline books, rises in value, proportionably to the fewness of its objects. So that, when we recollect, that, in the view of God (to whom all things are at once present), the whole mass of mankind was considered as justly liable to condemnation, on account of original and actual iniquity; his selecting some individuals, from among the rest, and graciously setting them apart, in Christ, for salvation both from sin and punishment; were such acts of sovereign goodness, as exhibit the exceeding greatness, and the entire freeness of his love, in the most awful, amiable, and humbling light. In order, then, that the special grace of God may shine, predestination must be preached, even the eternal and immutable predestination of his people to faith and everlasting life. "From those who are left under the power of guilt,” says St. Austin, "the person, who is delivered from it, may learn, what he too must have suffered, had not grace stepped in to his relief. And, if it was grace that interposed, it could not be the reward of man's merit, but the free gift of God's gratuitous goodness. Some, however, call it unjust, for one to be delivered, while another, though no more guilty than the former, is condemned: if it he just to punish one, it would be but justice to punish both. I grant, that both might have been justly punished. Let us, therefore, give thanks unto God our Saviour, for not inflicting that vengeance on us, which, from the condemnation of our fellow-sinners, we may conclude to have been our desert, no less than theirs. Had they, as well as we, been ransomed from their captivity; we could have framed but little conception of the penal wrath, due, in strictness of justice, to sin; and, on the other hand, had none of the fallen race been ransomed and set at liberty, how could divine grace have displayed the riches of its liberality)?" The same evangelical Father delivers himself, elsewhere, to the same effect: "Hence," says he, "appears the greatness of that grace, by which so many are freed from condemnation: and they may form some idea of the misery, due to themselves, from the dreadfulness of the punishment that awaits the rest. Whence, those who rejoice, are taught to rejoice, not in their own merits (quae paria esse vident damnatis, for they see that they have no more merit than the damned), but in the Lord." Hence results,

VI. Another reason, nearly connected with the former, for the unreserved publication of this doctrine: viz. That, from a sense of God's peculiar, eternal, and unalterable love to his people, their hearts may be enflamed to love him in return. Slender indeed will be my motives to the love of God, on the supposition that my love to him is before hand with his to me; and that the very continuance of his favour, is suspended on the weather-cock of my variable will, or the flimsy thread of my imperfect affection. Such a precarious, dependent love, were unworthy of God; and calculated to produce but a scanty and cold reciprocation of love from man. At the happiest of times, and in the best of frames, below, our love to God is but a spark (though small and quivering, yet inestimably precious, because divinely kindled, fanned and maintained in the soul; and an earnest of better to come); whereas, love, as it glows in God, is an immense sun which shone without beginning, and shall shine without end. Is it probable, then, that the spark of human love should give being to the sun of divine? and, that the lustre and warmth of this, should depend on the glimmering of that? yet, so it must be, if predestination is not true: and so must be represented, if predestination is not taught. - Would you, therefore, know what it is, to love God as your Father, Friend, and Saviour; you must fall down before his electing mercy. Until then, you are only hovering about, in quest of true felicity. But you will never find the door, much less can you enter into rest, until you are enabled to love him because he hath first loved you, 1Jo 4:19.

This being the case, it is evident, that, without taking predestination into the account, genuine morality and the performance of truly good works, will suffer, starve, and die away. Love to God is the very fuel of acceptable obedience. Withdraw the fuel, and the flame expires. But the fuel of holy affection (if scripture, experience, and observation, are allowed to carry any conviction) can only be cherished, maintained, and increased in the heart, by the sense and apprehension of God's predestinating love to us in Christ Jesus. Now, our obedience to God will always hold proportion to our love. If the one be relaxed and feeble, the other cannot be alert and vigorous. And, electing goodness being the very life and soul of the former; the latter, even good works, must flourish, or decline, in proportion as election is glorified, or obscured. Hence arises a

VIIth Argument for the preaching of predestination: namely, that, by it, we may be excited to the practice of universal godliness. The knowledge of God's love to you, will make you an ardent lover of God: and, the more love you have to God, the more will you excel in all the duties and offices of love. Add to this, that the scripture view of predestination includes the means, as well as the end. Christian predestinarians are for keeping together what God hath joined. He who is for attaining the end, without going to it through the means, is a self-deluding enthusiast. He, on the other hand, who carefully and conscientiously, uses the means of salvation, as steps to the end, is the true Calvinist. Now, eternal life being that to which the elect are ultimately destined; faith (the effect of saving grace), and sanctification (the effect of faith), are blessings, to which the elect are intermediately appointed. - According as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, Eph 1:4. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them, Eph 2:10. - Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God: - Ye became followers of us and of the Lord, 1Th 1:4,6. - God hath chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the spirit and belief of the truth, 2Th 2:13. - Elect, according to the foreknowledge [or, ancient love] of God the Father, through sanctificatiou of the spirit, unto obedience, 1Pe 1:2.

Nor is salvation (the appointed end of election) at all the less secure in itself (but the more so), for standing necessarily connected with the intervening means; seeing, both these and that are inseparably joined, in order to the certain accomplishment of that through these. It only demonstrates, that, without regeneration of heart, and purity of life, the elect themselves are not led to heaven. But then, it is incontestable, from the whole current of scripture, that these intermediate blessings shall most infallibly be vouchsafed to every elect person, in virtue of God's absolute covenant, and through the effectual agency of his almighty Spirit. Internal sanctificatiou constitutes our meetness for the kingdom, to which we were predestinated; and a course of external righteousness is one of the grand evidences, by which we make our election sure to our own present comfort and apprehension of it (t).

(t) 2Pe 1:10. Give diligence to make your calling and election bebaian, undoubted; i. e. to get some solid and incontestable evidence of your predestination to life. - "Bebaiov, is de quo fiducia concipitur; is de quo nobis aliquid certo persuademus. Unde apud Thuc. 3. bebaiov eimi touto poihsein certa fides habetur mihi, hoc facturum me esse. - bebaiwv, certo explorato. Bebaioumai, fidem facio; pro com perto habeo." Scap. So, elpiv bebaia is an undoubting hope, 2Co 1:7. And bebaioterov logov is a more assured and unquestionable word of prophecy, 2Pe 1:19.

VIII. Unless predestination be preached, we shall want one great inducement to the exercise of brotherly kindness and charity. When a converted person is assured, on one hand, that all whom God hath predestinated to eternal life, shall infallibly enjoy that eternal life, to which they were chosen; and, on the other hand, when he discerns the signs of election, not only in himself, but also in the rest of his fellow-believers; and concludes, from thence (as, in a judgment of charity, he ought), that they are as really elected, as himself; how must his heart glow with love to his Christian brethren! How feelingly will he sympathize with them, in their distresses! how tenderly will he bear with their infirmities! how readily will he relieve the former, and how easily overlook the latter! - Nothing will so effectually knit together the hearts of God's people, in time, as the belief of their having been written, by name, in one book of life, from everlasting: and the unshaken confidence, of their future exaltation to one and the same state of glory above, will occasion the strongest cement of affection below. - This was, possibly, one end of our Saviour's so frequently reminding his apostles, of their election: namely, that, from the sense of such an unspeakable blessing, in which they were all equally interested, they might learn to love one another, with pure hearts, fervently; and cultivate, on earth, that holy friendship, which, they well knew, from the immutability of God's decrees, would be eternally matured, to the highest perfection and refinement in heaven. - St. Paul, likewise, might have some respect to the same amiable inference, when, treating of the saints collectively, he uses those sweet and endearing expressions, he hath chosen us; he hath predestinated us, &c. that believers, considering themselves as suneklektoi, or co-elect in Christ, might be led to love each other with peculiar intenseness, as the spiritual children of one electing Father, brethren in grace, and joint heirs of glory. - Did the regenerate, of the present age, but practically advert to the everlasting nearness, in which they stand related to each other, how happy would be the effect!

Hence it appears, that, since the preaching of predestination is thus evidently calculated to kindle and keep alive the two-fold, congenial flame, of love to God, and love to man, it must, by necessary consequence, conduce,

To the advancement of universal obedience, and to the performance of every social and religious duty (u): which, alone, was there nothing else to recommend it, would be a sufficient motive to the public delivery of that important doctrine.

(u) Our excellent bishop Davenant instances, particularly in the great religious duty of prayer. "The consideration of election," says this learned and evangelical prelate, "doth stir up the faithful to constancy in prayer: for, having learnt that all good, tending to salvation, is prepared for them out of God's good pleasure; they are hereby encouraged to call for, and, as it were, to draw down from heaven, by their prayers, those good things, which, from eternity, were ordained for the elect. Moreover, the same spirit of adoption, who beareth witness to our spirit, that we are God's chosen children; is also the Spirit of prayer and supplication, and enflameth our hearts to call daily upon our heavenly Father. Those, therefore, who, from the certainty of predestination, do pretend, that the duty of prayer is superfluous; do plainly shew, that they are so far from having any certainty of their predestination, that they have not the least sense thereof. To be slack and sluggish in prayer, is not the property of those, who, by the testimony of God's Spirit, have got assurance of their election; but, rather, of such as have, either none, or very small apprehension thereof. For, as soon as any one, by believing, doth conceive himself to be one of God's elect children; he earnestly desireth to procure unto himself, by prayer, those good things, which he believeth that God prepared for his children before the foundation of the world." Bp. Davenant's Animadversions on an Arminiun treatise, entitled God's Love to Mankind, p. 526, and seq.

IX. Lastly, without a due sense of predestination, we shall want the surest and the most powerful inducement to patience, resignation, and dependence on God, under every spiritual and temporal affliction.

How sweet must the following consideration be, to a distressed believer! 1. There most certainly exists an almighty, all-wise, and infinitely gracious God. - 2. He has given me in times past, and is giving me at present (if I had but eyes to see it), many and signal intimations of his love to me, both in a way of providence and grace. - 3. This love of his is immutable: he never repents of it, nor withdraws it. - 4. Whatever comes to pass, in time, is the result of his will from everlasting - Consequently, 5. My afflictions were a part of his original plan, and are all ordered, in number, weight and measure. 6. Tbe very hairs of my head are, every one, counted by him: nor can a single hair fall to the ground, but in consequence of his determination. Hence, 7. My distresses are not the result of chance, accident, or a fortuitous combination of circumstances: but, 8. The providential accomplishment of God's purpose: and, 9. Designed to answer some wise and gracious ends. Nor, 10. Shall my affliction continue a moment longer, than God sees meet. 11. He, who brought me to it, has promised to support me under it, and to carry me through it. 12. All shall, most assuredly, work together for his glory and my good. Therefore, 13. The cup, which my heavenly Father hath given me to drink, shall I not drink it? Yes: I will, in the strength he imparts, even rejoice in tribulation; and, using the means of possible redress, which he hath, or may hereafter, put into my hands, I will commit myself and the event to him, whose purpose cannot be overthrown, whose plan cannot be disconcerted, and who, whether I am resigned or not, will still go on to work all things after the counsel of his own will (x).

(x) The learned Lipsius thus writes to an unmarried friend, who appears to have referred himself to his judgment and direction: "Sive uxor ducitur, sive omittitur, &c. Whether you marry, or live single, you will still have something or other to molest you: nor does the whole course of man's present sublunary life, afford him a single draught of joy, without a mixture of wormwood in the cup. This is the universal and immutable law: which to resist, were no less vain, than sinful and rebellious. As the wrestlers of old had their respective antagonists assigned them, not by their own choice, but by necessary lot; in like manner, each of the human race has his peculiar destiny allotted to him by providence. To conquer this, is to endure it. All our strength, in this warfare, is to undergo the inevitable pressure. It is victory, to yield ourselves to fate." Lips, Epist, miscell. cent. 1. ep. 43. oper. tom. 2. p. 54. edit. Vesaliens. 1675.

About two years after, this celebrated Christian Seneca wrote, as follows, to the same person (Theodore Leewius) who had married, and just lost his wife in childbed: "Jam fatum quid? aeterna, ab aeterno, in aeternum, Dei Lex: what is fate? God's everlasting ordinance, settled in eternity, and for eternity: an ordinance, which he can never repeal, disannul, or set aside, either in whole or in part. Now, if this his decree be eternal, a retro, and immoveable, quoad futurum; why does foolish man struggle and fight against that which must be? Especially, seeing fate is thus the offspring of God, why does impious man murmur and complain? you cannot, justly find fault with any thing determined or done by him, as though it were evil or severe: for he is all goodness and benevolence. Were you to define his nature, you could not do it more suitably, than in those terms: is, therefore, your wife dead? debuit: it is right she should be so. But was it right, that she should die, and at that very time and by that very kind of death? Most certainly. Lex ita lata; the decree so ordained it. The restless acumen of the human mind may sift and canvass the appointments of fate; but cannot alter them. Were we truly wise, we should be implicitly submissive, and endure with willingness, what we must endure, whether we be willing or not. A due sense of our inability to reverse the disposals of providence, and the consequent vanity of resisting them would administer solid repose to our minds, and sheathe, if not remove, the anguish of affliction. And why should we even wish to resist? Fate's supreme ordainer is not only the all-wise God, but an all-gracious Father. Embrace every event, as good and prosperous: though it may, for the present, carry an aspect of the reverse. Think you not, that he loves and careth for us? more and better than we for ourselves? But, as the tenderest parent below, doth oftentimes cross the inclinations of his children, with a view to do them good; and obliges them both to do and to undergo many things, against the bent of their wills; so does the great parent of all." Ibid. epist. 61. p 82.

Above all, when the suffering Christian takes his election into the account; and knows, that he was, by an eternal and immutable act of God, appointed to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ; that, of course, he hath a city prepared for him above, a building of God, a house, not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens; and that the heaviest sufferings of the present life, are not worthy to be compared with the glory, which shall be revealed in the saints; what adversity can possibly befal us, which the assured hope, of blessings like these, will not infinitely over balance?

"A comfort, so divine,

May trials well endure."

However keenly afflictions might wound us, on their first access; yet, under the impression of such animating views, we should quickly come to ourselves again, and the arrows of tribulation would, in great measure, become pointless. Christians want nothing, but absolute resignation, to render them perfectly happy, in every possible circumstance; and absolute resignation can only flow from an absolute belief of, and an absolute acquiescence in, God's absolute providence, founded on absolute predestination. The apostle himself draws these conclusions to our hand, in Ro 8., where, after having laid down, as most undoubted axioms, the eternity and immutability of God's purposes, he thus winds up the whole: “What shall we say, then, to these things? if God be for us, who can be against us? Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Nay: in all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us.

Such, therefore, among others, being the uses, that arise from the faithful preaching and the cordial reception of predestination, may we not venture to affirm, with Luther, hac ignorata doctrina, neque fidem, neque ullum Dei cultum, consistere posse? That “Our faith, and all right worship of God, depend, in no small degree, upon our knowledge of that doctrine?"

The excellent Melancthon, in his first Common Places (which received the sanction of Luther's express approbation), does, in the first chapter, which treats professedly of free-will and predestination, set out with clearing and establishing the doctrine of God's decrees; and, then, proceeds to point out the necessity, and manifold usefulness, of asserting and believing it. He even goes so far, as to affirm, roundly, that "a right fear of God, and a true confidence in him, can be learned more assuredly, from no other source, than from the doctrine of predestination." But, Melancthon's judgment of these matters will best appear from the whole passage; which the reader will find, in the book and chapter just referred to.

"Divina predestinatio,” says he, "libertatem homini adimit: divine predestination quite strips man of his boasted liberty: for, all things come to pass according to God's fore-appointment; even the internal thoughts of all creatures, no less than their external works. Therefore, Eph 1 the apostle gives us to understand, that God performeth all things according to the counsel of his own will. And our Lord himself asks. Mt 10. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? yet one of them falleth not to the ground, without your Father. Pray, what can be more full to the point, than such a declaration? So Solomon, Pr 16., The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. And, in the xxth chapter, (Pr 20) Man's goings are of the Lord: how then can a man understand his own way? To which the prophet Jeremiah does also set his seal, saying, Jer 10, O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man, that walketh, to direct his own steps. The historical part of scripture teaches us the same great truth. So, Ge 15. we read, that the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. In 1Sa 2 we are told, that Eli's sons hearkened not to his reproof, because the Lord would slay them. What could bear a stronger resemblance to chance and accident, than Saul's calling upon Samuel, only with a view to seek out his father's asses (1Sa 9). Yet, the visit was foreordained of God, and designed to answer a purpose little thought of by Saul, 1Sa 9:15-16." [See also a most remarkable chain of predestinated events, in reference to Saul, and foretold by the prophet, 1Sa 10:2,8.] "In pursuance of the divine pre-ordination, there went with Saul a band of men, whose hearts God had touched, 1Sa 10:26. - The harshness of king Rehoboam's answer to the ten tribes, and the subsequent revolt of those tribes from his dominion, are, by the sacred historian, expressly ascribed to God's decree: wherefore, the king hearkened not unto the people; for the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake, by Ahijah the Shilonite, unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat, 1Ki 12:15. - What is the drift of the apostle Paul, in Ro 9 & Ro 11, quam ut omnia, quae fiunt, in destinationem divinam referat? but to resolve all things, that come to pass, into God's destination? the judgment of the flesh, or of mere unregenerate reason, usually starts back, from this truth, with horror; but, on the contrary, the judgment of a spiritual man will embrace it with affection. Neque enim vel timorem Dei, vel fiduciam in Deum, certius aliunde disces, quam ubi imbueris animum hac de predestinatione sententia: You will not learn, either the fear of God, or affiance in him, from a surer source, than from getting your mind deeply tinctured and seasoned with this doctrine of predestination. Does not Solomon, in the book of Proverbs, inculcate it, throughout, and justly? for how else could he direct men to fear God and trust in him? the same he does, in the book of Ecclesiastes: nor had any thing so powerful a tendency to repress the pride of man's encroaching reason, and to lower the swelling conceit of his supposed discretion, as the firm belief, quod a Deo fiunt omnia, that all things are from God. What invincible comfort did Christ impart to his disciples, in assuring them that their very hairs were all numbered by the Creator? Is there, then (may an objector say), no such thing as contingency? no such thing as chance, or fortune? - No. Omnia necessario evenire scripturae docent; the doctrine of scripture is that all things come to pass necessarily. Be it so, that to you, some events seem to happen contingently: you, nevertheless, must not be run away with, by the suggestions of your own narrow-sighted reason. Solomon himself, the wisest of men, was so deeply versed in the doctrine of inscrutable predestination, as to leave this humbling maxim on record: When I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth; then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because, though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea, further, though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it. Ec 8:16-17.

Melancthon prosecutes the argument much farther: but this may suffice for a specimen. And it is not unworthy of notice, that Luther so highly approved of Melancthon's performance, and especially of the first chapter (whence the above extract is given), that he [Luther] thus writes of it, in his Epistle to Erasmus, prefixed to his book, De Serv. Arb. "That it was worthy of everlasting duration, and to be received into the ecclesiastical canon." Let it likewise be observed, that Melancthon never, to the very last, retracted a word of what he there delivers; which a person of his piety and integrity would most certainly have done, had he afterwards (as some have artfully and falsely insinuated) found reason to change his judgment on these heads.

Fate of the Ancients

APPENDIX CONCERNING THE FATE OF THE ANCIENTS.

Fate (says Apuleius), according to Plato, is that, "Per quod inevitabiles cogitationes Dei atque incepta complentur; whereby the purposes and designs of God are accomplished. Hence the Platonics considered providence, under a three-fold distinction: 1. The Providentia prima, or that which gave birth to all effects; and is defined by them, to be tou wrwtou Qeou nohsiv, the intention or will of the supreme God. 2. The Providentia secunda, or actual agency of the secondary or inferior beings, who were supposed to pervade the heavens, and, from thence, by their influence, to regulate and dispose of all sublunary things; and, especially, to prevent the extinction of any one species below. 3. The Providentia tertia, supposed to be exerted by the Genii; whose office it was, to exercise a particular care over mankind: to guard our persons, and direct our actions.

But the Stoical view of providence, or fate, was abundantly more simple, and required no such nicety of distinction. These philosophers did, at once, derive all the chain of causes and effects, from their true and undoubted source, the will of the one living and true God. Hence, with these sages, the words Deity, Fate, Providence, were frequently reciprocated, as terms synonymous. Thus Seneca, speaking of God; "Will you call him Fate? You will call him rightly: for all things are suspended on him. Himself is causa causarum, the cause of all causes beside." The laws of the universe are from God; whence the same philosopher, elsewhere, observes, "Omnia certa et in aeternum dicta lege decurrere; all things go on, according to a certain rule or decree, ordained for ever;" meaning the law of fate. So Cicero: "All things come to pass, according to the sovereignty of the eternal law.” And Pindar, probably, had an eye to this, where he says, Nomou wantwn basilea, quktwn te kai aqanatwn einai. That the law ruleth all, whether gods or mortals. Manlius most certainly had:

Sed nihil in tota magis est mirabile mole,

Quam ratio, et certis quod legibus omnia parent.

Where, by ratio, is evidently meant, the decreeing mind of God: and, by leges, is meant Fate, or that series of causes and effects, which is the offspring of his decree.

Homer cannot begin his Iliad, without asserting this grand truth: - Diov d' eteleieto boulh. The counsel or decree of Jupiter was fulfilled. The divine poet sets out on this exalted principle: he puts it in the front of the noblest poem in the world, as a testimony both of his wisdom and his faith. It was as if he had said, “I shall sing of numberless events, equally grand, entertaining, and important: but I cannot begin to unfold them, without laying down this as a first fundamental axiom, That, though brought to pass by the instrumental agency of men, they were the fruit of God's determining will, and of his all-directing providence."

Neither are those minuter events, which, seemingly, are the result of chance, excluded from this law. Even these do not happen, but come to pass, in a regular order of succession, and at their due period of time. "Causa pendet ex causa privata ac publica longus ordo rerum trahit," says Seneca; "Cause proceeds from cause: the long train of things draws with it all events, both public and private." Excellent is that of Sophocles; (Aj. Flagell). "I am firmly of opinion, that all these things, and whatever else befal us, are in consequence of the divine purpose: whoso thinks otherwise, is at liberty to follow his own judgment; but this will ever be mine.”

The Longus ordo rerum, mentioned by Seneca, is what he elsewhere styles, Causarum implexa series, or a perpetual implication of causes. This, according to Laertius, was called by the Stoics, aitia ton onton eiromen, an involved, or concatenate causality of whatever has any existence: for eirmov is a chain, or implicate connection. Agreeably to this idea, Chrysippus gives the following definition of fate: "Fate is that natural, established order and constitution of all things, from everlasting, whereby they mutually follow upon each other, in consequence of an immutable and perpetual complication."

Let us examine this celebrated definition of fate. 1. He calls it a natural suntaciv, meaning by nature, the great natura prima, or God: for by some Stoics, God and nature are used promiscuously. But, because the Deity must be supposed both to decree and to act with wisdom, intelligence, and design; fate is sometimes mentioned by them under the name of Logov, or reason. Thus they define fate (Laert. in Zen.) to be that supreme "reason, whereby the world is governed and directed,” or, more minutely, thus; that reason, whereby the things that have been, were; the things that now are, have a present existence; and the things that are to be, shall be. Reason you see, or wisdom in the Deity, is an antecedent cause, from whence both providence and inferior nature are derived. It is added, in Stobaeus, that Chrysippus sometimes varies his terms; and, instead of the word reason, substitutes the words truth, cause, nature, necessity: intimating, that fate is the true, natural, necessary cause of the things that are, and of the manner in which they are. 2. This fate is said to be ec aidiov, from everlasting. Nor improperly: since the constitution of things, was settled and fixed in the divine mind (where they had a sort of ideal existence) previous to their actual creation: and therefore considered as certainly future, in his decree, may be said to have been, in some sense, co-eternal with himself. 3. The immutable and perpetual complication, mentioned in the definition, means no more, than that reciprocal involution of causes and effects from God downwards, by which things and events, positis omnibus ponendis, are necessarily produced, according to the plan which infinite wisdom designed from the beginning. God, the first cause, hath given being and activity to an immense number of secondary, subaltern causes, which are so inseparably linked and interwoven with their respective effects (a connection truly admirable, and not to be comprehended by man in his present state), that those things which do, in reality, come to pass necessarily, and by inevitable destiny, seem to the superficial observer, to come to pass in the common course of nature, or by virtue of human reasoning and freedom. This is that inscrutable method of divine wisdom, “A qua" (says St. Austin) "est omnis modus, omnis species, omnis ordo, mensura, numerus, pondus; a qua sunt semina formarum, formae seminum, motus seminum atque formarum."

Necessity is the consequence of fate. So Trismegistus: All things are brought about by nature and by fate: neither is any place void of providence. Now, providence is the self-perfect reason of the super-celestial God: from which reason of his, issue two native powers, necessity and fate. Thus, in the judgment of the wiser heathens, effects were to be traced up to their producing causes; those producing causes were to be further traced up to the still higher causes, by which they were produced; and those higher causes, to God, the cause of them. Persons, things, circumstances, events and consequences, are the effects of necessity: necessity is the daughter of fate: fate is the offspring of God's infinite wisdom and sovereign will. Thus, all things are ultimately resolved into their great primary cause; by whom the chain was originally let down from heaven, and on whom every link depends.

It must be owned, that all the fatalists of antiquity, (particularly among the Stoics) did not constantly express themselves with due precision. A Christian, who is savingly taught by the word and Spirit of God, must be pained and disgusted, not to say shocked, when he reads such an assertions as this: Thn weprwmenhn moiran adunaton esi apoqugein kai Qew. God himself cannot possibly avoid his destiny (Herodot 1.) or that of the poet Philemon:

Dosloi basilewn eisin, 'oi basileiv Qewn

'O Qeov anagkhv

Common men are servants to kings; kings are servants to the gods; and God is a servant to necessity. So Seneca: "Eadem necessitas et Deos alligat: irrevocabilis divina pariter atque humana cursus vohit. Ille ipse, omnium conditor ac rector, scripsit quidem fata, sed sequitur. Semper paret: semel jussit.” The self-same necessity binds the God's themselves. All things, divine as well as human, are carried forward by one identical and overpowering rapidity. The supreme Author and Governor of the universe hath, indeed, written and ordained the fates; but having once ordained them, he ever after obeys them. He commanded them at first, for once: but his conformity to them is perpetual. This is, without doubt, very irreverently and very incautiously expressed. - Whence it has been common with many Christian writers, to tax the Stoics with setting up a first cause, superior to God himself, and on which he is dependent.

But, I apprehend, these philosophers meant, in reality, no such thing. All they designed to inculcate, was, that the will of God, and his decrees, are unchangeable: that there can be no alteration in the divine intention; no new act arise in his mind; no reversion of his eternal plan; all being founded in adorable sovereignty; ordered by infallible wisdom; ratified by omnipotence; and cemented with immutability. Thus Lucan:

Finixit in aeternum causas; qua cuncta coercet,

Se quoque lege tenens.

And this, not through any imbecility in God, or as if he were subject to fate, of which (on the contrary) himself was the ordainer; but because it is his pleasure to abide by his own decree. For as Seneca observes, “Imminutio majestatis sit, et confessio erroris, mutanda fecisse. Necesse est ei eadem placere, cui nisi optima placere non possunt:” it would detract from the greatness of God, and look as if he acknowledged himself liable to mistakes, were he to make changeable decrees: his pleasure must necessarily be always the same; seeing, that only, which is best, can, at any time, please an all-perfect being. A good man (adds this philosopher) is under a kind of pleasing necessity to do good; and, if he did not do it, he could not be a good man.

"Magnum hoc argumentum est firmae voluntatis, ne mutare quidem posse:" it is a striking proof of a magnanimous will, to be absolutely incapable of changing. And such is the will of God: it never fluctuates, nor varies. But, on the other hand, were he susceptible of change; could he, through the intervention of any inferior cause, or by some untoward combination of external circumstances, be induced to recede from his purpose, and alter his plan; it would be a most incontestible mark of weakness and dependence: the force of which argument made Seneca, though a heathen, cry out, “Non externa Deos cogunt; sed sua illis in legem aeterna voluntas est: outward things cannot compel the gods; but their own eternal will is a law to themselves. It may be objected, that this seems to infer, as if the Deity were still under some kind of restraint. By no means. Let Seneca obviate this cavil; as he effectually does, in these admirable words: Nec Deus ab hoc minus liber aut potens est; ipse enim est necessitas sua: God is not, hereby, either less free, or less powerful; for he himself is his own necessity.

On the whole, it is evident, that when the Stoics speak, even in the strongest terms, of the obligation of fate on God himself, they may and ought to be understood, in a sense worthy of the adorable, uncreated Majesty. - In thus interpreting the doctrine of fate, as taught by the genuine philosophers of the Portico, I have the great St. Austin on my side: who after canvassing, and justly rejecting the bastard, or astrological fate; thus goes on: “At qui omnium connectionem seriemque causarum, qua fit omne quod fit, fati nomine appellant; non multum cum eis, de verbi controversia, certandum atque laborandum est: quandoquidem ipsum causarum ordinem, et quandam connectionem, summi Dei tribuunt voluntati: i. e. But for those philosophers [meaning the Stoics] who, by the word fate, mean that regular chain, and series of causes to which all things that come to pass, owe their immediate existence; we will not earnestly contend with these persons about a mere term; and we the rather acquiesce in their manner of expression, because they carefully ascribe this fixed succession of things, and this mutual concatenation of causes and effects, to the will of the supreme God. Austin adds many observations, of the same import; and proves, from Seneca himself, as rigid a Stoic as any, that this was the doctrine and the meaning of his philosophic brethren.

A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley;...

LETTER TO THE REV. MR. JOHN WESLEY

RELATIVE TO HIS PRETENDED ABRIDGMENT OF ZANCHIUS ON PREDESTINATION.

Sic fatus senior, Telumque imbelle sine Ictu

Conjecit: rauco quod potinus aere repulsum;

Et summo Clypei nequicquam Umbone pependit.

AEneid II.

Credulitate, Puer; Audacia, Juvenis; Deliriis, Senex.

Mr. De Boze' Epitaph on Hardovin, the French Jesuit.

NINE months are now elapsed, since the first publication of this letter; in all which time, Mr. W. has neither apologized for the misdemeanor which occasioned his hearing from me in this public manner; nor attempted to answer the charges entered against him. Judging, probably, that the former would be too condescending, in one, who has erected himself into the leader of a sect; and that the latter would prove rather too difficult a task, and involve him in a subsequent train of fresh detections; he has prudently omitted both.

Some of his followers, however, have not been so tamely unactive, on this occasion, as their pastor. Anxious, at once, to palliate his offence, and to screen his timidity; several penny and two-penny defences have successively appeared: wherein the anonymous scribblers wretchedly endeavoured to gather up, and put together, the fragments of a shattered reputation. The very printers, the mid-wives who handed these “insects of a day" into public existence, were ashamed to subjoin their names at the bottom of the title pages.

Two lay-preachers, in particular, have feebly taken up the cudgels for their master. Of one, I shall say very little, as he writes with some degree of decency. Of the other, I shall not say much: for, both his talents and his morals sink him far below the dignity of chastisement. This illiterate "haberdasher of small wares" entitles his penny effusion, as well as I remember, "A Letter of Thanks to the Reverend Mr. Toplady, in the Names of all the hardened Sinners in London and Westminster." The poor creature, it is plain from his title-page, aims at humour; and yet, unhappily for such a design, he is, in reality, but too literally qualified to act as secretary in chief to the sinners of London and Westminster. For, he has given very numerous and ample proofs of his own sinnership, and that there can hardly exist, in those two cities, a more atrocious sinner than himself. I will not pollute this paper, with a recital of his crimes. They, who know the man, are no strangers to his communication. Though a doctrinal Pharisee, his life has, long ago, evinced him, a practical Sadducee. Surely, Arminianism is like to flourish mainly, under the auspices of such able and virtuous advocates!

And so much for Mr. Wesley's redoubtable subalterns.

"What image of their fury can we form?

Dullness, and rage. A puddle in a storm."

If my advice carries any weight with them, they will carefully peruse their spelling-books, before they make another sally from the press. As to themselves, and their refined productions, I mean to take no farther notice of either. I am quite of Mr. Gay's opinion;

To shoot at crows is powder thrown away."

I had almost forgot the monthly reviewers. One word concerning them, and I have done. The two reverend gentlemen, who are hired to dissect and characterize whatever comes within the divinity-department, a calendis ad calendas, would fain have it, in their superficial strictures on the first edition of this letter, that I am angry with Mr. Wesley. If, by anger, the ingenious animadverters mean, a just and becoming disapprobation of Mr. Wesley's lying abridgment, and of the surreptitious manner in which he smuggled it into the world, I acknowledge myself, in this respect, angry. I hope the reverend reviewers will not, in their turn, be angry too, at seeing themselves tacked to the list of Mr. Wesley's allies: since, in their mode of representing my dispute (or, to adopt their own military term, my battle) with that gentleman; they seem to rank themselves in the number of his seconds. The reason is obvious. Mr. W. is a red-hot Arminian: and the sagacious doctors can discern, with half an eye, that Arminianism lies within a bow-shot of Socinianism and Deism. Yet, notwithstanding the alliance is thus not altogether unnatural; why should these two divines, who are certainly possessed of abilities, which might do honour to human nature, by a narrow, sordid attachment to party, render those abilities less respectable?

Broad Hembury, Jan. 9, 1771.

Sir,

Possibly, the following letter may fall into the hands of some, who are unacquainted with the merits of the occasion on which I write. For the information of such, I must premise, that, in November, 1769, I published a Two Shilling Pamphlet, entitled, "The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination stated and asserted: with a preliminary Discourse on the Divine Attributes. Translated, in great measure, from the Latin of Jerom Zanchius.'

Though you are neither mentioned, nor alluded to, throughout the whole book; yet it could hardly be imagined, that a treatise, apparently tending to lay the axe to the root of those pernicious doctrines, which, for more than thirty years past, you have endeavoured to palm on your credulous followers, with all the sophistry of a Jesuit, and the dictatorial authority of a pope, should long pass without some censure from the hand of a restless Arminian, who has so eagerly endeavoured to distinguish himself, as the bell-wether of his deluded thousands.

Accordingly, in the month of March, 1770, out sneaks a printed paper (consisting of one sheet, folded into twelve pages; price one penny) entitled, "The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination stated and asserted, by the Reverend Mr. A_____ T________ ." Wherein, you pretend to give an abridgment of the pamphlet above referred to. But,

I. Why did you not make your abridgment truly public? For an apparent reason: That, if possible, it might elude my knowledge, and so escape the rod. Born of a stolen embrace, it was needful for the spurious, pusillanimous performance to steal its way into the world. It privately crept abroad, from the Foundery, the seat of its nativity; it was sold, indeed, but sold under the rose; it was carefully circulated in the dark; and the friends of Mr. Wesley were designed to be the sole sphere of its acquaintance. Thus, every one that doth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. In such conduct, I can discern much of the Jesuit, but nothing of the saint. - I had, to this hour, remained unapprized of the secret stab, but for the information received from some of superior integrity to yourself. - I will put Christianity quite out of the question, and suppose it to have no kind of influence. But should you not, at least, act as a man of common honour? Come forth openly, sir, in future, like an honest, generous assailant; and, from this moment forward, disdain to act the ignoble part of a lurking, sly assassin.

II. Why did you not abridge me faithfully and fairly? Why must you lard your ridiculous compendium with additions and interpolations of your own; especially, as you took the liberty of prefixing my name to it? Your reasons are obvious. My publication had spread among some of your people: and, the longer it continued to diffuse itself, the more you trembled for your Diana. Hence, Demetrius like, you found it needful, by the help of a pious fraud, to prejudice your Ephesians against the doctrines of St. Paul. The book was likely to give the Arminian Babel a shake: therefore, no way so eftectual to secure it, as by endeavouring to spike the cannon which was planted against it. That you might seem to gratify the curiosity of your partisans, and keep them really hood-winked at the same time, you draw up a flimsy, partial compendium of Zanchius: a compendium which exhibits a few detached propositions, placed in the most disadvantageous point of view, and without including any part of the evidence on which they stand.

But this alone was not sufficient to compass the desired end. Unsatisfied with carefully and totally suppressing every proof, alleged by Zanchius, in support of his argument; a false colouring must likewise be superinduced, by inserting a sentence or two, now and then, of your own foisting in. After which, you close the motley piece, with an entire paragraph, forged, every word of it, by yourself: and conclude all, as you began, with subjoining the initials of my name: to make the ignorant believe, that the whole, with your omissions, additions, and alterations, actually came from me. - An instance of audacity and falsehood, hardly to be paralleled!

I am very far from desiring the reader to take my word, in proof of the charge alleged against you. As an instance of your want of honour, veracity, and justice, I refer to the following paragraph, 1. as published by me; and, 2. as quoted by you.

1. "When all the transactions of providence and grace are wound up, in the last day; he (Christ) will then properly sit as Judge, and openly publish, and solemnly ratify, if I may so say his everlasting decrees, by receiving the elect, body and soul, into glory: and by passing sentence on the non-elect (not for having done what they could not help, but) for their wilful ignorance of divine things and their obstinate unbelief; for their omissions of moral duty, and for their repeated iniquities and transgressions.” Doct. Of Abs. Predest.

2. "In the last day, Christ will sit as Judge, and openly publish, and solemnly ratify his everlasting decrees, by receiving the elect into glory, and by passing sentence on the non-elect (not for having done what they could not help, but) for their glory: and by passing sentence wilful ignorance of divine things, on the non-elect (not for having and their obstinate unbelief; for done what they could not help, their omissions of moral duty, but) for their wilful ignorance of divine things, and their obstinate unbelief; for their omissions of moral duty, and for their repeated iniquities and transgressions which they could not help." Wesley's Abridgement, p. 9.

Whether my view of the doctrine itself be, in fact, right or wrong; is no part of the present enquiry: the question is, have you quoted me fairly? Blush, Mr. Wesley, if you are capable of blushing. For once publicly acknowledge yourself to have acted criminally: “unless," to use your own words on another occasion, "shame and you have shook hands and parted."

Your concluding paragraph, which you have the effrontery to palm on the world as mine, runs thus: “The sum of all this: one in twenty (suppose) of mankind are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated. The elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can. Reader, believe this, or be damned. Witness my hand, A______ T_______.”

In almost any other case, a similar forgery would transmit the criminal to Virginia or Maryland, if not to Tyburn. If such an opponent can be deemed an honest man, where shall we find a knave? - What would you think of me, were I infamous enough to abridge any treatise of yours, sprinkle it with interpolations, and conclude it thus: “Reader, buy this book, or be damned, witness my hand, John Wesley?"

And is it thus you contend for victory? are these the weapons of your warfare? Is this bearing down those who differ from you, with meekness? Do you call this, binding with cords of love? Away, for shame, with such disingenuous artifices. At least, endeavour to conceal that narrow, sectarian spirit, which betrays itself, more or less, in almost every thing you write. Renounce the low, serpentine cunning, which puts you on falsifying, what you find yourself unable to refute. And, as you regard your character, and the cause you espouse, dismiss those dirty subterfuges (the last resources of mean, malicious impotence), which degrade the man of parts into a lying sophister, and sink a divine beneath the level of an oyster-woman. Cease to fight, like the French, with old nails, and broken glass. Charge fairly, and fire as forcibly as you can. But, if you persist to employ the weapons of scurrility and falsehood; the splinters will not only recoil on yourself, but you will continue to be posted for a theological coward.

And why should you, of all people in the world, be so very angry with the doctrines of grace? Forget not the days and months that are past. Remember, that it once depended on the toss of a shilling, whether you yourself should be a Calvinist or an Arminian. Tails fell uppermost, and you resolved to be an universalist. It was a happy throw, which consigned you to the tents of Arminius: for, it saved us from the company of a man, who, by a kind of religious gambling, peculiarly his own, risked his faith on the most contemptible of all lots; and was capable of tossing up for his creed, as porters, or chairmen, toss up for an halfpenny.

I have read of princes, and other eminent persons, who, having risen from ignoble life, to greatness, took care to have some striking memorials of their former obscurity frequently in their view, by way of a counterpoise to pride, and as a preservative from being exalted above measure. When from the pinnacle of your own importance, you look down upon the advocates for free grace, and consider them as reptiles, to be treated as you please, only recollect the humbling circumstance, of which I have just reminded you: and repress the complacent swellings of self-adulation, by some such soliloquy as this, “I have been in danger, myself, of believing that St. Paul says true, when he declares, that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy. How precious was the shilling, and, above all, how lucky was the throw, which convinced me of St. Paul's mistake!"Forgive us, if we as implicitly determine our faith by the scriptures; as you determined yours, by the fall of the splendid shilling.

But, even since this memorable epoch, you have by no means proved yourself that steady Arminian, you would have the world believe. Proteus like, you disdain to be shackled and circumscribed by any certain form. Her ladyship of Loretto, though she has a different suit for every day in the year, is semper eadem, when compared with the quondam fellow of Lincoln College. There are times, when you vary as much from your preceding self, as you do, at all times, from the rest of mankind. Possessed of more than serpentine elability, you cast your slough, not once a year, but almost once an hour. Hence, your innumerable inconsistencies, and flagrant self-contradictions; the jarring of your principles (ever at intestine war with each other), and the incoherence of your religious system. Your scheme of doctrines reminds me of the feet of a certain visionary image, which, as the sacred penman acquaints us, seemed to be composed of iron and clay: heterogeneous materials, which may, indeed, be put together, but will never incorporate with each other. Somewhat like the necromantic soup, of which you have probably read, in the tragedy of Macbeth; your doctrines may be stirred into a chaotic jumble, but witchcraft itself would strive in vain to bring them into coalition. - On the contrary, evangelical truth knows nothing of this harlequin assemblage. It is not like Joseph's coat, of many colours; nor made up of a patch from Donatus, of another from Pelagius, and a third from Arminius: but is invariably simple, uniform, and harmonious; resembling the robe of its adorable teacher, which was without seam, and woven, from the top, throughout.

On one occasion, you had the candour to own your levity, as to points of faith. I am acquainted with a very respectable person (Mr. J. D.) who, not many years ago, taking the freedom to tell you, that "your prejudices, like armed men, stood, with their swords ready drawn, to guard all the passes of conviction, and hew down every truth as fast as it presented itself to your mind;” you had the unusual honesty to answer, "Ah! Sir! if you knew how distressed I have been, what doctrines I should embrace, and how I have been tossed about from system to system, you would think me the most open to conviction, and the least liable to prejudice, of any man you ever knew." - This answer did you real honour, for, I am persuaded, you spoke true. Yet, why should you, who have been so remarkably tossed about, take upon you to revile those who have been enabled to stand fast? I hope, for your own sake, that you will never cease tossing about, until you have gained the harbour of truth: and that, amidst all your manifold shifting from system to system, you will at length be enabled to fix on the only right system, which asserts the lawfulness of God's doing what he will with his own.

I am told, the penny-sheet (which occasions this free address) is to be followed, some time hence, by a four-penny pamphlet against Zanchius: Wherein you are to besiege the doctrine of predestination in form. Commence the siege, and welcome. Open your trenches, and plant your batteries. Bring forth your strong arguments, and play them off with vigour. I publicly profess, and subscribe my name to it, that, if I cannot beat you back, I will freely capitulate, and own myself conquered. But remember, that, if you would do any thing to purpose, you must make a regular attack. You must encounter the whole of Zanchius, and take his arguments in their regular connection and dependency on each other. You must go through with my preface, which I prefixed to my translation of that great man. Having carried and dismantled the out-work, you must next proceed to demolish the dissertation on the divine attributes: which having destroyed, you are then to assail the citadel; I mean, those five stubborn chapters which make up the body of the treatise itself. All the allies, or the arguments drawn from scripture and reason, must likewise be put to the sword. This should you attempt to do, in a manner worthy of a scholar and a divine, I shall have no objection (if life and health continue) to measuring swords, or breaking a pike, with you. Controversy, properly conducted, is a friend to truth, and no enemy to benevolence. When the flint and the steel are in conflict, some sparks may issue, which may both warm and enlighten. - But I have no notion of encountering a wind-mill, in lieu of a giant. If, therefore, you come against me (as now) with straws, instead of artillery; and with chaff, in the room of ammunition; I shall disdain to give you battle: I shall only laugh at you from the ramparts.

Much less, if you descend to your customary recourse, of false quotations, despicable invective, and unsupported dogmatisms, shall I hold myself obliged to again enter the lists with you. An opponent, who thinks to add weight to his arguments, by scurrility and abuse, resembles the insane person, who rolled himself in mud, in order to make himself fine. I would no more enter into a formal controversy with such a scribbler, than I would contend, for the wall, with a chimney-sweeper.

When some of your friends gave out, two or three months before your late doughty publication, that Mr. John (as they call you) was shutting himself up (b), in order to answer the translator of Zanchius; I really imagined, that something tolerably respectable was going to make its appearance. But

Quid dignum tanto tulit hic promissor hiatu?

(b) Dreadful his thunders, while unprinted roar, But when once published, they are heard no more. So, distant bug-bears fright: but, nearer draw, The block's a block, and turns to mirth your awe. Dr. Young.

After the teeming mountain had been shut up a competent time, long enough to have been brought to bed of a Hercules, forth creeps a puny toothless mouse [ a mouse, of heterogeneous kind: having little more than its head and tail (c) from you; and the main of its body made up of some mangled, castrated citations from Zanchius.

-----------Currente rota, cur urceus exit?

(c) The advertisement, on the back side of Mr. Wesley's title page; and his concluding paragraph, p. 12.

If I may judge of the future, by the past, and unless you amend greatly in a short time; your four-penny supplement, when it appears, will be no less inconsiderable, than the penny sheet, already extant. And, as the mouse is not cheap, at a penny; I am very apprehensive, the rat, when it ventures out, will be far too dear at a groat.

Hitherto, your treatment of Zanchius resembles that of some clumsy, bungling anatomist: who, in the dissection of an animal, dwells much on the larger and more obvious particulars; but quite omits the nerves, the lymphatics, the muscles, and the most interesting parts of the complicate machine. Thus, in your piddling extract from the pamphlet you have thought proper to curtail, you only give a few of the larger outlines; without at all entering into the spirit of the subject, or so much as producing (so far from attempting to refute) any of the turning points, on which the argument depends. Wrench the finest eye, that ever shone in a lady's head, from its socket; and it will appear frightful and deformed: whereas, in its natural connection, the symmetry and brilliancy, the expressiveness and the beauty, are conspicuous. So it often fares with authors. A detached sentence, artfully misplaced, or unseasonably introduced; maliciously applied, or unfairly cited; may appear to carry an idea, the very reverse of its real meaning. But replace the dislocated passage, and its propriety and importance are restored. I would wish every unprejudiced person, into whose hands your abridgment of my translation has fallen, to suspend his judgment concerning it, until he sees the translation itself. On comparing the two together, he will at once perceive, how candid and honest you are; and what quantity of confidence may be reposed on your integrity as a citer.

When I advert to the unjust and indecent manner, in which you attacked the late excellent Mr. Hervey; above all, when I consider how daringly free you have made with the scriptures themselves, both in your commentaries, and in your alterations of the text itself; I cease to wonder at the audacious licentiousness of your pen, respecting me. I should rather wonder, if you treated any opponent with equity, or canvassed any subject impartially. Rise but once to this, and I shall both wonder and rejoice .

You give me to understand, that I am but "a young translator." Granted. Better, however, to be a young translator, than an old plagiary. Which of our ancient divines have you not evaporated and spoiled? and then made them speak a language, when dead, which they would have started from, with horror, when alive (d)?

Yet, Brutus is an honourable man!

(d) See almost every part of what Mr. Wesley miscalls the Christian Library.

How miserably have you pillaged even my publication? Books, when sent into the world, are no doubt in some sense, public property. Zanchius, if you chose to buy him, was yours to read; and, if you thought yourself equal to the undertaking, was yours to answer: but he was not yours to mangle. Remember, how narrowly you escaped a prosecution, some years ago, for pirating the Poems of Dr. Young.

I would wish you to keep your hands from literary picking and stealing. However, if you cannot refrain from this kind of stealth, you can abstain from murdering what you steal. You ought not, with Ahab, to kill, as well as take possession: nor, giant like, to strew the area of your den with the bones of such authors as you have seized and slain.

On most occasions, you are too prone to set up your own infallible judgment as the very lapis lydius of right and wrong. Hence the firebrands, arrows, and death, which you hurl at those, who presume to vary from the oracles you dictate. Hence, particularly, your illiberal and malevolent spleen against the protestant dissenters; (e) though yourself are, in many respects, a dissenter of the worst kind. I would not, however, by this declaration, be understood, as if I meant to dishonour that respectable body, by classing you with them; for you stand alone, and are a dissenter of a cast peculiar to yourself. And yet, like Henry I., you are for making the length of your own arm, the standard-measure for every body else. No wonder, therefore, that you eminently inherit the fate of Ishmael; that your hand is against every man, and every man's hand against you. Strange! that one, who pleads so strenuously for universal love in the Deity, should adopt so little of the love, for which he pleads! that a person of principles so large, should have a heart so narrow! bigots of every denomination, are much the same: and, of all vices, bigotry is one of the meanest and most mischievous. Its shriveled, contracted breast leaves no room for the noble virtues to dilate and play. Candour, benevolence, and forbearance, become smothered and extinguished: partly, from being cramped by littleness of mind; partly, from being overwhelmed with intellectual dust. Bigotry, is a determined enemy to truth; inasmuch as it essentially interferes with freedom of enquiry, restrains the grand indefeasible right of private judgment, confines our regards to a party, and by limiting the extent of moderation and mutual good-will, tears up charity by the very roots. In short, bigotry is the very essence of popery; and, too often, leads its votaries, before they are aware, into the bosom of that pretended church, whose doctrines and maxims are the worst corruption of the best religion that ever was. And, though this baneful vice is so uncomfortable, in itself; so contrary to the genius of the gospel; and so extensively pernicious in its effects; yet, is it not as common, as it is detestable? May all God's children be enabled to cast it, with the rest of their idols, to the moles and to the bats!

(e) "How little is the case mended at the meeting? either the teachers are new-light men, denying the Lord that bought them; or they are predestinarians, and so preach predestination and final perseverance, more or less. Nor is it expedient for any methodist preacher to imitate the dissenters in their manner of praying: either in his tone, or in his language, or in the length of his prayer. Neither should we sing like them, in a slow, drawling manner. We sing swift, both because it saves time, and because it tends to awake and enliven the soul." Mr. Wesley's Preserv. against Unsettled Notions, p. 245.

How much more civilly, not to say cordially, this gentleman shakes hands with the papists, let his own words declare: "Can nothing be done, even allowing us, on both sides, to retain our own opinions, for the softening our hearts towards each other? My dear friend, consider. I am not persuading you to leave or change your religion: but to follow after that fear and love of God, without which, all religion is vain. I say not a word to you, about your opinions, or outward manner of worship. - We ought, without this endless jangling about opinions, to provoke one another to love and to good works. Let the points, wherein we differ, stand aside. Here are enough, wherein we agree. - O brethren, let us not still fall out by the way! Mr. Wesley's Letter to a Roman Catholic, p. 4, 8-10.

Far be it from me, to charge Mr. Wesley with a fondness for all the grosser parts of popery. Yet I fear, the partition between that church and him is somewhat thinner than might be wished. Or, rather, like the loving Pyramis and Thisbe, they endeavour to remedy the want of a perfect coalition, by kissing each other through a hole in the wall.

You have obliquely given me a sneering lecture upon "modesty, self-diffidence, and tenderness" to opponents: and, it must be owned, that the lesson comes with a peculiar grace, and quite in character, from you. The words sound well: but, like many other prescribers, you say, and do not. Else, why do you represent me as telling my readers, that they must, "upon pain of damnation, believe, that only one person in twenty is elected?" Why do you introduce me as enjoining them to believe, under the same penalty, that “the elect shall be saved, do what they will; and the reprobate damned, do what they can?" This is a sample, indeed, of your own modesty, tenderness, and self-diffidence: but, God forbid, that I should give such dismal proof of mine. I believe, and preach, that the chosen and ransomed of the Lord are appointed to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth: and, with regard to the rest, that they will be condemned, not for doing what they can in a moral way, but for not doing what they can: for not believing the gospel report; and for not ordering their conversation according to it.

Let me likewise ask you, when, or where, I ever presumed to ascertain the number of God's elect? Point out the treatise, and the page, wherein I assert, that only “one in twenty of mankind are elected.” The book of life is not in your keeping, nor in mine. The Lord, and the Lord only, knoweth them that are his. He alone, who telleth the number of the stars, and calleth them all by their names; calleth also his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out; first, from a state of sin into a state of grace, and then into the state of glory. Yet, as the learned and devout Beza expresses himself, “I shall never blush to abide by that simplicity, which the holy Spirit, speaking in the scriptures, hath been pleased to adopt:" and it is but too certain, that in the scriptures, are such awful passages as these: Broad is the way, and wide is the gate, which leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat: while on the other hand, straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. - Many are called, but few chosen. - Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. - There is a remnant, according to the election of grace. Declarations, of this tremendous import, instead of furnishing you with fuel for contention, and setting you on a presumptuous and fruitless calculation of the number that shall be saved, or lost; should rather bring you on your knees before God, with your hand upon your breast, and this cry in your lips: "Search me, O Lord, and try me; prove me also, and examine my thoughts. Shew me, to which class I belong. Give me solid proof that my name is in the Lamb's Book of Life, by making it clear to me that I am in the faith." And ever remember, that true faith utterly disclaims all ground of pretension to justification and eternal life, but on the sole footing of God's absolute grace, and the Messiah's finished redemption. Pelagianism is for serving the Deity, as pope Celestine III is said to have treated the emperor Henry VI. It quite kicks off the crown from the head of sovereign grace; and makes the will of God bend, and truckle, and shape itself to the caprice of man. Arminianism, somewhat more specious, but altogether as pernicious, cuts the crown in two, by dividing the praise of salvation between God and man, and fairly runs away with half. On the contrary, that faith which is of divine operation, acts like the emperor Charles V. when he retired from the throne: it resigns the crown entirely, and renounces it for ever, without reserving so much as a single jewel for itself.

Should the holy Spirit vouchsafe to lead you thus far; you will then no longer be ready to object, that “the elect shall be saved, do what they will:" for you will know, by heartfelt experience, that the converted elect are, and cannot but be, ambitious to perform all those good works, in which God hath ordained them to walk; and to act worthy of him, who hath graciously and effectually called them to his kingdom and glory.

Your pretended fear of Antinomianism, like your real fear of the comet, which was expected to have appeared a few years back, is perfectly idle and chimerical. You publicly testified your apprehensions, that the latter would dry up our rivers, and burn up our vegetables, if not reduce the earth itself to a cinder. But your prophecies proved to be "the baseless fabric of a vision;" and our rivers, trees, and earth, remain as they were. - Nor will the doctrines of grace, experimentally received into the heart, destroy or weaken the obligation of moral (g) virtue. On the contrary, they will operate on the practice, not like your scorching cornet on our globe, but like the genial beams of the sun: which diffuse gladness, and occasion fruitfulness, wherever they arise. Whoever wishes in earnest to lead a new life, must first cordially embrace the good old doctrine of salvation by grace alone. - In short, your own tenet, of sinless perfection, leads directly to the grossest Antinomianism. I once knew a lady, whom you had inveigled into your pale, and who, in a short space, professed herself perfect. Being in her company, some time after, I pointed out a part of her conduct, which, to me, seemed hardly compatible with a sinless state. Her answer was to this effect: "You are no competent judge of my behaviour. You are not yourself, perfectly sanctified; and therefore see my tempers and actions through a false medium. I may, to you, seem angry: but my anger is only Christian zeal.” - I could, moreover, mention the names of some of your quondam followers, who, from professing themselves sinless, have cast off all appearance of godliness, and are working all manner of iniquity with greediness. If you are in search of Antinomians, truly and justly so called, you must look for them, not among those whom you term Calvinists, but among your own hair-brained (h) perfectionists. Had not you yourself (to remind you of but one instance) a proof of it, not very long ago? You formed a scheme, of collecting as many perfect ones as you could, to live together under one roof. A number of these flowers were accordingly transplanted, from some of your nursery-beds, to the hot-house. And a hot-house it soon proved. For, would we believe it? the sinless people quarelled in a short time, at so violent a rate, that you found yourself forced to disband the select regiment. Had you kept them together much longer, that line would have been literally verified in these squabbling members of your church militant;

The males pulled noses, and the females caps.

(g) Consciousness of guilt, and dread of detection, frequently put bad men upon entering those accusations against their opponents, which, without such a timely precaution, they are justly apprehensive, will be charged upon themselves, like the apostate spirits in Milton, who were for turning their own torments into weapons against heaven. Such is the prudent conduct of very many Arminians. Fully aware, that their own lives are none of the best, they affect to cry out against Calvinism, as though she was the very mother and nurse of licentiousness. Were she really so, what myriads would desert the standard of Arminius, and flock to the banner of Calvin! But all who are incapable of discernment, know, that the pretended licentious tendency of Calvinism (so called) is no more than idle flourish and empty declamation. Were the doctrines of grace unfavourable to strict morality, we should quickly see them the reigning system of the age. On the contrary, they are therefore, at present, unfashionable, because they make no allowance for the wickedness of the wicked. It is a fundamental axiom with us, who abide by the principles of the reformation, that holiness of heart and life is (not the cause, price, or condition, but, which adds infinitely stronger security to the interests of moral virtue) an essential and inseparable part of that very salvation, to which the elect were chosen from everlasting. A Calvinist must consequently, renounce both the letter and the spirit of his own constitutive principles (i. e. he must cease to be a Calvinist), ere he can consistently degenerate into a sensualist.

(h) I might with too much justice add, that some of Mr. W's own lay-preachers are, indisputably, to be numbered among practical Antinomians. These, however, are regarded by their partisans, as very excellent men, that have not yet attained to perfection, though they are in a fair way for it. - If Mr. Wesley should have the front to deny, that any of his preaching mechanics are men of loose lives; I have it in my power to appeal to facts, which a tenderness for those persons, as individuals of mankind, and a concern for the honour of human nature in general, restrain me, at present, from holding up to public view. Nor would I be thought to hint at those things, with pleasurable triumph. I feel too strongly for the interests of Christian obedience, and for the happiness of souls, to exult over the vices of the vicious. But, when men, whose lives would be a disgrace to heathenism; when men, whom Socrates or Seneca would have blushed to own for disciples; take upon thorn to arraign the doctrines of the scriptures, and of our established church, under a pretence of guarding against those immoralities of which thev themselves are notorious and noon-day examples; what can such shameless railers expect, but to have their own real crimes deservedly exposed?

A very small house, I am persuaded, would hold the really perfect, upon earth. You might drive them all into a nutshell. But to return.

I cannot dismiss your objection, concerning the supposed fewness of God's truly elect people, without observing, that, how few soever they may appear, and really be, in a single generation, and as balanced with the many unrighteous among whom they live below; yet, when the whole number of the Redeemer's jewels is made up—when the entire harvest of his saints is gathered in—when his complete mystic body is presented, collectively, before the throne of his Father; they will amount to an exceeding great multitude, which no man can number. On earth, the company of the faithful may, to us, who know but in part, resemble Elijah's cloud, which at first seemed no bigger than a man's hand: whereas, in the day of God, they will be found to overspread the whole heavens. They may appear now, to use Isaiah's phrase, but as two or three berries on the top of a bough, or as four or five in the most fruitful branches thereof; but they shall then, be like the tree in Nebuchadnezzar's vision, the height of which reached unto heaven, and the sight of it to the end of all the earth; the leaves whereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much. The kingdom of glory will both be more largely, and more variously peopled, than bigots, of all denominations, are either able to think, or willing to allow.

Go now, sir, and dazzle the credulous with your mock victory over the supposed reprobation of “nineteen in twenty." Go on to chalk hideous figures on your wainscot; and enjoy the glorious triumph of battering your knuckles in fighting them. But father no more of your hideous figures on me. Do not dress up scare-crows of your own, and then affect to run away from them as mine. I do not expect to be treated, by Mr. John Wesley, with the candour of a gentleman, or the meekness of a Christian; but I wish him, for his reputation sake, to write and act with the honesty of a heathen.

You affect to be deemed a minister of the national church. Why, then, do you decry her doctrines, and, as far as in you lies, sap her discipline? That you decry her doctrines, needs no proof: witness, for example, the wide discrepancy, between her decisions and yours, on the articles of free-will, justification, predestination, perseverance, and sinless perfection; to say nothing concerning your new-fangled doctrine of the intermediate state of departed souls (i).

(i) In Mr. Wesley's first edition of his Notes on the New Testament, published in 1755, are the two following assertions: than which even he himself has perhaps never given a more striking specimen of presumption and inconsistency. "Enoch and Elijah are not in heaven, but only in paradise;" Note on Joh 3:13. "Enoch and Elijah entered at once into the highest degree of glory, without first waiting in paradise:" Note on Re 19:20. This it is, to be wise above what is written!

That you, likewise, do not overflow with zeal for the discipline (k) of the church of England, is manifest, not only from the numerous and intricate regulations, with which you fetter (l) your societies, but from the measures you lately pursued, when a foreign mendicant was in England, who went by the name of Erasmus, and stiled himself bishop of Arcadia. This old gentleman passed for a prelate of the Greek church; though, to me, it seems not improbable, that he might rather be a member of the Romish. Thus much, however, is certain; that the chaplains of the then Russian ambassador here, knew nothing about him; and that, to this day, the Greek church in Amsterdam, believed him to have been an impostor. With regard to this person, I take the liberty of putting one or two plain queries to you.

1. Did you, or did you not, get him (m) to ordain several of your lay preachers, according to the manner of what he called the Greek Ritual?

2. Did these lay preachers of yours, or did they not, both dress, and officiate, as clergymen of the church of England, in consequence of that ordination? and under the sanction of your own avowed approbation? notwithstanding, putting matters at tiie best, they could only be ministers of the Greek church, and which could give them no legal right to act as ministers of the church of England. Nay, did you not, repeatedly, declare, that their ordination was, to all intents and purposes, as valid as your own, which you received forty years ago, at Oxford?

3. Did you, or did you. not, strongly press this supposed Greek bishop to consecrate you a bishop at large, that you might be invested with a power of ordaining what ministers you pleased, to officiate in your societies as clergymen? And did be not refuse to consecrate you, alleging this for his reason, That, according to the canons of the Greek church, more than one bishop must be present to assist at the consecration of a new one?

4. In all this, did you, or did you not, palpably violate a certain oath, which you have repeatedly taken? I mean the oath of supremacy: part of which, runs thus:

And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: so help me God.

(k) Mr. Wesley's re-baptization of some adult persons is another proof of this charge. I could point out by name, more than one, who have undergone, from his hands, a reiteration of that sacred ceremony. I shall only, at present, mention a single instance, which I had from the person herself, with permission to publish her name at full length, in case Mr. W. should deny the fact. Mrs. L. S. now living in Southwark, was baptized in a bathing-tub, in a cellar, by Mr. John Wesley; who, at the time, held her down so very long under water, while he deliberately pronounced the words of the administration, that some friends of hers, who were present, screamed out, from an apprehension that she was actually drowned: and she herself was so far gone, that she began to grow insensible, and was lifted out of the water but just time enough to save her life. - Yet this is the man, who, in the writings which he has published to the world, professes to hold infant baptism, and that by sprinkling, not by immersion!

Quo teneam vidtus mutantem Protea nodo?

(l) The rules of what Mr. Wesley calls Band Societies, demonstrate the miserable servitude of those who are admitted into that gossiping club. The whole of these rules would be too tedious to insert. One or two of them, as samples of the rest, may not be unacceptable to the reader.

"To speak, each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our soul; with the faults we have committed, in thought, word, or deed; and the temptations we have felt, since our last meeting.

"To desire some person among us, to speak his own state first, and then ask the rest in order, as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations."

Among the questions proposed to such as are candidates for admission into this pretended Sanctum Sanctorum, is the following:

"Is it your desire and design, to be, on this and all other occasions, entirely open, so as to speak every thing that is in your heart, without exception, without disguise, and without reserve?"

The printed account, whence these extracts were taken verbatim, adds; that the five following questions are to be asked at every meeting:

"1. What known sins have you committed, since our last meeting?

"2. What temptations have you met with?

"3. How were you delivered?

"4. What have you thought, said, or done, of which you doubt whether it be sin or not?

"5. Have you nothing you desire to keep a secret?"

The reader, doubtless, will on this occasion, be reminded of the popish practice of auricular confession. For my own part, I make no scruple to acknowledge, that confession, as managed in the church of Rome, is infinitely preferable to confession, as conducted under the auspices of Mr. Wesley. In those countries, where popery is established, confession is made only to one person, and he a priest: who, if he divulges what is made known to him under the character of confessor, is liable, by law, to suffer death. But, in these Band Societies, the most open and unreserved confession, is, it seems, made in the heading of a dozen or twenty old women and boys, who are at liberty to blab out all they hear, without being obnoxious to any penalty at all.

I shall only transcribe, from the above account, the two following rules, imposed on these same societies:

1. "To wear no needless ornaments; such as rings, ear-rings, necklaces, lace, ruffles.

2. "To, use no needless self-indulgences; such as taking snuff, or tobacco: unless prescribed by physicians."

(m) There is something vastly curious in the letter of orders, which this vagrant gave to the persons he pretended to ordain. I once saw an original letter or certificate, of this kind, signed by himself. It was written in very mean Greek; and, which added to my persuasion of Erasmus' being an impostor, was drawn up, not in the modern Greek, which the Christians of that church now use, but in the ancient; and if I am not greatly mistaken, the words were likewise accented. I read it over twice; and most sincerely wish, I had taken a copy of it: but, at that time, I regarded it only as an article of present curiosity. A friend of mine, however, who improved his opportunity rather better, took a translation of it; which on my after request, he favoured me with; and, upon the strength of memory, I can venture to assure the public, that the version is, materially, a just one. I believe it to be perfectly so. It runs thus:

"Our measure from the grace, gift and power of the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, given by our Saviour Jesus Christ to his divine and holy apostles, to ordain sub-deacons and deacons; and also to advance to the dignity of a priest! Of this grace, which hath descended to our humility, I have ordained sub-deacon and deacon, at Snow-fields Chapel, on the 19th day of November, 1764, and at Wells-street Chapel, on the 24th of the same month, priest, the reverend Mr. W. C. according to the rules of the holy apostles and of our faith. Moreover, I have given to him power to minister and teach in all the world, the gospel of Jesus Christ, no one forbidding him in the church of God. Wherefore, for that very purpose, I have made this present letter of recommendation from our humility, and have given it to the ordained Mr. W. C for his certificate and security.

"Given and written at London, in Britain, Nov. 24th, 1764.

Erasmus, bishop of Arcadia."

I cannot help suspecting, that his humility, as he styles himself, is, if the truth was known, nearly related to another certain old gentleman, who, no less humbly, writes himself, servant of the servants of God. His humility of Arcadia, and his holiness of Rome, are, I doubt not, sous of one aud the same ecclesiastical mother.

Now, is not the conferring of orders an act of the highest ecclesiastical power and authority? And was not this man a foreigner? And were not the steps you took, a positive acknowledgment of a foreign power and jurisdiction? And was not such acknowledgment a breach of your oath?

It matters not, whether Erasmus was, in fact, an impostor, or a genuine Greek bishop. Unless you were very insincere, you took him to be what he passed for. If you did not, you were a party to a fraud. Either way, pretend no longer to love the church of England! you, who so lately endeavoured to set up imperium in imperio! If you are honest, you will either publicly confess your fault; or, for ever, throw aside your gown and cassock. You will either return to the service of the church, or cease to wear her livery. You may think, perhaps, that I make too free, in expostulating with you so plainly. And yet, on maturer thought, I question, whether you may or not. How can Mr. Wesley, who, on all occasions, makes so very free with others; be angry with young translators, for copying (though at humble distance) so venerable an example? Nor, indeed, ought a person, who, beyond even what truth and decency permit, takes so great liberties with the rest of his contemporaries, to wonder, if so far as decency and truth allow, the rest of his contemporaries take as great liberties with him.

You complain, I am told, that the evangelical clergy are leaving no stone unturned "to raise John Calvin's ghost, in all quarters of the land." If you think the doctrines of that eminent and blessed reformer to be formidable as a ghost, you are welcome to do all you can towards laying them. Begin your incantations as soon as you please. The press is open; and you never had a fairer opportunity of trying your strength upon John Calvin, than at present. Only take care that you do not, with all your skill in theological magic, get yourself into a circle, out of which you may find it difficult to retreat. And, a little to mitigate your wrath against the raisers of Calvin's ghost, remember, that you yourself have been a great ghost raiser, in your time. Who raised the ghosts of John Goodwin, the Arminian regicide; and of Thomas Grantham, the Arminian baptist? Who raised the ghost of Monsieur (n) De Reuty, the French papist; and of many other Romish enthusiasts; by translating their lives into English, for the edification of protestant readers?

(n) As a specimen of Mr. Wesley's regard to, at least, the minutiae of popery, I shall select a few passages from his Life of this Monsieur De Renty, which now lies before me. The reader will observe that the sentences inclosed with inverted commas, are Mr. Wesley's own words.

He speaks favourably of this French papist, for his regularly "saying the itinerarium," and then "singing the litanies of our Lord," before he set out on any journey; and for taking due care to "sing the vespers," while he was upon the road. Page 3. Among the instances of Monsieur's humility, are reckoned (page 9 and 10) his not permitting "a cushion to be carried for him," when he went to mass; and his frequent saying "his prayers at the outside of the church." Also, his going abroad, to visit a monastery, "on foot," and that too "in thawing weather:" nay, he would sometimes, "traverse in a manner all Paris," even when "it poured down with rain." And yet, with all this mad humility, Mr. De Renty, it seems, kept a coach of his own. Had he been consistent, he would have entirely shorn himself of this supernumerary convenience, by laying down his carriage. But then, where would have been the merit of spontaneously traversing all Paris on foot when it poured down with rain? His dutiful demeanor to the priest, who had the care of his soul, as its father confessor, is a feature of Mr. De Renty's saintship, on which Mr. Wesley, with peculiar rapture, dwells and dilates. Page 11. "A further proof of his humility, was his carriage to his director. He did nothing that concerned himself, without his conduct. To him he proposed whatever he designed, either by speaking, or writing, clearly and punctually; desiring his advice, his pleasure, and his blessing upon it: and that with the utmost respect and submission. And, without reply, or disputing, he simply and exactly followed his order."This was good catholic obedience indeed! and, no doubt, Mr. Wesley had a view, in proposing such an example to the imitation of his protestant followers. Under the article of De Renty's "Self-denial and mortification," we are informed (page 14.) that "he made but one meal a day for several years," and "always of the worst" provisions he could meet with. He would "often step into a baker's shop," and dine on "a piece of bread and a draught of water." From the same principle of gloomy and unthankful superstition, he would do penance, by "passing the night in a chair," or lying down in his cloaths, and boots," or sleeping "on a bench till morning." Being at Pontois, "in winter," he desired “the Carmelite nuns not to make a fire, or prepare a bed" for him. He parted with several books (p. 16.) because, they were "richly bound." He "used no gloves in any season; wore no clothes, but plain and close made;" and carried no silver in his pockets, "except for charity." After which detail of austerities, the biographer gravely adds, "I have seen him in his coach with his page and footman." His coach, I presume, was to carry him on foot when it rained; his page was to hold up his clothes, which were plain and close made; and the office of the footman was to reach him his gloves, whereof he wore none in any season. Who could ever have surmised, that such a doleful series of mortification and self-denial, would end in the fopperies of a coach, a page, and a footman! Mr. De Renty's vanity, which mixed itself with his very austerities, reminds me of what, I am told, is common in the streets of Paris: where you may see many a blind beggar bawling for alms, in a bag-wig, his hat under his arm, a wooden sword by his side, and paper ruffles adorning the hand that is extended to receive charity. But to return to the hero of the tale. Having had a quarrel with his mother, and the breach being made up, “he was no sooner returned home, than he caused Te Deum to be sung," page 24. "He had great respect to holy persons; especially to priests. Whenever he met them, he saluted them with profound humility; and, in his travels, would alight off his horse to do it." page 33. Nor does Mr. Wesley omit to inform us, p. 39. of Mr. De Renty's regard to such fugitive papists, as had either rendered themselves obnoxious to the laws at home, or preferred begging in France, to living under an heretical government in Great Britain. "He was the first that motioned some relief to the poor English, driven, by persecution, out of their own country." Nor must his very pilgrimages be overlooked. "Going, one day, to visit the holy place of Montmatre; after his prayers said in the church, he retired into a desolate part of the mountain, near a little spring. There he kneeled down to prayer: and, that ended, he dined on a piece of bread and a draught of water." Page 45. Would it not have been still more devout, not to have dined at all, on such holy ground? "One day, he visited a person, who, from a groundless suspicion, had cruelly used his wife. Mr. De Renty accosted him with such soft language, that he was persuaded, at length, to go to confession, which he had not done in twelve years before." Page 47, 48. Himself, says Mr. Wesley, speaking of Mr. De Renty's last illness, "made his confession, almost every day till his death," Page 62.

I dismiss these and many other passages in this obnoxious performance, without further remark. Their tendency is self-evident. I shall only add, that, if the reader has a desire to see still more enormous instances of Romish superstition and fanaticism, he will find them in Mr. Wesley's lives of some Spanish Monks (who, more nationally grave, did not imitate the French Ascetic, by retaining their coaches, pages, and footmen), in the last volume, or last but one, of his compilation, entitled, The Christian Library.

Should you take any notice of this letter, I have three requests to make; or, rather, there are three particulars, on which I have a right to insist:

1. Do not quote unfairly.

2. Do not answer evasively.

3. Do not print clandestinely.

Canvass the points of doctrine, wherein we differ, as strictly as you can. They will stand the test. They scorn disguise. They disdain to sue for quarter. Truth, like our first parents in the state of innocence, can show herself naked, without being either afraid or ashamed: and he that doth truth, Cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God.

May you, at last, begin to act from this principle, and no longer prostitute your time and talents to the wiredrawing of chicanery, and the circulation of error! I am not insensible of your parts; but, alas! what is distinguished ability, if not wedded to integrity? No less just than ingenious is the remark of a learned and noble writer: "The riches of the mind, like those of fortune, may be employed so perversely, as to become a nuisance and pest, instead of an ornament and support, to society (o)."

I am

Yours, &c.

AUGUSTUS TOPLADY.

Westminster,

March 26, 1770.

(o) Dialogues of the Dead, p. 297. Edit. 1765.

A WORD TO THE REV. MR. WALTER SELLON.

LATELY TRANSPLANTED FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF ASHBY DE LA ZOUCH TO SOME PART OF YORKSHIRE.

Owing to your transplantation, above mentioned, I am ignorant of your present place of abode; and must, therefore, direct to you at large. - I have obtained a sight of your late Strictures on Mr. Elisha Coles, just time enough to save the press. These Strictures are, it seems, the joint progeny of Mr. Wesley and yourself: a par nobile fratrum, whose united labours have been exerted, for several years last past, in scraping together, and licking into form, the materials of this long-threatened fulmination. Consequently, whoever may deem it worth his while to encounter the cub, will have the additional satisfaction of stringing the two parental brothers at one and the same time.

For my own part, I assure you, sir, in particular, whose name adorns the direction of this postscript, that I should have left you in peaceable possession of your absolute insignificancy, had not the last page of your preface induced me to coincide with your apparent wish, by lending you my hand, to lift you from your painful obscurity. How much credit you may gain by this my act of indulgence, and what figure you may make, in the course of the exhibition; time will probably give you to feel. At present, I have only room to observe, that, in the aforesaid preface (which the style demonstrates to be all your own), you vibrate your Lilliputian spear at me; and give me to understand, that I am next upon the list of those, who are to feel the weight of your broken bulrush. I have published, you tell me, a “curious performance" concerning predestination; which said curious performance has, I hereby find, raised the bristles of a very curious adversary, who is so polite, as to inform me, that I am a Malmesbury Hobbist, a blasphemer, and a vile slanderer. Convenient names, which dulness is never at a loss for,

When fancy flags and sense is at a stand.

So much for the rhetorical flowers, with which the gentle prefacer crowns the brow of his imaginary victim. But the present chaplet is, it seems, only the sample of a whole garland to come. I am to be made "the subject of another piece;” wherein I am to be drubbed, ex professo; that is to say, “Unless it be done by some abler hand, which,” adds my hero, "I could wish to see." The plain English of this, is, Mr. John Wesley's mastiff (who now only snarls) will actually bark at the mischievous vicar of Broad Hembury, unless Mr. John himself, the mastiff's owner, saves his poor cur the trouble, by roaring in propria persona.

I must, however, inform them both, to their no small discomfort, that, let them roar ever so loud; and ever so long; be it a solo, or be it a duetto; they will not rob the naughty vicar of one moment's repose: though they may, perhaps, render it proper for him to repeat his trespasses on the public condescension.

A. T,

Broad Hembury, Feb. 9, 1771.

More Work for Mr. John Wesley;...

MORE WORK FOR MR. JOHN WESLEY; OR, A VINDICATION OF THE DECREES AND PROVIDENCE OF GOD, FROM THE DEFAMATION OF A LATE PRINTED PAPER, ENTITLED

“THE CONSEQUENCE PROVED.”

Conflatur invidia falsa interpretatione sententiae, quae infamanda suscipitur. - Non modo invidiosissime exponuntur ipsa dogmata, sed et consectaria invidiosa ex iis deducuntur. - Hae sunt potissimae artes, quibus invidia movetur. - Visne probare infirmas esse illorum ratiocinationes? Contrariam veritatem perspicue exponito et validis argumentis firmato.

Le Clerc, de Arg. Theol. ab Inv. duct.

What in me is dark, Illumine!

That, to the height of this great argument,

I may assert eternal providence,

And justify the ways of God to men. Milton.

ADVERTISEMENT.

I EXPECT, that this publication will, as usual, be followed by a succession of penny and two-penny squibs. Probably, I shall take no notice of them. Mr. Wesley, it seems, has between two and three hundred lay-preachers in his connection. Their name is legion, for they are many. It is impossible, therefore, from their multitude, that they and their leader should not have the last word, if they are so determined. The latter has lately declared, in print, that he has been “fighting about words, for almost these thirty years." Doubtless, therefore, the last word must, in his estimation, be particularly worth fighting for. And (unless he should publish any thing at all to the purpose) the last word he is welcome to have. A man would have a hopeful task of it, who should waste his life-time in playing at see-saw with almost three hundred such wise and genteel antagonists,

Who then talk most, when least they have to say:

and some of whom have already shown themselves unworthy of even being pilloried in a preface, or flogged at a pamphlet's end.

To those who know me not, it may seem needful to declare, that as much as I disapprove Mr. Wesley's distinguishing principles, and the low cunning with which he circulates them; I still bear not the least ill will to his person. As an individual, I wish him well, both here and ever. As a reviler, he lies (in a way of argument) at the mercy of those he defames. I make, however, no scruple to acknowledge, that the manuscript of the following sheets has lain by me, some weeks, merely with a view of striking out, from time to time, whatever might savour of undue asperity and intemperate warmth. If I any where, however, express myself strongly, it is owing to the necessity I was under of exposing Mr. Wesley's unmanly and dishonest methods of attack.

Broad Hembury, Nov. 28, 1771.

MORE WORK FOR MR. JOHN WESLEY, &c.

If it be possible, says the apostle, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men: plainly intimating, that, in some cases, this is not possible. For, what if other men will not live peaceably with us; what if some, like the troubled sea which cannot rest, are perpetually casting up mire and dirt against the gospel of God, and against all that embrace it? Are such indefatigable slanderers to be let alone? The apostle's own conduct says. No. His unavoidable contests, with the false teachers of that age, are demonstrative of the necessity, which, occasionally, even the meek and the pacific are under, of sharply rebuking such: to the end that, if God so please, they may become sound in the faith; or, at least, learn not to blaspheme, nor to increase unto more ungodliness.

Our civil constitution is not more the envy of neighbouring nations, than our religious establishment is the eye-sore of Papists, Pelagians, and Arminians” (p) a triplicate, who too well agree in one.

(p) Observe, I speak not of all Arminians. Many there are, who, notwithstanding their entanglement in that net, stand entitled to the character of pious, moderate, respectable men. Of these, I myself know more than a few: and have the happiness to enjoy as much of their esteem, as they deservedly possess of mine. But I speak, above, of the noisy, factious, malevolent Arminians: restless bigots, whose false fire would shed disgrace on whatever party they might belong to. Who, not content with exercising their own right of private judgment, are for reviling and condemning every individual person who claims the same right of judging for himself, and will not sacrifice his creed at their shrine.

From the first settlement of our national church, quite down to the present hour, it has been the ambition and the labour of those (q) factions, to destroy her, either by sap, or by storm: and, when both these methods have miscarried, to adulterate and discolour the pure and undefiled system which they found themselves unable to overthrow.

(q) I am fully aware, that it is impossible for the Arminians, strictly so called, to be charged with opposing our national system from its first institution: seeiug they had then no more than a virtual existence in the loins of their ancestors. Even Mr. Wesley is forced to acknowledge (in a paper, misentitled, The Question, What is an Arminian? Answered: p. 4.) that Arminius himself did not "Begin to doubt of the principles which he had till then received" [i. e. Arminius did not begin to apostatize from Calvinism] until "the year 1591." However, let his "doubts" have "begun" when they would; I cannot find, that he made any conspicuous figure, as an innovator on the protestant faith, until about the year 1602. Consequently, his English proselytes could not have laboured to subvert the religion of their country, so early as under Edward VI. nor even during the first years of Elizabeth. The Arminians, though at present a numerous, are very far from being an ancient family. But as, ever since they did spring up, they have left no nerve unstrained, in their attempts to demolish our doctrinal establishment; I have, above, consigned them, without scruple, to rank with the other two denominations there mentioned: an honour, to which they have the fairer title, as they eminently promote the same good old cause, and so sedulously endeavour to make up, in zeal, what they want in antiquity.

Common justice commands me to acknowledge, that no man has strove more to distinguish himself in this illaudable warfare, than Mr. John Wesley: and, at the same time, stubborn fact constrains me to add, that few warriors have acquitted themselves more contemptibly. This gentleman, in his plenitude of ardour for the cause, has made long, ample, and repeated trial of all the three methods above mentioned: the silent sap, the vigorous assault, and the artful adulteration. But all without success. The mine will not spring. The assault cannot be carried. The adulteration is too gross to incorporate. What must he do? Prevail he cannot: to fly, he is ashamed. In such an exigence, all that remains for him is, to flourish his reed, to throw an occasional squib, and scorn to confess either the impiety or the impracticabihty of his enterprise. But reeds are still unable to batter churches: and squibs (such as “The Consequence proved") are only calculated to amuse children, and terrify old women. Yet he goes on, to throw the one, and to brandish the other: why? because his hatred of the heavenly doctrines is total; and he resolves, that its perseverance shall be final. May divine grace, in mercy to his soul, supersede the former, and forbid the latter!

The adventurer, who embarks on such an expedition, as that which has hitherto engrossed the attention of Mr. Wesley, should be prudent, as well as daring. He has, I acknowledge, as much of the insidious in his composition, as he has of the acid: and it would be difficult to say, which predominates. But cunning is one thing: discretion is another. A few seeming grains of certain virtues, called humility and moderation, would have conduced, in some measure, to promote his views, by screening them. The example of Arminius might have taught him this piece of theological policy, so needful in the ringleader of a sect. To give that erroneous Dutchman [Arminius] his due, he either had, or appeared to have, some remains of modesty and candour: which, more than all his arguments, contributed to his acquisition of disciples. But Mr. Wesley is for adding the lion to the fox. He wishes, not only to wheedle, but to thunder the church out of her Calvinism. Partly, perhaps, in resentment for his having been (very deservedly) thundered out of the church. A deliverance, by the bye, on which I most heartily congratulate our sacred mother. And, I believe, her genuine sons may be safely confident (notwithstanding the late transactions at the Feathers Tavern), that she will not dispense with subscriptions to her Calvinism, quite so complacently, as she resigned Mr. John Wesley.

The complacency, however, is far from reciprocal. This discarded divine, like some discarded soldiers, cannot wholly divest himself of that military air, which, under such circumstances, can, at best, but excite pity, instead of commanding respect. He is still, like Mahomet, for propagating his religion by the sword. Peals of anathemas are issued, and torrents of the lowest calumny are thrown out, against all who abide by the doctrines of the thirty-nine articles. The gentleman's own

Sic volo, sic jubeo; stet, pro ratione, voluntas!

is expected to carry all the efficacy of demonstration, on penalty of his utmost malediction. But, let me tell him, that the thinking part of mankind, especially those of them whose eyes are spiritually opened, will pay no more regard to his empty fulminations, though launched, quasi a tripode, with all the assumed importance of oracular infallibility; than our magnanimous Elizabeth paid to the bloated menaces of pope Pius V. He continued to roar; and she continued to reign. Pope John's authority may have some weight with such men as Messieurs Walter Sellon, Haddon Smith, and Thomas Olivers: but not an inch, beyond the purlieus of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition, will his dictatorship extend.

Such of the public, as have condescended to peruse a pamphlet, entitled, A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, relative to his pretended Abridgment of Zanchius on Predestination; must be sufficiently apprized of the nature and occasion of my contest with this veteran. Another edition of that letter having been called for, and published last winter; the veteran aforesaid, by way (or rather, in lieu) of reprisal, prints, in the month of August, 1771, another paper, folded and priced as usual, twelve pages for a penny: though a saint, who, surely, ought to be most scrupulously just in all his dealing, might rather have been expected to have fixed the price at only three fourths of a penny; seeing, of the twelve pages, no more than nine are filled: which every reader, competently skilled in arithmetic, will grant, are but three fourths of the dozen. Besides: it was piously and disinterestedly written, as a therapeutic, to retrieve the erroneous; and as a prophylactic, to preserve the orthodox. Of course, the cheaper the antidote, the more extensive: and the more extensive, the more useful. But Mr. Wesley feels the force of the argumentum ad crumenam too deeply, to vend his remedies at a rate so nicely conscientious. He had, last year, if we may take his own word for it, near 30,000 followers. And supposing each follower (as, to be sure, each is in duty bound) to buy one, at least, of these penny papers: the farthing extraordinary amounts, in the whole, to thirty pounds, fourteen shillings. A sum, of whose value, saints of his complexion, are as devoutly sensible as other men. Poor Robin's Almanack, alas! though twice as valuable, goes but for half the price of “The Consequence proved.”

Let us now bring these nine pages to the test. Their title claims our first attention: "The Consequence proved.” What consequence? even this! that, upon the scriptural and church of England principle of predestination to life, it "naturally and necessarily follows, that one in twenty, suppose, of mankind, are elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated: that the elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can." These diabolical positions, enough to chill every reasonable and religious man with horror, are Mr. Wesley's own offspring, both as to sentiment and language. He had, indeed, the matchless effrontery to publish them originally, as mine: and, to render the audacious forgery complete, closed all with these words, "Reader, believe this, or be damned: witness my hand, A. T." Now, whence came it, that this concluding clause was omitted in “The Consequence Proved?” Was it, because Mr. W. found himself ashamed to repeat so unparalleled a falsehood? I apprehend not. For ought appears, he is still as dead to the feelings of shame, as he is blind to the doctrines of God, The reason, probably, was, his utter despair of being able to torture a line of Zanchius into any thing like proof of my obtruding the doctrine of election upon pain of damnation. And he might well despair of this. Whom do I condemn? whom do I impiously consign to future punishment? I condemn no man. I dare not pronounce concerning any man's eternal state. Herein, I judge not even Mr. Wesley himself. Though I must tell him, that, if it be (as I most sincerely wish it may) the divine will to save him; he has an exceeding strait gate to pass through, before he gets to heaven. In the mean while, I return to "The Consequence proved."

The very title is inaccurate. The inferences, which this writer pretends to deduce, are not a consequence, but a chain of consequences. Let us see, whether this mighty consequence drawer is able to support the consequences drawn.

The proof opens thus: - "Mr. Toplady, a young bold man, lately" [i. e. very nigh two years ago] “published a pamphlet, an extract from which was soon after" [i. e. about four months after] "printed, concluding with these words, - the sum of all is this: one in twenty (suppose) of mankind," &c.

Mr. W's present mode of phraseology is as pregnant with craft, as his conduct is destitute of honour. Observe: “an extract from which," i. e. from which pamphlet: "concluding with these words -” Now, would not any indifferent reader still imagine, that "those concluding words" were actually "extracted" from the “pamphlet" itself? And yet, nothing can be wider from the fact. The “words,” which he insinuates to have been "extracted," were not extracted from the pamphlet, but spun from his own daring invention. What shall we say of a man, who first hatches blasphemy, and then fathers it on others? Nay, who adds crime to crime, by indirectly persisting in the falsehood, even after the falsehood has been detected and publicly exposed? His forehead must be petrified, and quite impervious to a blush.

The person who, in private conversation, utters a designed untruth, is deservedly branded with disgrace. But the man, who sits down, and deliberately writes a known, wilful, palpable lie to the public, may, it seems, still be "a saint," and a "precious labourer in the Lord's vineyard!" away with such "saintship;" away with such "precious labours.” - Again: the man, who forges my name, in order to obtain a trifling sum of money, is deemed guilty of a capital offence. But the man, who subjoins my name to (r) blasphemous propositions of his own coining; is to be treated as “an ancient, venerable servant of Christ, whose whole life has been devoted to the glory of God and the good of souls!” If all his "ancient services" were of a similar cast, even Arminianism itself must expunge them from the list of those good works, which it supposes to be meritorious of salvation. Unless Mr. Wesley's Arminianism coincide with the popish maxim, that bad works, if done to heretics, are transubstantiated into good ones.

(r) This epithet is not too strong. To say that any shall be saved, do what they will; and others damned, do what they can: is, in the first instance, blasphemy against the holiness of God; and, in the second, blasphemy against his goodness.

But there are two charges, alleged against me, to which I shall assign a moment's attention: because, though pitiably frivolous, they are nevertheless, somewhat curious and uncommon. I am, it seems, "young," and "bold." To the first, I in part plead guilty. I have been but between nine and ten years in orders, though ordained as soon as my age would permit. - The merits of the second allegation, I leave to the decision of others. However, let me be as “bold” as I will, I cannot be bold in a better cause. Was I even as bold as a lion, it would, according to the maxim of a very wise writer, be a mark, not of perverseness, but of righteousness (Pr 28:1). The apostle tacitly commends a prophet for being not only bold, but very bold in asserting the sovereignty, efficacy, and freeness of divine grace in opposition to the merits and free-will of man: Isaiah is very bold, and saith, concerning God, I was found of them that sought me not, I was made manifest to them that asked not after me (Ro 10:20). When the opposers of the Christian system are shameless, why should its defenders be spiritless? As to my inconsiderable self, I blush not to tread in the steps of one, to whose faith I subscribe from the utmost of my heart. If the apostle Paul, with his whole assemblage of gifts and graces (such as, probably, never shone before, nor will shine again, in any mere man, while the world endures), could request the prayers of Gods people; much more may I, the weakest of the weak, and the unworthiest of the unworthy, supplicate the intercession of those who love the truth, and entreat them to pray, on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel; that therein I may speak (and why not write?) boldly, as I ought to speak (Eph 6:19-20).

After all, the charge of boldness (in the sense Mr. Wesley uses the term) comes more than a little out of character from his pen. I could never have dreamed of such an indictment, from such a plaintiff. Had I publicly distorted and defamed the decrees of God; had I, moreover, advanced so many miles beyond boldness, as to lay those distortions and defamations at the door of another; bold as I am affirmed to be, I could never have looked up afterwards. I should have thought every miscreant I met, an honester man than myself. But Mr. John seems a perfect stranger to these feelings. His murus aheneus has been too long transferred from his conscience to his forehead. On the whole, could I descend so exceeding low as to retaliate on this writer, in his own way; I should thus return the compliment in kind: Mr. John Wesley, an old, audacious man, lately published, _______ But I neither will, nor can, adopt his scurrility. I had rather let the ancient offender pass unchastised, than soil my hands in the operation. I proceed, therefore, to his next paragraph.

"A great outcry has been raised on that account” [viz. on account of the lying extract from Zanchy; and on account of the blasphemous inferences, and the forgery, thereto annexed]: "A great outcry has been raised on that account" [it should have run, on those accounts], “as though this was not a fair state of the case; and it has been vehemently affirmed, that no such consequence follows from the doctrine of absolute predestination. I calmly affirm, it is a fair state of the case. This consequence" [a mistake again for these consequences] "does" [another mistake for do] “naturally and necessarily follow from the doctrine of absolute predestination, as here” [it should be, there] "stated and defended by bold Mr. Augustus Toplady." Thus far the honest and accurate Mr. Wesley. On the other hand, bold Mr. Augustus no less "calmly affirms," that the "great outcry," at which bold Mr. John cries out, was most justly raised against the said John; who, by his deep-laid, but soon detected cunning, and by his avowed vacuity of candour, truth, and shame, hath, in the general estimation of all unprejudiced people, whether serious or profane (the most respectable of the Arminian party themselves not excepted), gotten a wound and dishonour, and a reproach which all his whining and winding sophistry will never be able to wipe away.

With the same determined calmness, I do also affirm, that his mode of stating the important controversy concerning predestination, is so far from “fair,” that it has nothing at all to do with the subject: but was invented, and adopted, merely to discolour the true state of the question, and to spread a mist before the eyes of such superficial readers, as might be disposed to take matters on the word of Mr. John. Which sort of readers, by the way, have, to that gentleman's no small disappointment and mortification, proved abundantly fewer than he wished and expected.

He goes on: "Indeed, I have not leisure to consider the matter at large." Then, why did he dabble in it at all? A chain of principles, like those termed Calvinistic, each successive link of which depends on the foregoing, till you arrive at the first; indispensably requires a consideration "at large." A partial view of the subject is equivalent to none. A disjointed, unconnected heap of doctrines, like that espoused by this man of no leisure; a farrago of opinions, made up of incoherent shreds; may, indeed, be considered by scraps, without any injury to the whole. It is just the same, where you begin, and which you take. But there is a harmony, there is a correlative dependency, in the system of grace: and not to advert to these, resembles transposing the notes in some capital piece of music. Mr. Wesley, therefore, must either find "leisure to consider the matter at large;" or they, who have so considered it, will with equal certainty and justice, set him down for a pitiful nibbler at the file he cannot bite.

The truth is, he has jumped, hand over head, into an engagement, the progress of which does not answer his expectation. Hence his willingness to quit the field - for want of leisure: but, in fact, for want of success. And who must cover his retreat, but the heroic Thomas Oliver, alias Olivers? And who is this redoubtable Thomas? Truly, neither more nor less than a journeyman shoemaker, now retained by Mr. Wesley, as a lay preacher, at the rate of ten pounds per annum: which, I suppose, Thomas prefers to earning double the sum by working at his proper trade.

Pharaoh's remark, though malicious and untrue in its original application, is not always unjust: Ye are idle, ye are idle; therefore ye say, Let us go from our honest employs, and pretend to serve the Lord. But, the rougher the foal, the sleeker the ass. The idle shoemaker is, to give him his due, a very laborious Arminian. Though revolted, in some respect, from the gentle craft of St. Crispin; his genius hath constant employ, and very ample scope for exertion, in following the boisterous craft of Mr. John Wesley; to whom he, moreover, stands related, as bully in chief; in chief, did I say? I had forgot the Rev. Mr. Walter Sellon. Prunella claims precedency of leather. Thomas is only second in commission.

But seems it not rather strange, that Mr. Wesley, a man of education, and who has given proof upon proof, that he is indued with a very competent portion of assurance; should not be ashamed to skulk, for shelter, under a cobler's apron? The Jews will by no means work on the sabbath; but they set Gentiles to work, without scruple. Mr. John affects to decline undertaking the argument in form: and the cobler (still doomed to be an under-stranper) is delegated to supply Mr. John's lack of leisure, as well as of leather. Already has the journeyman made an effort (with some of Mr. John's own assistance) to white-wash the said Mr. John. He might as well have laboured to blanch the AEthiop, or to emaculate the leopard. But how can Robin Hood be better employed, than in standing up for Little John? It must be granted, that Little John appears something taller on the shoulders of his man. I acknowledge, too, that there is, upon the whole, some proportionable congruity between the pedestal and the image. Yet this mode of exhibition is not without its danger. I once saw, when a boy, a rope-dancer parading round May-fair, on the shoulders of a booth-keeper. For some time, the carrier and the carried engrossed the acclamations of the wondering populace. When, alas! either by a stumble of the elevator, or through defect of equilibrium in the elevatee, down came the latter; who, after such dishonour, was glad to trudge it back on foot, instead of venturing to re-ascend the living pedestal. Should the above illustration be deemed not sufficiently sublime for so towering a subject; take another, from the pen of a late nobleman. "I remember,” says his lordship, " to have seen a" [popish] "procession at Aix la Chapelle, wherein an image of Charlemagne is carried on the shoulders of a man who is hid by the long robe of the imperial saint. Follow him into the vestry, you see the bearer slip from under the robe, and the gigantic figure dwindles into an image of the ordinary size, and is set by among other lumber."

The case, in reality, stands thus. The master does me an injury, by subjoining my name to what I never wrote. On which, I publicly call the aggressor himself to account. The aggressor slinks behind one of his drudges, who says, "Fight me in my master's stead." I answer, No. Ne sutor ultra crepidam. What hast thou to do with controversy? Away to thy stall, and leave Little John to fight his own battles. My business is not with the man, but with the master. I most certainly (at least in my present view of things) shall never descend to uncase that hog in armour. This Mr. Wesley could not but foresee. He therefore did shrewdly, to slip his own neck out of the collar, and thrust in that of a man who may strut, with the collar on his neck, unnoticed and unmolested, till his dying day.

After all, let us see whether Mr. Wesley has extricated his own neck with any degree of dexterity. In order to this, we must examine, whether the consequences, which he labours to squeeze from the doctrine of predestination, as stated by me, will stand.

I. The first pretended consequence was, that “one in twenty, suppose, of mankind is elected; nineteen in twenty are reprobated."Mr. W. seems, at present, to give up this abominable inference. He does not so much as attempt to prove it, in the paper now under examination. Which paper, therefore, does not, even in appearance, answer its title. This consequence, at least, is not proved. Nay, it is thrown by, and smothered in silence. Nor do I wonder at it. I should, indeed, be surprised to find even Mr. Wesley's own writings (and, surely, if they cannot, nothing can) put him out of countenance. But he had a motive, not at all related to shame, for slipping that infamous paragraph out of sight. The credit of his perspicacity, as a reasoner, absolutely required it. For, could any thing be more palpably absurd, than to charge us with a peremptory consequence, affirmed to be drawn from absolute premises, which said peremptory consequence was (even in terminis) confessedly hypothetic, and founded on a mere vague supposition? The word "suppose" is the basis of the whole conclusion. But we never did, nor can, "suppose" that no more than "one in twenty" is elected. Therefore the basis melts, and the entire consequential fabric (like the rope dancer at May-fair) tumbles to the ground.

Observe, reader, for it is worth thy while, how suddenly Mr. Wesley's polemical weather-glass rises and falls. In his printed letter to the late truly reverend and amiable Mr. Hervey, he charged that incomparable man, and the Calvinistic party in general, with holding the reprobation of "nine out of ten." In March, 1770, we were charged with holding, as above, that “nineteen in twenty are reprobated." In February in 1771, we were charged with holding the reprobation of "forty-nine out of fifty.” And now, about five months after, the glass is sunk 30 degrees lower, and, in "The Consequence proved," stands again at ''nineteen out of twenty." Next spring, I suppose, it will rise to ninety-nine out of a hundred. A very capable gentleman this, to ascertain the number of the elect and reprobate, who reprobates his own calculations almost as often as the clock strikes! - So much for the first consequence. Now for the second:

XL "The elect shall be saved, do what they will." By doing “what they will," is evidently meant, be they finally, ever so unholy, and be their lives ever so immoral. The expression must signify this, or it can signify nothing. It is either a paltry, sophistical quibble upon the word will, and so evaporates into a term without a fixed idea; or it imports, that, upon the footing of absolute election, personal sanctification and practical obedience are unnecessary to salvation.

The point of enquiry, then, is, Whether the elect themselves can be ultimately saved, without being previously sanctified by inherent grace, and (if adult) without evidencing that sanctification (according as ability and opportunity are given), by walking in the way of God's commandments? I affirm, with scripture, that they cannot be saved without sanctification and obedience. Yet is not their salvation at all precarious: for, that very decree of election, by which they were nominated and ordained to eternal life, ordained their intermediate renewal after the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness. Nay, that renewal is, itself, the dawn and beginning of actual salvation: "This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent (Joh 17:3). Whence the apostle; by grace ye are saved, through faith (Eph 2:8). And again. Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling (2Ti 1:9). Sanctity, therefore, of heart and life, is not barely a prelude to, but even a part and initiatory anticipation of, the glory which shall be revealed.

The elect could no more be saved, without personal holiness, than they could be saved without personal existence. And why? because God's own decree secures the means as well as the end, and accomplishes the end by the means. The same gratuitous predestination, which ordained the existence of the elect, as men; ordained their purification, as saints: and they were ordained to both, in order to their being finally and completely saved in Jesus Christ with eternal glory.

The doctrine of election is a doctrine of mere revelation. Though human reason, when defecated from prejudice, and sanctified by grace, cannot but assent to it, as a scripture truth: yet, reason would probably never have discovered it with certainty and clearness, had not God expressly made it known in his written word. Consequently, from that written word we are to learn the true nature and effects of electing grace: since God himself must be best acquainted with his own decrees.

The holy Spirit, making the apostle's pen the channel of unerring inspiration, thus inspired him to write: according as he [God the Father] hath chosen us in him [in Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we should [not, "be saved do what we will;" but] be holy and without blame before him in love. Eph 1:4. - Election is always followed by regeneration: and regeneration is the source of all good works: whence the apostle adds; in the very next chapter, v. 10. We [the elect] are his [subsequent] workmanship, created [anew] in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath fore-ordained that we should walk in them. Consequently, it does not follow, from the doctrine of absolute predestination, that "the elect shall be saved, do what they will." On the contrary, they are chosen as much to holiness, as to heaven; and are foreordained to walk in good works, by virtue of their election from eternity, and of their conversion in time. Yet again: God hath, from the beginning [i. e. from everlasting; see Pr 8:23. Joh 1:1-2.] chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: 2Th 2:13. All, therefore, who are chosen to salvation, are no less unalterably destined to holiness and faith in the mean while. And, if so, it is giving God himself the lie, to say, that "the elect shall be saved, do what they will." For, the elect, like the blessed person who redeemed them, come into the world not to do their own will, but the will of him that sent them: and this is the will of God concerning them, even their sanctification: 1Th 4:3. Hence they ave expressly said to be elect - unto obedience (1Pe 1:2): not, indeed, chosen because of obedience, but chosen unto it: for works are not the fountain of grace, but streams flowing from it. Election does not depend upon holiness, but holiness depends upon election. So far, therefore, is predestination from being subversive of good works; that predestination is the primary cause of all the good works which have been and shall be wrought, from the beginning to the end of time. It is only the peculiar people, that are truly zealous of good works. Tit 2:14. The rest may profess that they know God, but, even amidst all their noise about works, in their own works they deny him; being abominable, and disobedient, and, to every good work, reprobate: Tit 1:16. As I have elsewhere observed, they trust in good works, without doing them; while the peculiar people do good works, without trusting in them.

Reason also joins with scripture, in asserting the indispensible necessity of sanctification, upon the footing of the most absolute, and irrespective election: or in other words, that the certainty of the end does not supersede, but ensure, the intervention of the means. It was decreed, that Abraham should be a father of many nations. According to Mr. Wesley's mode of argumentation, Abraham might have been so, though he died in infancy. I say. No. For, the same purpose of God, which appointed him to be a father of nations, appointed also (as a mean to the end) that he should live to a competent age. - St. Paul was decreed to preach the gospel before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel (Ac 9:15). Ergo, says an Arminian, Paul might have preached in various nations, without travelling a step, and without so much as opening his lips. I deny the consequence. Paul's travelling, and Paul's utterance, were as certainly and as necessarily included in the decree of the means, as his preaching was determined by the decree of the end. - God resolved, that Hezekiah should live fifteen years longer than Hezekiah expected. Hezekiah might, therefore, according to Mr. Wesley's plan, have argued thus: “God has promised me fifteen years of life to come. Ergo, Live I shall, do what I will: die I shall not, do what I can. I will therefore neither eat, drink, nor sleep. Nay, I will tie a millstone round my neck, and throw myself headlong into the sea, from the highest precipice I can find." I answer, No. For it was as much comprised, in God's decree, that Hezekiah should eat, drink, and sleep, during those fifteen years; and that he should not jump into the sea, with a millstone about his neck; as that fifteen years should be added to his life. - Cyrus was decreed to be the captor of Babylon, and an instrument of good to the Jewish people (Isa 44:28; 45:1) Did that decree render it needless for Cyrus to be conceived and born? Surely, no: for the birth of Cyrus was no less infallibly secured by the decree itself, than were the laurels he should reap, and the good he was to do.

To multiply instances, would be endless. Let us apply the few that have been given. If the scriptures are true, God did, from all eternity, choose an innumerable multitude of Adam's posterity, to the certain attainment of grace and glory. This choice of them was in his Son: being pre-considered as fallen, they were chosen under that character, and federally given to him, to be redeemed by his blood, and clothed with his righteousness. But this alone would not have sufficed. It was necessary, that, as sinners, they should not only be redeemed from punishment, and entitled to heaven; but endued, moreover, with an internal meetness for that inheritance to which they should be entitled and redeemed. This internal meetness for heaven, can only be wrought by the restoring agency of God the Holy Ghost, who graciously engaged and took upon himself, in the covenant of peace, to renew and “sanctify all the elect people of God;" saying, I will put my law in their minds, and write it upon their hearts. This, most certainly, was the view, in which the decree of predestination was considered by the apostle Peter, when he thus wrote: Elect, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, [according to his foreknowledge of the human fall; which foreknowledge made it necessary that election should be decreed to take effect, not independently on God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, but] through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (1Pe 1:2). It appears, from this golden passage, 1. That all the three divine persons are equally concerned in the salvation of sinners: the Father elected them; the Son shed his blood for them; the Spirit sanctifies them. 2. That the objects of election were considered, in that eternal decree, as fallen: else, I cannot see how they could be chosen unto the sprinkling of the Messiah's blood, and unto the sanctification of the Spirit. 3. That election, though productive of good works, is not founded upon them: on the contrary, they are one of the glorious ends, to which the elect are chosen. Saints do not bear the root, but the root them. "Elect - unto obedience." 4. That they, who have been elected by God the Father, shall be sprinkled by the Son, or legally purified by his atonement, in a way of pardon; and experience the holy Spirit's sanctification, in beginning, advancing, and perfecting, the good work of grace on their souls. Whence, 5. the elect, the sprinkled, and the sanctified, are made to obey the commandments of God, and to imitate Christ as a pattern, at the same time that they trust in him as their propitiation. I said, made to obey. Here perhaps, the unblushing Mr. Wesley may ask, "Are the elect, then, mere machines?" I answer, No. They are made (Ps 110:3) willing to obey, in the day of God's power. And, I believe, no body ever yet heard of a willing machine.

It appears, from the passages of scripture now alleged, that God decreed to bring his elect to glory, in a way of sanctification, and in no other way but that. If so, cries Mr. Wesley, "They will be saved, whether they are sanctified, or no." What, notwithstanding their sanctification, is, itself, an essential branch of the decree concerning them? The man may as well affirm, that Abraham might have been the progenitor of nations, though he died in infancy: that Paul might have preached the gospel, viva voce, in fifty different regions, without traveling a step: that Hezekiah might have lived his fifteen years, without food or sleep: that Cyrus would have fulfilled the prophecies concerning him, if he had never been born: and that the church of God might have been redeemed by the blood of Christ, even if Christ had never assumed human nature.

Prior to the taking of Jericho, it was revealed to Joshua that he should certainly be master of the place. Nay, so peremptory was the decree, and so express the revelation of it, that it was predicted as if it had already taken effect: I have given into thy hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour (Jos 6:3). This assurance, than which nothing could be more absolute, did not tie up Joshua's hands from action, and make him sit down without using the means, which were no less appointed than the end. On the contrary, he took care to regulate the procession pursuant to God's command; and the event was accomplished accordingly. - From fact, let us ascend to speculation. - The doctrine which stands this united test, is and must be true. Suppose it was infalliably revealed to an army, or to any single individual, that the former should certainly gain such a battle, and the latter certainly win such a race. Would not the army be mad, to say, “Then we will not fight a stroke?" Would not the racer be insane to add, "Nor will I move so much as one of my feet?" Now it is no less irrational, to insinuate, that the elect shall be saved, without being spiritually and morally conformed to the image of Christ, than it would be, to dream of gaining a battle, without fighting, or of winning a prize, without contending. - Would it not be absurd, to affirm, that Adam might have tilled and dressed the garden of Eden, whether he had been created or not? Equally illogical is Mr. Wesley's impudent slander, that "the elect shall be saved do what they will," i. e. whether they are holy, or not.

This writer passes with some, for a man of profound learning. But, surely, either his head is not so well furnished, as these good people suppose; or his heart must be totally void of justice, candour, and truth. Either he is absolutely unacquainted with the first principles of reasoning; or he offers up the knowledge he has, as a whole burnt-sacrifice, on the altar of malice, calumny, and falsehood (l).

(l) Even Thomas Oliver, or Olivers, the fighting shoemaker, is either a better reasoner, or an honester man, than his leader: for, on a recent occasion (an occasion so well known to the religious world, since the appearance of the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Shirley's Narrative, just published, that it were needless for me to recite the particulars), this same Thomas was so deeply convinced of the irreconcilable contrariety of the London Minutes to the Bristol Declaration; that, having solemnly avowed the former, either common conscience, or common sense, would not permit him to sign the latter. - Mr. Wesley, however, swallowed both. He could declare in the one, that "We are rewarded because of our works; for the sake of our works: yea, secundum merita operum, as our works deserve." In the other, the same identical Mr. Wesley declares that he doth, “abhor the doctrine of justification by works, as a most perilous and abominable doctrine:” and that "our works have no part in meriting or purchasing our salvation, from first to last, either in whole or in part." Where lives the man, who can bring these two poles together?

Dic quibus in terris, et eris mihi magnus Apollo.

All the sophistical wriggling, twisting, straining, and wire-drawing, in the world, will never be able to make the above north and south shake hands. Was any thing upon earth, ever equal to Mr. Wesley's duplicity? Yes: I have met with something which comes, at least extremely near it. I mean, the conduct of Arminius himself (or if you please, of Van Harmin the first), when he was examined for the Leyden professorship, A. D. 1603. Take the account in the words of the learned and moderate Mr. Hickman. "He [Arminius] was the first tapster, or chamberlain, in a common inn: from whence, by the care of some guests, who were pleased, even to admiration, at his prompt wit, he was removed and sent to school. He was maintained there, out of the public treasury of Amsterdam: where, in process of time, he was by the magistrates of the city, made pastor: the learned Junius being dead, Utenbogard thought none so meet to succeed him, as Van Harmin: but the Belgic cliurches knew him too well, to let him easily come to such a place, in which he might influence all that were candidates for the ministry. The deputies of the churches did admonish Utenbogard, that he would cease to commend so suspected a man to the curators of the university of Leyden. But he, too proud to regard such admonitions, desisted not to commend Arminius:" who obtained his dismission from Amsterdam, to Leyden, on the following condition; viz. "That he should first have a conference with the learned Gomarus; and, in that conference, by a most free and open declaration of his opinion," i. e. of his real sentiments as to matters of religion, "free himself from all suspicion of heterodoxy; and that he should promise, if he had any singular opinions, he would not discover them" [i. e. not disseminate them] "to the disturbances of the churches. - Accordingly, a conference there was, before the curators of the university, and the deputies of the synod; in which Arminius most expressly denied and condemned the opinions of the pelagians concerning grace, free-will, original sin, perfection in this life, predestination: adding, that he approved all that Augustin and other fathers had written against Pelagius; promising also to read nothing" [i. e. to deliver nothing to his pupils and other hearers] "dissonant to the received doctrine" [of Calvinism]. "Hereupon, he was admitted professor; and, for some time, he defended the doctrine of the reformed churches in the point of Christ's satisfaction, justifying faith, justification by faith, perseverance in faith, certainty of salvation, and such other matters which afterwards he denied: and which he then" [viz. at the time of his defending them] "as is acknowledged by his good friend Corvinus, maintained against his conscience. He seemed by all his carriage, to be one that was resolved not to venture any farther into the sea, than that he might have opportunity to step, when he pleased, upon the shore." (Hickman's Animadversions on Heylin, p. 93, 94. edit. 1674.)

Was I a believer of the Pythagorean Metempsychosis, I should certainly conclude that the soul of Arminius was transmigrated into that particular system of flesh and blood, known by the name of John Wesley. The reader, if he pleases may see some gleanings of Mr. John's astonishing inconsistencies, in a little tract, drawn up by a respectable hand, and just published, entitled, "An answer to some capital Errors contained in Minutes of some late Conversations between the Rev. Mr. Wesley and others." We have already had a specimen of James against Van Harmin, and Van Harmin against James. Nor does the last mentioned tract exhibit a less striking contrast of Wesley against John, and John against Wesley.

One word more, respecting the Bristol Declaration of August, 1771. Mr. Wesley's prevarication seems to have surprised even the unbelieving Thomas above mentioned. Witness the following passage of Mr. Shirley, (Narrative, p. 16.) "One of the [lay-] preachers, namely, Mr."[Mr.] Thomas Oliver, kept us a long time in debate; strenuously opposed the declaration; [I hope he is not like the man at Aix la Chapelle, going to give his image the slip!] "and, to the last, would not consent to sign it. He maintained, that our second justification (i. e. in the day of judgment) is by works; and he saw very clearly, that, for one that holds that tenet, solemnly to declare, in the sight of God, that he has no trust or confidence but in the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for justification, or salvation, in life, death, or the day of judgment; would be acting neither a consistent, nor an upright part. For, all the subtilties of metaphysical distinctions can never reconcile tenets so diametrically opposite as these."

Query 1. Has Tom the shoe-maker more learning, or more integrity, than John the priest? Which way soever the problem be determined; that the shoe-maker has the advantage in point of consistency, for not going beyond his last, is out of all doubt.

Query 2. People imagine that Mr. Wesley meant as he spoke, in the London Minutes of 1770. And most people continue to believe, that he means now what he spoke then; and that he still has his mental reserves. What security, therefore, will he give the evangelical world, that he is sincere in the counter declaration of 1771?

Query 3. Why gaddest thou about so much, to change thy way? Thou also shalt be ashamed of Egypt, as thou wast of Assyria. Jer 2:36.

The consequence-drawer makes several appeals to my translation of Zanchius; from some parts of which he labours to cull premises, whereof to make a basis for his consequences. Like some wretched divines, who first patch up a system of their own, and then rummage the Bible for such texts, as, by the he]p of "a little convenient straining," may seem to prop the pre-constructcd Babel. I shall attend, however, to such passages in my pamphlet, as Mr. Wesley alludes to. Only I must premise, that I shall give them, not as they are mis-quoted by the calumniator, but as they stand in the pamphlet itself.

I have said, that love, when predicated of God, signifies his eternal benevolence: i. e. his everlasting will, purpose, and determination, to deliver, bless, and save his people. Whereon Mr. Wesley thus descants: “I appeal to all men, whether it is not a natural consequence even of this, that all these shall be saved do what they will." I also appeal to every person of common honesty, and common sense, whether the man who would wish to distil such an infamous consequence from so innocent a paragraph, be not defective either in sense or honesty? Does not God's determination to deliver his people, include and ensure their deliverance (among other evils) from the reigning power and dominion of sin? Is it not his will to bless them, by turning away everyone of them from their iniquities? Ac 3:26. Does not the Son of God condescend to bear the gracious name of Jesus, because he saves and shall save his people from their sins, both as to guilt, dominion and punishment? Mt 1:21. Is it possible that a man who has read, and who believes such texts as these, should still dare to persist in bawling, without end, "The elect shall be saved, do what they will?" That the elect shall infallibly be saved, is a truth as certain as the word and the (Isa 54:9; Heb 6:17-18) oath of God can make it. But then it is equally true, that, in order to the eventual accomplishment of that salvation in the next world, grace is given them in this, to preserve them (and preserve them it does) from doing the evil they otherwise would. Whom God did foreknow (or fore-love), he also did predestinate: to what? To be "saved, do what they will?” No, surely; but to be conformed to the spiritual and moral image of his Son, Ro 8:29. And this is all the election which Calvinism (or, to speak more properly, Scripturism) contends for: even a predestination to holiness and heaven. It may here, perhaps, be objected, that "the doctrine of predestination even to holiness itself may tend to relax the nerves of human diligence in the pursuit of that holiness to which men may suppose themselves predestinated." I utterly deny the doctrine to have any such tendency. And I deny it, on scripture warrant. The same apostle Peter, who declares that the people of God were elected unto obedience, exhorts those very people to give all diligence to make their calling and election undoubted; or to render it evidentially sure, by advancing in sanctification, and working the works of God: a direction this which the apostle (or, rather, the holy Spirit by him) would never have given had the doctrine of absolute election been subversive of industry and endeavours on the part of man.

Mr. Wesley himself, amidst all his pretension to the contrary, sees through the shameless fallacy of his own consequence. Witness the following passage: "All these," i. e. all God's people, "shall be saved, do what they will. You may say, Oh, but they will only do what is good. Be it so. Yet the consequence stands."In opposition to every part of this puerile paragraph, I should, 1. Be glad to know, what Calvinist ever asserted, that God's people " will do only what is good?" A giddy perfectionist, indeed, might express himself in that manner: but none who have been led into the knowledge of God, of his law, or of themselves. Though we are asserters of real, we are nevertheless deniers of perfect, sanctification on earth. But, 2. Supposing that we even believe that true saints will "do only what is good;" would it still follow, that they shall be saved without sanctification? I should rather imagine, that (so far from being unsanctified) the men who were to “do only what is good," must have been first completely sanctified; else, the effect would rise higher than the cause. According, therefore, to Mr. Wesley's logic, perfect sanctification, evidenced by doing only that which is good, is but another phrase for no sanctification at all, and for trampling all God's commandments under foot! A reciprocation this, which, by the way, falls very heavy on such of his own followers as set up for sinless perfection: who, Mr. Wesley himself being judge, are necessarily a pack of arrant Antinomians. This, however, is a consequence from his premises, which the short-sighted Arminian did not discern. It now meets him full in the face. See it he must; and he may jostle by it as well as he can. Dost thou not think, reader, that the logician, who thus reciprocates the most contrary and inconvertible ideas; who calls evil good, and good evil, putting light for darkness, and darkness for light; must be most exquisitely qualified to set up for a distiller of consequences?

Sensible of having hitherto produced nothing to his purpose, the Arminian is for pressing a fresh paragraph of mine into the service of his consequence. But, before it would even seem to countenance the idea he meant it should convey, he found it expedient to give the passage a little needful pruning, and more than a little alteration. To judge of this, let us contrast my paragraph with his quotation.

Predestination, as relating to the elect only, is that eternal, unconditional, particular, and irreversible act of the divine will, whereby, in matchless love and adorable sovereignty, God determined within himself to deliver a certain number of Adam's degenerate offspring, out of that sinful and miserable estate, into which, by his primitive transgression, they were to fall. Trans. of Zanc.

“Predestination, as relating to the elect, is that irreversible act of the divine will, whereby God determined to deliver a certain number of men from hell." Wesley's Quotation.

The substituting of "men" absolute, for Adam's degenerate offspring; and the changing of sinful and miserable estate into "hell," may, at first view, seem unimportant alterations. But Mr. Wesley has long since declared himself averse to "altering for altering sake." And, herein, I believe him. He had an end to serve, in thus shaping my words to his purpose. For, though men, and the degenerate offspring of Adam, are convertible terms; yet, in the present argument, the terms require some distinction. Election, as stated and defined in Zanchius, considers Adam's offspring, not merely as men; but complexly, as degenerate. It was therefore dishonestly artful in the pelagian, to omit an epithet, which is of such consequence, as to give the specific tinge to the whole definition. Zanchy was a Sublapsarian; and so is his translator. Let the pelagian, with whom I am contending, learn, at least in his old age, to represent men and things as they are. If his fingers tingle to fall foul on the Supralapsarians, let him indulge his fingers, as soon as he pleases. There are worthies, in that sentiment, who are able to make Mr. Wesley look about him, and to bid the tingling shift from his fingers to his head.

Perversion and falsification are essential figures in this man's rhetoric. Just representation will not square with his views. Whence, in order to support his outrageous slander, that "the elect shall he saved, do what they will;" he varies and castrates the definition he pretends to quote, and only affirms me to have declared, that predestination is God's determining will "to deliver a certain number of men from hell." Predestination includes a great deal more. Let us have no shifting of the terms. My expression was, To deliver them from their sinful and miserable estate: i. e. to make them inchoatively holy, in order to their being inchoatively and finally happy. Now, can any reasonable man suppose, that deliverance from sin is but another name for continuance in sin? yet this must be not only supposed, but proved, ere it can be fairly alleged, that upon the principle of absolute predestination, "the elect shall be saved, do what they will."

Nor is that monstrous conclusion at all more inferrible from the following passage, cited also by this forger of consequences: not one of the elect can perish; but they must all, necessarily, be saved (n). Here, the pelagian lashes himself into rage, and asks, with no small emotion, “Can any assert this, and yet deny the consequences?” I answer Yes. Christ himself asserted it, without so much as entering a caveat against any such detestable inferences: and a caveat Christ would have entered, had the inference been deducible. This is the Father's will, who hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I shall lose nothing: Joh 6:39. I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish: Joh 10:28. - Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory: Joh 17:24. Well, therefore, might the apostle throw a gauntlet of universal defiance, and ask, if God be for us, who can be against us? who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? who is he that condemns? who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Ro 8:31-35. Now, if it be the Father's will, that Christ should lose none of his elect; if Christ himself, in consequence of their covenant-donation to him, does actually give them eternal life, and solemnly avers that they shall never perish; if God be so for them, that none can hinder their salvation; if nothing can be laid to their charge; if they cannot be condemned, and nought shall separate them from the love of Christ; it clearly and inevitably follows, that not one of the elect can perish, but they must all, necessarily be saved. Which salvation consists as much in the recovery of moral rectitude below, as in the enjoyment of eternal blessedness above.

(n) Doctr. of Abs. Pred.

I have followed Mr. John through his first pair of consequences; which (together with their fabricator) I have shown to be utterly void of judgment, strength, and truth. Let me now advert to the third pretended consequence:

III. "The reprobate shall be damned, do what they can."

One would almost imagine, that none but a reprobate could be capable of advancing a position so execrably shocking. Surely, it must have cost even Mr. Wesley much, both of time and pains, to invent the idea, and to find suitable language for its clothing! This, however, I make no scruple to declare, that be his inventions easy or laborious, few men's invention ever sunk deeper into the despicable, launched wider into the horrid, or went farther in the profane. The satanic guilt of the person, who could excogitate, and publish to the world, a position like that baffles all power of description, and is only to be exceeded (if exceedable) by the satanic shamelessness which dares to lay the black position at the door of other men. - Let us examine, whether any thing, occurring in Zanchius, could justly furnish this wretched defamer with materials for a deduction so truly infernal.

I am aware, indeed, that a perverse mind; like a depraved constitution, is capable of corrupting (so far as itself is concerned) even cordials into poison. The verv things which should have been for their health, are, to such persons, an occasion of falling. Instances of this kind (if final) are the most awful comment on that tremendous decree of preterition, whereof the scriptures so largely and so strongly speak. God Almighty grant, that Mr. Wesley may not, himself, be a seal to the truth of this remark!

In rummaging the treatise, he pretends to quote, he, no doubt, fixed his claw on those passages, which, he imagined, were most capable of misinterpretation. Before I introduce them here, I beg the reader's permission to premise a few general observations, which have a close connection with the subject.

The two capital objections (to which, perhaps, all others are reducible) against the decree of non-election, are drawn, one from the justice, the other from the mercy, of God. Both these objections I shall endeavour to consider, in their utmost force.

1. Justice consists in rendering to every man his due. The supposed injustice, therefore, of preterition, turns on this question, "Whether God is, or is not, a debtor to man?" I more than imagine, that he is not a debtor to any man. He owes no man the least of all his favours: and, indeed, his blessings could not be called favours, if man could claim them in a way of debt. - Who hath prevented me, [i. e. been before-hand with me in any good thing] that I should repay him (Job 41:11). Even those whom he had made righteous, are unable to earn or merit the smallest temporal, or eternal benefit of his hands: If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thy hand? Job 35:11. Much less can the wicked (with whom alone reprobation has any thing to do) lay their Maker under obligation to save them. If it be proved, that he owes salvation to every rational being he has made; then, and then only, it will follow, that God is unjust in not paying this debt of salvation to each of his reasonable creatures. But, on the contrary, if God, instead of being an universal debtor (as Arminianism supposes him to be), is himself the universal creditor, who beneficently lends every earthly, and munificently bestows every celestial happiness, according to the riches of his own free, sovereign, unmerited bounty - what shadow of injustice can be fastened on his conduct, for, in some cases, withholding what he does not owe? The objection, therefore (if it may be dignified by that name), being founded on a mistaken principle, evaporates into air.

Besides: the cavil will conclude as strongly against limited salvation (let its limitation be supposed to arise from what cause it will), as against the limiting decree. For I defy any man to show, in what single respect the actual limitation of happiness itself is a jot more just and equitable (in a being possessed with power), than the decretive limitation of the persons who shall enjoy that happiness. Until Mr, Wesley can demonstrate, that every man is happy in this life; and that every man shall be so in the life to come; the argument, resulting from the plausible topic of divine justice, will never reach the merits of the case. If God is indebted to some men, why not to all? and if he owe salvation to all men, why will he condemn any man at last? should it be said, that “some men will not permit God to pay them their debt of salvation, and, by their own misbehaviour, disqualify themselves from receiving it;" I answer, That, to talk of man's not permitting God to be just, is assuming a principle that cannot be allowed. God can never be over-ruled by man, until man is superior to God. Not to add, that the Arminian hypothesis of men being God's creditors, rests (if it has any thing to rest upon) on the natural claim to happiness, wherewith man is supposed to be invested, in right of involuntary creatureship: he derives his existence from God, and therefore (says Arminianisrn) God is bound to make that existence happy. Admit but this, and universal salvation comes in with a full tide. There can be none, no, not one, to whom the Judge will or can say at the final audit, Depart from me, I know you not, ye workers of iniquity. For, even those, who live and die in their sins, are certainly God's creatures: and if God owe salvation to all his creatures as such, even the workers of iniquity will and must be saved, or God must cease to be just. Who sees not, that the Arminian scheme, if probed to the bottom, opens, by necessary consequence, the flood-gates of practical licentiousness; and, with all its pretences to good works, is, in reality, but varnished Antinomianism? It says, in effect, "Every man shall be saved, do what he will; no man shall be condemned, do what he can. Let narrow-spirited Calvinists cease to do evil and learn to do well. Let gloomy predestinarians insist, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord; and fondly dream, that sanctity and salvation are indissolubly connected. But let us, the liberal disciples of Arminius, act on a more expanded plan. Every son of Adam is God's creature: and every creature of God is good. We are all indued with independent free-wilL Our Maker loves every man alike. His justice will not suffer him to reject any of us. Especially, seeing we are all redeemed, one as well as another. Let us, therefore, take our ease, eat, drink, and be merry: and tomorrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant."

This is the true language of Arminianism, though not of all Arminians. It is the natural consequence of the scheme itself, though many, who embrace the scheme, are not aware of the consequence. - You may say, "Oh, but no man shall actually be saved, though salvation is his due, except he perform certain conditions." This is no better than a very thin evasion: a mere barrel, thrown out for the amusement of the whale, to keep him in play, and make him lose sight of the ship. - Permit me to ask, Is salvation due to a man who does not perform those conditions? If you say, yes; you jump, hand over head, into what you yourself call Antinomianism. - If you say, that "salvation is not due to a man, unless he fulfil the conditions;"it will follow, 1. That man's own performances are meritorious of salvation, and bring God himself into debt: 2. That man, as a creature of God, is not entitled to salvation; and that God as the creator of man, is not therefore bound to save the men he has created.

There is no possible alternative. Either God is obliged, in justice, to save mankind; or, he is not. If he be, it must be the works of men that lay him under the obligation. If he be not, then neither is he unjust in passing by some men: nay, he might, had he so pleased, have passed by the whole of mankind, without electing any one individual of the fallen race; and yet have continued inviolably holy, just, and good.

Let us pursue the argument a little farther; and descend to instances, rather more familiar: even to God's providential dealings with men in the present life. If eternal felicity be due to every man without exception; surely, temporal felicity must be their due likewise: if they have a right to the greater, their claim to the less can hardly be doubted. If the Omnipotent is tied and bound, on penalty of becoming unjust, to do all he can to make every individual happy in the next life; he must be equally bound to render every individual happy in this. But are all men happy? Look round the world, and and say yes if you can. - Is the Creator, therefore, unjust? none but satan would suggest it: none but his echoes will affirm it. The Lord is a God of truth, and without iniquity: just and right is he. Yet is it in the power of Omnipotence to banish misery from the universe. He could even have totally hindered its access. But as the event demonstrates (and what speaks louder than fact?) it was not his will. He allows, and resolved to allow (for infinite wisdom does nothing ignorantly and undesignedly) its entrance, progress, and continuance. Sift the point ever so closely, and canvass the argument ever so nicely, you will find it extremely difficult, (may I not say, impossible?) to point out the difference between permission and design, in a being possessed (as God most certainly is) of unlimited wisdom and unlimited power. I am far from affirming, that there is no difference between them: I only say, that it would non-plus all the sagacity of man, should we attempt clearly to shew, wherein the difference lies.

Is the constituted order of things mysterious? impenetrably so. Yet the mysteriousness of God's dispensations evinces, not the injustice of the sovereign dispenser; but the shallowness of human comprehension, and the shortness of human sight. Let us, then, by embracing and revering the scripture doctrines of predestination and providence, give God credit for being infinitely wise, just, and good; though, for the present, his way is in the deep, and his paths in the great waters, and his footsteps are not known.

I should imagine, that very few, even of the Arminians themselves, will venture to deny the real inequality of providential distributions below: since, to deny that, would be to contravene the first principles of reason, and the indisputable voice of fact and observation. Will the Arminians therefore pronounce the great Father of all, unjust, because he does not make all his offspring equally rich, good, and happy? It is impossible to stave back the horrid consequence, if he is bound (and he certainly has power) to prevent every evil, both natural and moral; which yet he does not. Sin, pain, affliction, grief, disease, and death, in twice ten thousand forms, lay waste mankind. Nay, there is a whole world of apostate angels, who are banished from God, and suffer without respite and without hope (p). Yet the Deity could have put a negative upon all this. The same effectual grace, which preserved the elect angels from falling, could have preserved the rest, and have presented the whole choir faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. It could, likewise, have precluded the transgression of Adam, and all its (seemingly dismal) consequences. Or, man being fallen, the same converting energy, which retrieves some sinners to God, is able to retrieve all. What shall we say, then, to these things? They can only be accounted for on the grand principle of God's absolute sovereignty, who doth according to his will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, i. e. who is the uncontrolable disposer of angels and of men; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, what dost thou? Da 4:35. Our Lord also teaches us this important lesson: even so. Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight: Mt 11:26.

(p) "It may be observed," says a great divine, "that we can hear and read of the non-election and rejection of angels, with very little emotion of mind. The devil may be cast down to hell, to be everlastingly damned, and be appointed thereto; and it gives no great concern. No hard thoughts against God arise, no charge of cruelty, injustice, and want of kindness to his creatures and offspring. But, when any thing of this kind is hinted at with respect to any of the apostate sons of Adam, presently there is an outcry against it, and [objections upon objections] are suggested. The reason is because the latter [viz. the non-election of some men] comes nearer home. It is owing to partiality to ourselves, our nature, and our race. Whereas far greater severity, if it may be so called, is exercised on fallen angels, than on fallen men. God has not spared one of the angels that sinned; has provided no Saviour for them; not so much as given them the means of grace: while not only a Saviour is provided for fallen men, and means of grace allowed them; but thousands, and ten thousands, millions and millions of them are saved, by the abundant mercy and grace of God through Christ." Dr. Gill's Body of Divinity, vol. 1. p. 315.

The king of Great Britain has an unlimited right of peerage. He might, if such were his pleasure, ennoble every family in his dominions. Will any be so weak and perverse, as to charge him with tyranny and injustice, only because it is not his will, though it is in his power, to make all his subjects noblemen?

But I shall be told, perhaps, that, “allowing God to act as a sovereign, in his disposal of earthly benefits: this will not prove his acting on the same principle, in his distribution of heavenly blessings: since between things temporal, and things eternal, the proportion will not hold." I answer, (1.) Things eternal are as much at his disposal, as things temporal. God is either sovereign of all things, or of nothing. His empire is undivided: and from his dominion nothing is excepted. Nor, indeed, if things spiritual and everlasting were not his, could he be said to give them to his people: which he is, every where in scripture, affirmed to do. (2.) I grant, that time and eternity are, in themselves, by no means, parallel or commensurate. Yet, if God were unjust, in not ordaining one man as well as another to eternal happiness; the old Consequence (already mentioned) would follow too, viz. That he must be proportionably unjust, in not ordaining all men to absolute happiness here on earth. For, misery, though endured but for a year, or for a life-time, is, in its own nature, and for the time being, as truly misery, as it would be, if protracted ever so long. The to quale is the same, however the ro diu may vary. And God can no more cease to be just, for a year, or for a man's life-time; than he can cease to be just for a century, or for ever. By the same rule that he can, and does, without any impeachment of his moral attributes, permit any one being to be miserable for a moment; he may permit that being to be miserable for a much longer time: and so on, ad infinitum: since, as was observed but now, he can no more be unjust for a single moment, than he can be unjust for ever.

Will Mr. Wesley deny that there is such a thing as temporal evil, so called? he must first renounce his senses - or, admitting the existence of it, will he exempt it from the providence of God? will he say, that it happens (as Cicero affirms Milo's servants to have slain Clodius, “neque imperante, neque sciente, neque presente Domino,"). God neither ordaining it, nor knowing it, nor being so much as present? This would be atheism. For, if any thing can come to pass, in contrariety either to God's knowledge, or his will; it must arise from a defect of wisdom, of power, or of goodness: and to suppose God deficient in these, would be tantamount to supposing, that there is no God at all.

I conclude, then, that the quantity of what is called secular evil, is considerably great; and that every man comes in for his allotted share of it, more or less, and in one kind or other: (q) That this, however, does not arise from defect of wisdom in God; for he could have so drawn the plan, and have so conducted its execution, as to have effectually precluded all evil whatever. Nor from defect of vigilance; for not a hair can fall from our heads, without his appointment, leave, and notice. Nor from defect of power; for all second causes are totally and constantly dependent on him, both for existence, activity, and effectuosity. Nor from defect of justice; for he is "holy in ail his ways, and righteous in all his works." Yet, though all-wise, all-vigilant, all-powerful, and all-just; he permits, and has for near six thousand years permitted, the reign of natural evil. Upon the same principle, might he not extend its reign to a still greater, yea, to an inconceivable length? might he not even draw it out to a never-ending duration? He might: or this blasphemous and contradictory consequence (a consequence, which I wonder Mr. Wesley never added to his others) must and will be indemolishable, that infinite justice has acted unjustly ever since the fall of satan and his angels, and of Adam and his sons.

(q) Hence, viz. from its universal diffusion below, it seems to have acquired the name of natural evil.

Should it be urged, that "moral evil, or the transgression of angels and of man, was the producing cause of all the natural evil to which they have been liable ever since;” this will be urging no more than what every Calvinist admits. But still the old difficulty (a difficulty which Arminianism will never solve while heaven and earth remain) - the old difficulty still survives: how came moral evil to be permitted, when it might as easily have been hindered, by a being of infinite goodness, power, and wisdom? Natural evil is but the fruit of moral: and, had God not permitted the latter, the former could not have existed. "Oh, but he endued Adam with free-will." True. But did not He, whose understanding is infinite (Ps 147:5), pre-discern all the consequences of that endowment, and foreknow whither Adam's freewill would lead him, and what use he would make of it? And could not God have endued him with such holy strength of will, as would have infallibly secured his perseverance in rectitude and happiness? “Oh, but then Adam would not have been a free-agent." Indeed but he would. God himself is a free-agent, though his will is necessarily, unchangeably, and singly determined to good, and to do good only. So are the elect angels. So are the glorified souls of saints departed. And so will both angels and saints be, when time is over. And so might Adam have been, had God pleased to have so created him. He might have been made invariably holy, and his agency have continued free.

God is, and cannot but be, inviolably just, amidst all the sufferings of fallen angels and fallen men, involuntary beings as they are. And, if his justice is unviolated, amidst all they have suffered, and many of the latter do suffer (though God could have prevented the whole, both root and branch); consequently, he will continue to be just, in all they are yet to suffer. And, if so, what becomes of the objection, to God's decree of preterition, drawn from the article of injustice?

2. "And what becomes of mercy?" This I shall next enquire.

Mercy is considerable under a twofold view: as it is an attribute in God; and, as it is exercised toward men. - As an attribute in God, mercy is infinite; as all his attributes are and must be: because they necessarily coincide with his essence. But mercy, considered in the exercise of it, is neither necessarily nor actually infinite. As God's forbearing to create more worlds than he has, is no impeachment of his omnipotence; so, his forbearing to save as many as he might, is no impeachment of his infinite mercy. I have touched this subject elsewhere. Let me for once quote myself. “Goodness, considered as it is in God, would have been just the same infinite and glorious attribute, supposing no rational beings had been created at all, or saved when created. To which may be added, that the goodness of the Deity does not cease to be infinite in itself, only because it is more extended to some objects than it is to others. The infinity of this perfection, as residing in God and coinciding with his essence, is sufficiently secured, without supposing it to reach indiscriminately, to all the creatures he has made. For, was that way of reasoning to be admitted, it would lead us too far, and prove too much: since, if the infinity of his goodness is to be estimated, by the number of objects, upon which it terminates; there must be an absolute, proper infinity of reasonable beings to terminate that goodness upon. Consequently, it would follow, from such premises, either, that the creation, is as truly infinite as the Creator; or, if otherwise, that the Creator's goodness could not be infinite, because it has not an infinity of objects to make happy (s)." If, therefore, the decree of reprobation be exploded, on account of its imaginary incompatibility with divine mercy; we must, upon the same principle, charge God with want of goodness in almost every part of his relative conduct. Arminians would do well to consider, to what tremendous lengths their doctrine carries them. There is no way of solidly asserting "eternal providence," and of justifying "the ways of God with men;" but upon this grand datum, that the exercise of his own infinite mercy is regulated by the voluntary determinations of his own most wise and sovereign pleasure. Allow but this rational, scriptural, (and I should think, incontrovertible) proposition; and every cavil, grounded on the chimerical unmercifulness of non-election, ceases even to be plausible.

(s) Doctr. of Abs. Predest.

But what if, after all, that very cruelty which Mr. Wesley pretends to charge on Calvinism, be found really chargeable on Arminianism? I pledge myself to prove this, in its proper place, before I conclude this tract.

In the mean while, I am all attention to those passages, which he cites from me, in affected support of his own horrible thesis, that "the reprobate shall be damned do what they can." The passages are eight.

1. When hatred is [in scripture] ascribed to God, it implies, (1.) a negation of benevolence; or, a resolution not to have mercy on such and such men. (2.) It denotes displeasure and dislike. (3.) It signifies a positive will to destroy the reprobate for their sins (t). This, says the pelagian, is "damning men do what they can:" as if, in punishing the wicked for the sins they have committed, God condemned them for endeavouring to become good! An inference, so flatly contrary both to the premises and to common sense, could only flow from such a pen as that of Mr. Wesley. This, even this is the man, who has compiled a three-penny tract to explain the rules of logic! As to what is said of Esau, until the pelagian can prove (which I defy him to do), that Esau did all he could to be saved, the consequence will not hold even as to him.

(t) Doctr. of Abs. Predest.

2. Reprobation denotes, either, (1.) God's eternal preterition of some men, when he chose others to glory; and his predestination of them [viz. in a way of permission] to fill up the measure of their iniquities, and then to receive the just punishment of their crimes: or, (2.) It may likewise signify, God's forbearing to call by his grace, those whom he hath thus ordained to condemnation (u). According to this simple and scriptural state of the case, reprobation is for the most part, a thing purely negative: and consists in God's not choosing some to glory, and not calling them by grace. Even his resolving to let such fill up the measure of their iniquities (which, by and by, we shall find to be a scripture phrase), has, so far as God is concerned, more in it of negation, than of positivity: and is only tantamount to this, That the ungodly take advantage of the noninterference of grace, to follow the corrupt dictates of their own hearts, so far as they are not restrained by providence.

(u) Doctr. of Abs. Predest.

And now what hurt is there, in this view of the argument? Is it not a fact, verified by every day's observation? We see and hear of evil committed continually. But, if effectual grace did interfere, that evil would not be committed. Yet is God, in no sense, the author of sin. If I am acquainted with an indigent neighbour, and have it in my power to enrich him, and do it not, am I the author of that man's poverty, only for resolving to permit him, and for actually permitting him, to continue poor? Am I blameable for his poverty, because I do not give him the utmost I am able? Similar is the case now in debate. Ever since the fall of Adam, mankind are, by nature, spiritually poor. Was God obliged either to keep them from becoming so; or is he obliged to re-enrich them afterwards, with the blessings of grace and glory? I have proved already, that God is not a debtor to his creatures. Who then, and what art thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make, of the same lump, one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured, with much long suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; even that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy whom he had afore-prepared unto glory (Ro 9:20-23)?

Now, are these the words of scripture, or are they not? If not, prove the forgery. If they be, you cannot fight against reprobation, without fighting against God. - "Oh, but God has no right to make any vessels unto dishonour: no right to show his wrath and make his power known. It is tyranny, cruelty, injustice, partiality. He is bound to make every man a saint. He ought to make every man happy.” Stop, friend. Your argument, if it holds at all, leads farther than you seem aware of. If God, in order to prove himself impartial, ought to make all men vessels unto honour; he ought to do more. He ought to have made us all archangels, and greater still, if greater can be. He ought to go even ad ultimum sui posse, and to make us all as honourable, glorious, and happy, as omnipotence itself can. Where will you be able to draw the line of limitation? Either, therefore, you must plunge into profaneness and absurdity, without measure and without end; or you must submit to the good old doctrine of Christ and his apostles: the former of whom expressly asserts, that it is lawful for God to do what he will with his own; and the latter, with one voice, declare, that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

3. Another very innocent definition (though wretchedly mutilated, according to custom, in Mr. Wesley's citation) stands thus: Predestination, as it regards the reprobate, is that eternal, most holy, sovereign, and immutable act of Gods will, whereby he hath determined to leave some men to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them (y). - Against this, John offers a query: "Can they avoid it” [i. e. can the reprobate avoid punishment] "by any thing they do?" Let me also put a query to the querist: Can you prove, that any one of them ever did what he could to avoid it? If this cannot be proved, it does not follow that "the reprobate shall be damned do what they can."

(y) Doctr. of Abs. Predest.

Let us, moreover, (with all the respect and caution due to a subject so awful) enquire whether it be not, according to the scripture account, plain, positive matter of fact, that God hath left some men in their sins, to be justly punished for them. What is the reason assigned by the Spirit of God why the profligate sons of Eli were deaf to their father's expostulations? They hearkened not to the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them (1Sa 2:25). In other words, 'God had determined to leave them to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them.' Many other instances might be produced from the Old Testament. I shall, however, carry my appeal to the New. And my following proofs of that proposition shall be taken, not from the epistles, but from the gospels (z).

(z) The apostolic epistles are of equal authority with the gospels, and were written under the unerring influence of the same Holy Spirit. It being, however, not unusual, with some of the modern Arminians, to call upon us for proof of our doctrines from the gospels in particular; I have selected two or three testimonies thence: which testimonies, for the reason now alleged, are therefore classed by themselves.

Thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained unto this day. Mt 11:23. It follows from hence, that, though God knew the citizens of Sodom would have reformed their conduct, had his providence made use of effectual means to that end; still these effectual means were not vouchsafed. What is this, but saying, that God had determined to leave those criminals to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them? - "But, if the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were left to perish; how came the Capernaites, who enjoyed “such superior means of grace, to continue impenitent?" Our Lord himself answers this question, Mt 11:25-27. Thou hast hid these things [the great things of conversion and salvation] from the wise and prudent; even so Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight: - No man knoweth the Father, but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son [boulhtai] may will to reveal him.

What shall we say, of the words that follow? Ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them who killed the prophets: wherefore fill ye up the measure of your fathers. Mt 23:31-32. Surely, these were 'left to perish in their sins, and to be punished for them!'

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God. But, unto them that are without [i. e. who were not within the pale of election], all these things are done in parables; that, seeing, they may see, and not perceive, and, hearing, they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them, Mr 4:11-12. St. Matthew, if possible, expresses it still more strongly: It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but to them it is not given, Mt 11:13.

Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Joh 8:43.

Jesus said, for judgment I am come into this world; that they who see not, might see; and that they who see, might be made blind. Joh 9:39.

Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. Joh 10:26.

Once more. Though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, he hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted that I should heal them. Joh 12:37-40.

Now, I leave to the decision of any unprejudiced, capable man upon earth, whether it be not evident, from these passages (among a multitude of others), that 'God hath determined to leave some men to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them?' In affirming which, I only gave the scripture, as I found it. Nay, I never expressed my sentiments concerning reprobation, half so strongly as the word of God does. It follows, that I had,

4. Very ample ground for asserting, that there is a predestination of some particular persons to death (2Co 4:3. 1Pe 2:8. 2Pe 2:12. Jude 1:4. Re 17:8.), which death they shall inevitably undergo, justly, and on account of their sins. "That is," says my pelagian expositor, "They shall be damned do what they can." I totally deny the explication: unless, by their doing what they can, he means, their committing all the evil they can. For, as it follows in the very page from whence part of the above extract was taken, sin is the meritorious and immediate cause of any man's damnation: God condemns and punishes the non-elect, not merely as men, but as sinners. To which I even ventured to add, that, had it pleased the great Governor of the universe to have entirely prevented sin from having any entrance into the world; it should seem as if God could not, consistently with his own attributes, have condemned any man at all. So infinitely remote am I from either thinking or asserting, directly or implicitly, that “the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can!" The pelagian should rather have declared this to be his resolution, 'I am determined to contradict and blaspheme, say what you will.'

5. He represents me as affirming, in so many words, that “the non-elect were predestinated to eternal death:" for which words, he refers, by an asterism, to my second chapter. I call upon him to tell me, in what part of that chapter, I make use of those words. Be they ever so expressive of my real belief, the words themselves are his. They occur not even in the fourth chapter, which treats professedly of reprobation. Will no length of years, nor infamy of detection, restrain this man from forgery?

If Mr. Wesley, instead of acknowledging his guilt, and promising reformation for the future; should be hardened and mean enough to say, “Oh, but though you have not made use of the words, either in those chapters, or in the whole book, yet the sense of those words is inferrible from many passages incurring from both." I answer, be it so: yet this consequence stands, that the assailant, who coins words for his adversaries, which they never spoke, is not an honest man. When propositions are attacked, it is not enough to give the supposed sense of those propositions. The very phraseology, in which they are expressed, should be cited, without variation, just as they came from the pen of the defendant. Words are the dress of thought. And an alteration of dress may so far disguise the wearer, as to make him appear quite a different person.

But, supposing I had even syllabically expressed my opinion in those very terms; still, the consequence alleged would have lagged far behind the premises. For the old question would again have recurred, viz. Can Mr. Wesley produce a single instance of any one man, who did all he could to be saved, and yet was lost? If he can, let him tell us who that man was, where he lived, when he died, what he did, and how it came to pass he laboured in vain. If he cannot, let him either retract his consequences, or continue to be posted for a shameless traducer.

6. The condemnation of the reprobate is necessary and inevitable. This I have both said, and persist to say. It is a position, which unavoidably follows even from the foreknowledge of God, putting all decrees quite out of the question. Only allow, that some sinners actually will be condemned in the last day; and that God always knew, and knows at this moment, who those persons will be; and (not Mr. Wesley's, but) my consequence stands unshaken, that the condemnation of the reprobate is necessary and inevitable. Should it he said, that "the foreknowledge of God has no effective influence on events;" I answer, that, whether it has or not (which, however, would admit of some debate), still every event must and certainly will correspond to his foreknowledge of it: else, the divine foreknowledge would be mere guess, and evaporate into empty, fallible, uncertain conjecture: i. e. the knowledge of God would be inferior to the knowledge which even man, in many cases, is possessed of. It was the consideration of this, which induced the great Dr. South to renounce the Arminian novelties, and fall in with doctrinal Calvinism. I wish it may (for his own sake) have as good effect on little Mr. Wesley. I say, for his own sake: since himself would be the principal gainer by his submission to grace. We should acquire very little honour by the acquisition of such a proselyte.

"Surely," cries Mr. Wesley, "I need add no more on this head." You need not: unless, with all your diving, you could fetch up something to the purpose. “You see," continues the repetitionist, "that the reprobate shall be damned, do what they can, is the whole burden of the song." I have proved, and the reader has seen, that it makes no part of the song. But this I see, that, unless God give Mr. Wesley repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; the unparalleled perverseness, with which he labours to blacken some doctrines of Christianity, will be the burden of his soul in the hour of death and in the day of judgment.

7. That the number of the elect, and also of the reprobate, is so fixed and determinate, that neither can be augmented or diminished; is afiirmed in Zanchius, and rests on clear, positive, repeated testimonies of holy scripture. - I would not scruple to hinge the whole weight of this proposition, likewise, on the certain and immutable knowledge of God. I know, says Christ, whom I have chosen (Joh 13:18.); but, was the number fluctuating and precarious, susceptible of addition and diminution, Christ could not be said to know them, but only to guess at them. Absolute certainty is the alone ground of positive knowledge. Whatever is unfixed and unsure, can at the very highest, be the basis of no more than probable supposition.

So again, I know my sheep, Joh 10:14. But, if their number were indeterminate, they could not be known: the sheep of today might degenerate into goats tomorrow; and the goats of yesterday might become sheep today, and be goats again before night. Nay, it might so happen, that all his sheep might cease to remain such; and the great shepherd might, at the long run, not have a single sheep to know. On the contrary, if Christ actually knows his sheep, and whom ['ov, the very individual persons] he hath chosen; it follows, that he must also know who are not his sheep, and whom he hath not chosen. I assert therefore again, that, if omniscience itself knows any thing of the matter, the number of both is so fixed and determinate, that neither can be augmented or diminished. The apostle himself makes use, among others, of this very argument: the foundation [or purpose] of the Lord standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his. 2Ti 2:19.

Let me recommend one or two passages more to the reader's consideration. The election hath obtained, and the rest were blinded [epwrwqhsan, were hardened]; according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this day. Ro 11:7-8. Being disobedient, whereunto they were also appointed. 1Pe 2:8. Whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. Re 17:8. There is no meaning in words, if it does not follow, even from these few stubborn texts, as evidently as light flows from the sun, that the number of the elect and reprobate can neither be augmented nor diminished. The very nature whether of election, or of reprobation, makes this point manifest as to both: since, could the number of the elect (for instance) be lessened, the deduction would augment the number of the reprobate; for, what was taken from the one, would necessarily add to the other. In which case, it would not be true, that the election obtained, and the rest were blinded. Nor would Solomon's assertion be true: I know, that whatsoever God doth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it, Ec 3:14. Now, this must be meant, either of God's immanent acts, in a way of decree; or, of his transient acts, in a way of providence. But it cannot be meant of his providential acts: for they are not always the same: they are not for ever. It must, therefore, be meant of his immanent acts, i. e. of his decrees, purposes, and determinations, which cannot vary, but are for ever; to which nothing can be put, or added; and from which nothing can be taken away. The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, and the thoughts of his heart to all generations, Ps 33:11. He is one mind; who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doth: for he performeth the thing that is appointed for me, and many such things are with him. Job 23:14.

8. The decrees of election and reprobation are immutable and irreversible. Mr. Wesley cites the sentence, but takes care to omit touching upon (or even producing) any one of the seven arguments brought by Zanchy in support of it. Let the Arminian refute these, or he will never succeed in his attack upon that. But he found it easier to spin a

IVth. Consequence; namely, That, on the hypothesis of an absolute decree, there can be no such thing as sin: "It cannot," says this wonderful discoverer, "be sin in a spark to rise, or in a stone to fall."

If Mr. Wesley's illustration has any meaning at all, the meaning must be this: "Sparks and stones are incapahle of moral agency; therefore, men are so too. Sparks and stones are neither rewardable or punishable: Ergo, men are not responsible for the sins they commit." The Arminian might as well have said, "Sparks and stones have no legs: Ergo, men have none. Sparks and stones are not endued with any of the live senses: Ergo, men can neither hear, see, feel, taste, nor smell.” One would think, that the levity of a spark, and the dulness of a stone, were, by a strange kind of association, united in Mr. John Wesley, before he could dream of illustrating his point by such an extraordinary brace of similes, which are no more related to the subject, than a turf to an archangel. "Oh, but you do not touch the main string. A spark rises, and a stone falls, necessarily. It is the necessity, by which they rise and fall, that renders stones and sparks incapable of sinning." As if mere matter (supposing it could be even exempted from the laws of necessity) would therefore be capable of virtue and vice!

Mr. Wesley is singularly unhappy in the choice of his comparisons; and as singularly awkward in his application of them. The point he wishes to prove, is evidently this: that, “absolute decrees, prescience, and providence, are inconsistent with human free-agency; and, of course, that the finally wicked are not justly punishable for the evil they commit." I have purposely stated this objection in the clearest and strongest terms: lest I should even seem desirous of eluding, instead of answering. - Now, if I can evince, from the express doctrine of scripture, and from express facts recorded in scripture, that eventual necessity, or infallible certainty of event, is not incompatible with so much free-agency in man, as may suffice to render him punishable for breaking the law of God; the objection will at once vanish into its native nothing.

1. For the doctrine of scripture. - Woe to the world, because of offences: for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man, by whom the offence cometh (Mt 18:7). Anagkh eji, there is a necessity that offences should come. Then surely, may an Arminian say, "There can be no woe due to the introducers of that whose introduction is necessary!” Our Lord says, Yes, there is. I conclude, then, that necessity of event does not render sin excusable, nor the sinner impunible. - Again, when ye shall hear of wars, &c. be ye not troubled; for such things must needs be: dei genesqai, they must come to pass. Mr 13:7. And yet, though there is a must-be for these events, that necessity does not supersede either the moral or the natural volitions of the parties concerned. - So 1Co 11:19. There must be heresies among you. But if this necessity for heresies did not absolutely coincide with the wills of the heretics, how could any heretics be blameable? - Once more. He [i. e. Christ] must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 1Co 15:25. There is, therefore, a necessity for Christ's reigning: yet, I fancy, even Arminians themselves will hardly venture to affirm that Christ reigns against his own will. Absolute necessity then, is perfectly consistent with willingness and freedom in good agency, no less than in bad. For it is a true maxim, ubi voluntas ibi libertas: all action is sufficiently free, wherein a person's will is engaged: be his will engaged ever so necessarily.

2. Next, for scripture facts.

Joseph's brethren acted freely, i. e. with the full bent of their wills, when they sold him to the Midianites who carried him into Egypt. But, in truth, though they sold him to gratify their own malice, and had no higher view in what they did; they undesignedly fulfilled the decree of God. Whence Joseph's pious and just remark afterwards: Be not grieved nor angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you, to preserve life. So now, it was not you that sent me hither, but God. Ge 45:5,8. As for you, ye thought evil against me: but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Ge 50:20. So the Psalmist: He [i. e. God] sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant. Ps 105:17. It was God that sent him, though his brethren sold him.

Pharaoh acted freely (i. e. willingly), in his refusal to dismiss the Israelites: or, in other words, he refused to send them away, because his will was against their going;. And yet he could will no otherwise than he did, Ex 7:3-4. So, when Saul went home to Gibeah, it is said there went with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched: i. e. whose wills God had effectually inclined. 1Sa 10:26. Yet it cannot be inferred from hence, that they did not go freely. In like manner, God is said to have stirred up the spirit of Cyrus, or powerfully to have influenced his will, to issue an edict for the re-building of the temple. Yet this, though a necessary, was a free act of that monarch. Ezr 1:1. The effects of that edict are also to be noted: Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God (d) had raised to go up, Ezr 1:5. Will any man say, that these did not will freely, only because they willed necessarily? It was from the acrimony of his own heart, that Shimei cursed David: consequently his will was in it. And yet, the Lord had said unto him, curse David: i. e. he did it by God's own efficacious permission. 2Sa 16:10. Absalom, and the men of Israel who were with him, acted with perfect freedom, and with the full exercise of their reason, when they agreed in preferring the counsel of Hushai to that of Ahitophel: and yet, in so doing, their wills acted in absolute subserviency to the will and decree of God, who had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahitophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring evil upon Absalom. 2Sa 17:14. Thus also, God foretold, That he would turn the Assyrian king loose upon Israel, who should take them for his prey, and tread them down as mire in the street: in all which, when it came to pass, the king of Assyria acted merely on principles of ambition, cruelty, and pride; and, consequently, acted freely; proposing no other end to himself, than the gratification of his own savage will and tyrannic disposition. Whereas in reality, he was appointed of God to avenge his righteous quarrel with a hypocritical people, and to be the instrument, not merely of human, but chiefly of divine resentment. Howbeit, says God, he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so: but it is in his heart to destroy and to cut off nations not a few. Isa 10:6-7. - Thus it is said, concerning the ten kings, who shall hate the mystic harlot, and destroy her, and burn her with fire, that God hath put into their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and to give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. Re 17:17. Does it follow, that these kings must be stript of all free-agency, and cease to be accountable for their actions, and commence mere machines, only because God will bring their wills into subjection to his own?

(d) The eminently pious and learned bishop Beveridge gives a spiritual improvement of this passage, too valuable and just to be omitted here. These are his words: "It is God, who worketh in us, both to will, and to do, of his own good pleasure. So that, though God offer heaven to all that will accept of it, in his holy scripture; yet none can accept of it, but such whom himself stirs up by his holy Spirit, to endeavour after it. And thus we find it was, in Israel's return from Babylon to Jerusalem. Though king Cyrus made a proclamation, that whosoever would might go up to worship at the holy city; yet there was none that accepted of the offer, but those whose spirit God had raised to go up. So here, though God doth as it were proclaim, to all the world, that whosoever will come to Christ, shall certainly be saved; yet it doth not follow, that all shall receive salvation from him: because it is certain, all will not come; or, rather, none can will to come, unless God enables them. I am sure, to say none shall be saved, but those that will of themselves, would be sad news for me, whose will is naturally so backward to every thing that is good. But this is my comfort; I am as certain my salvation is of God, as I am certain it cannot be of myself. It is Christ, who vouchsafed to die for me, who hath likewise promised to live within me. It is he that will work all my works, both for me, and in me too." - Private Thoughts, Art. VIII.

Thanks be to God, says the apostle, who put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you: for indeed he accepted the exhortation; but, being more forward, of his own accord he went unto you. 2Co 8:l6,17. Here it is said, that God himself put that earnest care into the heart of Titus, which induced him to visit the Corinthians. And yet, Titus visited them of his own accord, or without any sensible compulsion. God, therefore, may work efficaciously on the human will, and the will (though it necessarily follows that efficacious direction) remain quite unforced. This is farther evident, from the account which St. Paul gives of his own case, as a preacher: though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me [anagkh moi epikeitai], yea, woe is me, if I preach not the gospel. 1Co 9:16. Yet he preached the gospel freely and willingly. Necessity, therefore, and freedom, are very good friends, not withstanding all the efforts of Arminianism to set them at variance. I have already observed that the great and awful transaction of Christ's crucifixion was, from all eternity, positively decreed and infallibly foreknown of God: yet neither did that decree, nor that foreknowledge, abate the guilt of those who accomplished both: for they were, at once, necessary and voluntary agents. Let me, as the subject so directly falls in with the point in hand, bestow a few moments upon it here.

The death of Jesus Christ was both the most important event that ever came to pass, and the most sinful act (in his murderers) that ever was committed. So wonderful are the ways of God! - This great event was predestinated, in all its circumstances. It was not a matter of chance, but a matter of decree. Thinkest thou that I cannot pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? but how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be? Mt 26:53-54. And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things. Mr 8:31. I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, and he was numbered with the transgressors. Lu 22:37. The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified. Lu 24:7. Concerning Judas in particular, thus speak the oracles of God; Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spake before concerning Judas, who was guide to them that took Jesus. Ac 1:16. And concerning all the other accomplices in this tremendous deed, it is expressly declared, that they were gathered together, to do whatsoever God's hand and God's counsel hrowrise genesqai, had predestinated to be done. Ac 4:27-28. Yet throughout the whole, they acted freely. The Jews delivered him to Pilate dia fqonon, from a principle of envy and hatred. As the prophet says in another case, They knew not the thoughts of the Lord, neither understood they his counsel. No thanks to them, that the decree of God was fulfilled, and the salvation of the church effected, by their putting Christ to death. They were as free and unforced in willing his crucifixion, and in bringing it about, as if there had been no decree in the case. The Saviour was, indeed, delivered up to their rage, th wrismenh boulh kai hrognwseitou qeou, by the determinate decree and foreknowledge of God; and his death was, therefore, in the utmost sense of the word, necessary, being inevitably pre-ordained: and yet they took and slew him dia xeirwn anomwn, with lawless, wicked hands, Ac 2:23. The wickedness they were guilty of in perpetuating this crime was not excusable, nor the lawlessness of it mitigated, by the necessity of its coming to pass: since they only sought to satiate the rancour of their own wills, and to glut their own sanguinary malice.

From all which, and from many other scriptural examples which might be given, I infer, that God's decrees, and the necessity of event flowing from thence, neither destroy the true free-agency of men, nor render the commission of sin a jot less heinous. They neither force the human will, nor extenuate the evil of human actions. Predestination, foreknowledge, and providence, only secure the event and render it certainly future, in a way and manner (incomprehensible, indeed, by us; but) perfectly consistent with the nature of second causes. The freedom of intelligent beings does by no means stand opposed to simple necessity; but only to violence and compulsive force. Thus the Son of man went kata to 'wrismenon, according to what was decreed concerning him, and yet a woe was denounced, against Judas who betrayed him, Lu 22:2, which woe could not have been denounced, much less inflicted, if Judas, notwithstanding the decree of God, had not betrayed him freely, and with the full consent of his own depraved will. These two, therefore, are in fact, quite reconcileable: viz. absolute determination on the part of God; and lubentia, or freedom in action, on the part of man (e). Sinners are as much responsible to God for their offences, as if God had never passed any decree at all. So that, the mock objection drawn from “sparks and stones” is totally unparallel; and, therefore, totally inconclusive.

(e) I am far from standing alone in this assertion. Men, the dust from whose volumes I am not worthy to wipe, have intimated as much before me. "The old astronomers," says the celebrated Dr. John Edwards of Cambridge, "used to tell us, that the inferior orbs of heaven have all their proper" [i. e. their own peculiar] "motions, and yet, at the same time are carried by the movement of the highest sphere; the primum mobile, as they called it. Which notion, if we apply it to the present case" [i.e. to the consistency of divine decrees with human freedom], "is no hypothesis, or fiction, but a reality of the greatest importance: for, all things and persons, besides a tendency which they may seem to have of their own, have another impressed upon them by the decree, the first mover of all: and this overrules and controls all: and yet, in such a way, as is suitable to the particular nature of all agents "whatsoever." Veritas Redux, p. 28.

It may be objected, to Dr. Edward's testimony, that he was a professed Calvinist: and therefore only wrote in harmony with his own favourite principle. - But what if the same principle be a favourite one with such eminent and masterly Anti-Calvinists, as the present most learned bishop of Bristol; the late worthy dean Prideaux; and that exquisite proficient in refined literature, Monsieur Rollin?

I begin with the first of this respectable triumvirate: to whom, for his matchless Dissertation on the Prophecies, both the religious and the learned world are under the deepest obligations. In the course of that excellent work, his lordship thus expresses himself: "Jeremiah is said to be set over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant; because he was authorised to make known the purposes and decrees of God, and because these events would follow in consequence of his prophecies. Make the heart of this people fat, is therefore, as much as to say, Denounce my judgments upon this people that their heart shall be fat, and their ears heavy, and their eyes shut; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and convert, and be healed." Vol. i. Dissert. 8. - And, a few pages after, it follows: "We see, that the great empires, which, in their turns, subdued and oppressed the people of God, are all come to ruin; because, though they executed the purposes of God, yet that was more than they understood. All they intended, was to satiate their own pride and ambition, their own cruelty and revenge." Ibid. p. 241.

Let us next hear the learned dean of Norwich; who, treating of Julius Caesar, has this observable remark: "Many of his enterprizes being entered upon with great rashness, this abundantly proves that he owed the success, which he had in them only to an over-ruling power of providence on his side: which having set him up as a fit instrument for the work which he brought to pass, carried him, through all dangers and hazards, to the full accomplishing of it; and, after that, when there was no more for him to do, cast him off to perish, like a rod which is thrown into the fire when no more to be used. The work was God's: but, it being malice and ambition that excited him to be the instrument in the execution of it, he justly had, for the reward thereof, the destruction by which he fell." Connection, part 2. B. 7. p. (mec.) 700, 701.

Rollin follows. "The omnipotence of God [is] manifested by the creation, preservation, and government of the world; by the sovereign power he exercises, not only over what is outward and visible, but over the heart and mind, in turning them as he pleases, from one resolution to another, according to his designs." Belles Lettres, vol. ii. p. 323. octavo 1769. "It is thus that God, the sole arbiter of all human events, determines, as Lord of all, the fate of empires; prescribes the form of them, regulates their limits, marks out their duration, and makes the very passions and crimes of men subservient to the execution of his gracious and just designs: and, by the secret springs of his admirable wisdom, disposes, at a distance, and without man's being sensible of it, the preparations for the great work to which all the rest relate, which is the establishment of his church, and salvation of his elect." Ibid. vol. iii. p. 225. - Elsewhere, this fine writer has these solid reflections: "the kings, who gloried so much in their puissance, have nothing which approaches in the least to that of Jesus Christ. They do not reign over the will of man, which is real dominion. He exercises his power principally on the hearts and minds of men. Nothing is done, without his order or permission. Every thing is disposed by his wisdom and power. Everything co-operates, directly or indirectly, to the accomplishment of his designs. Whilst all things are in motion, and fluctuate upon earth; while states and empires pass away with incredible rapidity, and the human race vainly employed in the external view of these things, are also drawn in by the same torrent, almost without perceiving it; there passes, in secret, an order and disposition of things, unknown and invisible, which, however, determine our fate to all eternity. The duration of ages has no other end, than the formation of the bodies of the elect, which augments, and tends daily towards perfection. When it shall receive its final accomplishment by the death of the last of the elect; Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." Conclusion of Ancient History, p. 297, 298. edit. 1768. What kingdom is that, which Christ, as mediator, shall deliver up to God the Father? It is, says this admirable author, "The blessed and holy company of the elect." Belles Lettres, vol. ii. p. 304.

I mean, unparallel, as an objection; and as applied to that particular purpose for which Mr. Wesley introduces it. Otherwise, there are passages of scripture, wherein even the rational creature man is, under certain circumstances, and in certain respects, actually and expressly compared to the sparks that fly upward (see Job 5:7 and Isa 1:31), and to stones which necessarily descend downward. The holy baptist, without any ceremony, or scruple, compared some of his unregenerate hearers to stones; saying God is able, even of these stones, to raise up children unto Abraham: Mt 3:9; intimating, that nothing short of divine ability, can savingly convert the soul; and that unrenewed sinners can no more change themselves into saints, than stones can transform themselves into men. Nay, even the regenerate are (though with some diversity of modification) exhibited under a similar image: Ye, therefore, as lively stones, are built up, a spiritual house. 1Pe 2:5. Teaching us, that although, by virtue of grace received, men are subsequently active and diligent in every good word and work; yet that, in their first reception of saving grace, poor free-will has no employ: but that the receivers of grace are as absolutely passive, and that conversion is as totally the operation of God, as the severing of stones from their native quarry, and the erecting of them into an elegant building, are the effects of human agency. Nay, God the Father himself condescends (at least, as we render the passage) to speak of his elect people under a simile nearly allied to the foregoing: They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, i. e. I will publicly own them as such, in that day when I make up my jewels. Mal 3:17. Now, unless I am vehemently mistaken, jewels are but another name for precious stones. On the whole, Mr. Wesley's daring to hammer out, on the very anvil of scripture, a cavil against the decrees of God; a cavil, partly made up of scripture metaphors; looks so like a wish to turn the Bible's own artillery against itself, as leaves too much room to fear that it is as natural to him to pervert and gainsay, as it is for a spark to ascend, a feather to float, or a stone to sink.

He brings to my mind, however, an anecdote, equally instructive in itself, and pertinent to the case in hand. Two very eminent clergymen, who are, and have long been, distinguished ornaments of the church of England, were conversing together, some years ago, concerning predestination and invincible grace. One of these excellent persons (who was, at that time, an Arminian) said to the other, in the warmth of free debate, "Pray sir, do not make me an absolute machine. Allow me to have a little more power of self-determination, than a stock or a stone!" To which his learned friend replied, “Indeed, sir, a stone has the advantage of you. Man's rebellious heart is, by nature, and so far as spiritual things are concerned, more untractable and unyielding, than a stone itself. I may take up a stone, and throw it, this way or that, in what direction I please; and it obeys the impulse of my arm. Whereas, in the sinner's heart, there is every species of hatred and opposition to God; nor can any thing, but omnipotent power, slay its enmity, and supersede its resistance." Hence, God's gracious promise, to renew his people, runs in this remarkable style: I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh. Eze 36:26.

Still Mr. Wesley asserts, with a "positively" (which, to be sure, is demonstration), that, on the scheme of pre-ordination, the reprobate "can have no sin at all." Indeed? They are quite sinless, are they? As perfect as Mr. Wesley himself? Oh! excellent reprobation! Let not Mr. John, who is so fiery an advocate for sinless perfection, ever open his mouth against such a preterition as this! It is one of his own consequences (a consequence which, however, like the rest, remains unproved), that God's decree makes the reprobate themselves free from sin. What, then, must the elect be? And how does it ensue, from those premises, that the former shall perish, "do what they can;" and the latter be saved, be they ever so wicked? - Besides: If reprobates be sinless; if they be, not merely nominal, but real perfectionists; nay, immutably perfect, so that they can have "no sin at all;" will it not follow, that Mr. Wesley's own perfectionists are reprobates? For, surely, if reprobates may be sinless, the sinless may be reprobates. Did not Mr. John's malice outrun his craft, when he advanced an objection so extremely unguarded, and so easily retortible?

But on what is the sinlessness of reprobates supposed to depend? On two assertions of mine: which, fairly quoted, are yery unfavourable both to the consequence and to the consequence-drawer.

1. I have said, in Zanchius that predestination (taken in its most comprehensive import) may be defined, that eternal, most wise, and immutable decree of God, whereby he did, from before all time, determine and ordain to create, dispose of, and direct to some particular end, every person and thing, to which he has given, or is yet to give, being: and to make the whole creation subservient to, and declarative of, his own glory. Said I this of myself? says not scripture the same, also? The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. Pr 6:14. But do the righteous, likewise, fall under an unalterable decree? Yes: for it is written, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will. Eph 1:11. And, indeed, either this is true, or there is no governor of the world. Unless God does actually work all things according to the counsel of his own will, i. e. "dispose of, and direct to some particular end, every person and thing to which he hath given being;" Providence is no more than an empty name. Upon the plan of Mr. Wesley's Consequence, the wretch was not a fool, but wise, who said in his heart, there is no God. I defy the pelagian to strike out a middle way between providence and chance. If God does not dispose of every being, and of every event, so as to “make the whole creation subservient to and declarative of his own glory;" chance, not providence, reigns. Prove but this, that chance is paramount; and maintain the existence of God if you can. Why did the heathens themselves justly deem Epicurus an atheist? Not because he denied the being of God (for he asserted that); but because he denied the agency of God's universal providence. Yet predestination and providence do by no means annihilate sin. The doctrine only affirms that through the unsearchable wisdom of the great superintending mind, even the efficacious permission of evil shall, in the end, be overruled to good. I cannot, moreover, but observe, how wretchedly Mr. Wesley's consequences clash together, and destroy each other. In this very paper, he revives the old, impudent cavil, that predestination makes God the author of sin. "Whose fault was it," says he, that "Judas betrayed Christ? you plainly say, it was not his fault but God's." Without the least heat or emotion, I plainly say, Mr. Wesley lies. I never even thought, nor intimated, much less said (least of all, said plainly) that it was "God's fault, and not the fault of Judas." But, if God's decree and providence are incompatible with sin, insomuch, that the very reprobates themselves "can have no sin at all;" I should be glad to know how God's decree and providence can make him the author of sin? One or other, therefore, of these cavils must fall; they can never both be true, because they are flat contradictions. On one hand, God cannot be the author of evil, if there is no evil for him to be the author of: and, on the other hand, even upon the horrid supposition of his being the author of sin, it would necessarily follow, that sin and the decree were perfectly consistent. But the truth is, the consistency of God's decree with the voluntary nature of sin, is evident from the many scripture examples already alleged. I have proved, by those, that absolute predestination, on the part of God, does not make sin involuntary, on the part of man. Consequently, God is not the author of moral evil. I have affirmed before, and I affirm again, that God is the creator of the wicked, but not of their wickedness: he is the author of their being, but not the infuser of their sin. It is most certainly his will (for adorable and unsearchable reasons) to permit sin: but with all possible reverence be it spoken, it should seem that he cannot, consistently with the purity of his nature, the glory of his attributes, and the truth of his declarations, be himself the author of it. Sin, says the apostle, entered into the world by one man: meaning, by Adam. Consequently, it was not introduced by the Deity himself. Though, without the permission of his will, and the concurrence of his providence, its introduction had been impossible. Yet is he not hereby the author of sin so introduced (f).

(f) See my Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, Is this making God the author of sin? Imprudence itself might blush to affirm it. "Oh, but do not you say that God worketh all things in all men, even wickedness in the wicked? and that this is one branch of his omnipotence?" I answer, no. I do not say so. Neither does Zanchius say so. It is Luther, who says, 'Deum omnia operari in omnibus etiam mala in impiis:' and the words stand as a quotation from him. "But why did you quote those words at all?" for a very good reason; a reason, alleged in the preface to the pamphlet itself; viz. to show, that Luther asserted the doctrine of predestination with much more warmth, and proceeded to much harsher lengths in defending it, than Calvin himself.

2. I am charged with simply and nakedly affirming, that God himself did "predestinate them” [the reprobate] "to fill up the measure of their iniquities." Either Mr. Wesley is a very superficial peruser of the pamphlet on which he animadverts, or a very malicious and dishonest one. For, is not my true meaning expressly declared where I speak thus? God not only works efficaciously on his elect, that they may will and do that which is well pleasing in his sight; but does, likewise, frequently and powerfully suffer the wicked to fill up the measure of their iniquities, by committing fresh sins. In proof of which latter part of the paragraph, I refer there to no fewer than sixteen passages of scripture: all which are very prudently passed over without notice by the pelagian methodist.

Can any thing be more certain, than, (1.) that God actually does work in his own people that which is well pleasing in his sight (Heb 13:21.)? And is it not equally matter of fact, (2.) that he likewise suffers the wicked to fill up the measure of their iniquities? Is not the very phraseology, in which both these propositions are expressed, the positive, repeated language of God himself? What was the reason, which the Almighty condescended to give to Abraham, why the posterity of the latter should reside for several ages in Egypt, prior to their settlement in the promised land? Because, says God, the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. Ge 15:16. Divine sovereignty had determined to permit the Canaanites to arrive at a certain measure of wickedness; nor could they be dispossessed of their country, until that measure was filled up. Many centuries after, it was revealed to Daniel, that the Romans should not be masters of the Grecian empire, and thereby be at full liberty to turn their arms against Judea, until the transgressors are come to the full, i. e. until the sinfulness of the latter was consummated, and they fully ripe for destruction: Da 8:23-24. If we descend to the age of the Messiah's incarnation, we shall find the Son of God himself speaking in the same awful terms: Fill ye up the measure of your fathers, was his tremendous language to the reprobate Jews, Mt 23:32. Of the same people, St. Paul has the same expression, where he observes, that the Jews did all they could to obstruct the ministry of Christ's faithful messengers: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved; to fill up their sins always, for wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. 1Th 2:16. As long as my humble efforts in behalf of truth speak the sense and bear the stamp of scripture, it matter not, though ten thousand Wesleys were to rave and rail.

The Arminian had still one more desperate push to make, in favour of his sinking consequence. To this end, I am introduced as saying, "That God decreed the Jews to be the crucifiers of Christ, and Judas to betray him." How! the Jews the crucifiers of Christ! They were not: nor do I any where call them so. Every body knows, that the Romans were the murderers of the Lord of glory, though they became such at Jewish instigation. I am, once more, under a necessity of quoting myself. God efficaciously permitted (having so decreed), i. e. having decreed to permit, the Jews to be in effect the crucifiers of Christ, and Judas to betray him. Christ could not have been betrayed and crucified, had not his prodition and his crucifixion been permitted. And, if permitted, then the permission must have been decreed. For, it were impiety, equivalent to atheism, to suppose that God permits any thing against his will: and the will of an all-wise, unchangeable being is and must be eternal. If any new design (be it a design of efficiency, or of permission) can have place in God, God is no longer unchangeable. Nay, God would be no longer immortal: for, as the learned and judicious Mr. Polhill (h) observes, "every change is a kind of death." Whoever undergoes any alteration, dies to that he was before, and which he changes from. "In such a case," says that eminent master in Israel, "must there not fall a change upon the very being of God himself? and must not the Deity suffer, and, as it were, die in this mutation? which astonishing catastrophes being for ever to be abhorred, I conclude, that God's decrees must needs be immutable, as long as there is any stability in his eternity, infallibility in his prescience, sureness in his grace and truth, and immortality in his life or essence."

(h) In his admirable Treatise on The Divine Will considered in its eternal Decrees and holy Execution of them. This great writer was a lay-gentleman, of considerable family and fortune, seated at Burwash, in Sussex. Another Treatise of his, entitled, Precious Faith considered in its Nature, Workings and Growth, is one of the finest and most evangelical books on that important subject, that is to be met with in the English language. If the volume, first mentioned, speaks to the head, and ransacks almost all the stores of learning and genius; the latter speaks no less to the heart, and unlocks the richest treasures of experimental grace. - The author flourished in the reign of Charles II.

Mr. Wesley may possibly object, that the betraying and death of Christ might be decreed as events, without positively fixing on the particular instruments by whom those events should be brought about. As if God would fix the end, without any effectual regard to the means! would even a wise man act in this manner? Much less he, who is wisdom itself. Judas was expressly pointed out as the traitor, by Christ himself: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. Mt 26:23. And this unhappy person, though chosen to the apostleship (Joh 6:70.) was never chosen to salvation: whence that of our Lord, I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen; but, that the scripture may be fulfilled, he that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Joh 13:18. Nor was Judas ever endued with saving faith: Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him: and he said. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me (i. e. no man savingly believe in me), unless it were given unto him of my Father. Hence, Judas is termed the son of perdition; and when he died, is said to have gone to his own place. Should such awful passages as these, excite us to blaspheme and reply against God? Should they not rather make us fall prostrate at his footstool, and cry, each for himself, in the dust of penitential abasement, God be merciful to me a sinner? - The Son of man, said Incarnate Wisdom, goeth (i. e. dieth the death of the cross) as it was written of him, kaqw gegrawtai weri auyos, as it was decreed concerning him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed: it were good for that man if he had never been born. Mt 26:24. Now, notwithstanding the absolute decree, and notwithstanding Judas undesignedly fulfilled it, had he not been, in the midst of all, an accountable agent, a woe could not possibly have been denounced against him: much less such a woe, as should render even non-existence a privilege. I infer, therefore, from Christ's own words, that men are, at once, subject to God's disposal, as a predestinator; and amenable to his tribunal as a lawgiver.

When St. Peter declared, that Christ was delivered up to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, (Ac 2:23.) it is worthy of observation, that he declared this, on the very day of Pentecost, immediately after the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost. The apostle, therefore, was under the absolute impulse of that blessed person. Nay, he was filled with the holy Spirit, and spake as that Spirit gave him utterance. Consequently, in the judgment of the Holy Spirit himself, there is no real incompatibility between God's determinate counsel, and the wickedness of their hands who bring that counsel to pass. Mr. Wesley's frequent repetitions of the same threadbare objections, oblige me, oftener than I could wish, to repeat my answers.

Be it so, then, that mortals are at present too short sighted, entirely to comprehend, and fully to discern, how the efficacious purposes of heaven are perfectly consistent with the moral responsibility of man. It is plain, from meridian evidence of scripture, that they are so: and this ought to satisfy those, who believe that the scriptures are of God. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker: let the potsherd strive with the potsherd of the earth; but shall the clay say to him that fashioned it, what makest thou? Isa 45:9. Shall we, with Mr. Wesley, labour to quench the light we have, and fly in the face of scripture? and give God himself the lie, by way of desperate revenge for his not having made us omniscient? Nay; but may we, with fear and trembling, adore the deep things of God, until death takes off the veil. May divine grace make us believers on earth; of what, in heaven, we trust to be comprehenders: nor suffer us to be carried away with that strong delusion, that monstrous system of Arminianism, which (in open defiance of all scripture, reason and fact) represents God as accountable to man, under pretence of making man accountable to God.

“God determined," says the pelagian, "that the reprobate should live and die in their sins, that he might afterwards damn them!" Say rather, that some men are permitted to live and die in their sins, the consequence of which is condemnation. - As to the horrid parallel, which Mr. W, labours to run, between the Most High God, and one of the most abandoned emperors that ever disgraced the Roman diadem - I have only this to remark: 1. That the writer, who is capable of taking such blasphemous liberties with the adorable Sovereign of heaven and earth, must have drank deep indeed into that satanic spirit which opposeth and exalteth itself above all that is called God. 2. The whole parallel is copied almost verbatim, from an old book, first published in the reign of Charles I., A. D. 1633, by one Samuel Hoord, alias Hoard, alias Hord (for I find him bearing all these names in print). He was a clergyman of the Laudean faction; and, by way of cover for his apostasy (having been originally a zealous maintainer of the XXXIX articles), printed the above-mentioned treatise, commonly known by the title of "God's Love to Mankind." From which treatise, Mr. Wesley borrowed his whole paragraph concerning God and Tiberius; but without giving it as a quotation, or dropping the least hint to his readers that the comparison was none of his own. Nothing comes amiss to this gentleman. Not content with assaulting the living, be even rifles the dead: and, rather than not rifle at all, robs them of their very blasphemies. Unless he goes upon the old fanatic principles, that brethren should have all things in common. 3. I am saved from the trouble of canvassing Mr. Hoord's simile: it having been effectually done to my hands by no less persons than the renowned Dr. Davenant, bishop of Salisbury, and that prodigy of metaphysical learning, the ever memorable Dr. Twisse, who condescended to immortalize Hoord's name, by their candid, solid, and learned answers. For the refutation of that particular calumny against God, which Mr. Wesley's plagiarism has adopted for his own, I shall content myself with referring the reader to the treatises of those great and eminent champions of grace (i). It may be worth a moment's while, however, to trace the pedigree of the impious comparison. Bertius (k) (as Dr. Twisse observes) objected it, long before to the celebrated Piscator, by whom it was amply refuted. Hoord copied it from Bertius; and Mr. Wesley cribbed it from Hoord. I congratulate the reader on his sight of land. We are come now to the

(i) See bishop Davenant's Animadversions, &c. p. 150. edit. 1641. - And Dr. Twisse's Riches of God's Love to the Vessels of Mercy, p. 23, 24. edit. 1653. fol.

(k) This was the same Peter Bertius, who pronounced Arminius' Funeral Oration (vide ips. Orat. Arminii Operib. praefix.); and, some years after, rendered his Arminianism complete, by openly declaring himself a papist: see archbishop Usher's Letters, subjoined to his life by Dr. Parr, let. 50, and 53. p. 28. and 85 - This Bertius had long figured it at the head of the Arminian faction, and had particularly distinguished himself by a treatise against Final Perseverance, entitled. Hymenaeus Desertor. To which latter circumstance archbishop Usher smartly alludes, where he observes (ut supr.) that, in commencing Roman Catholic Bertius did verify the title of his own book.

V. and last Consequence, viz. that, on the principle of absolute predestination, there can be "no future judgment.” Here again, the consequence is false. For, absolute predestination is the very thing that renders the future judgment certain: God hath appointed [ejhsen, hath fixed] a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained [wrise, decreed:] Ac 17:31. - Nay, says Mr. John; "It requires more pains than all the men upon earth and all the devils in hell will ever be able to take:" viz. to reconcile the doctrine of reprobation, with the doctrine of a judgment day. Be not quite so fiery, meek Mr. John. It might, perhaps, be for your interest (and it certainly would for that of "the devils in hell"), to find that reprobates cannot be judged. But feed not yourself with such delusive hope. I have already shown, that even the most flagrant sinners, sin voluntary, notwithstanding the inevitable accomplishment of God's effective and permissive decrees. Now, they who sin voluntarily, are accountable: and accountable sinners are judicable: and, if judicable, they are punishable. Be content, therefore, with conjuring back the ghosts of Peter Bertius, Samuel Hoord, Gregory Lopez, John Goodwin, and Thomas Grantham. The second-hand arguments, which you so industriously cull from these and such like heroes, are quite sufficient (though not to prove your doctrines, yet) to convince us both of your zeal and your abilities, without your calling up “all the devils in hell" to augment your train. Besides, the testimony of the latter would do you no good: for they were liars from the beginning. I wish, your own future regard to truth may give us reason to hope, that they have nothing to do with you, nor you with them.

God "had determined," says the objector, that the reprobate “should continue impenitent. Their ignorance of God, and the things of God, was not wilful, but owing to the sovereign will of God. God had absolutely decreed, before they were born, that they should live and die in unbelief. God himself unalterably decreed, that they should not love either God or man. Their repeated iniquities and transgressions were in effect his own act and deed." - Flagrant misrepresentation throughout. The utmost our doctrine amounts to, is, that the omniscient mind (to whom all things are, and ever were, present at once) considering the human race as fallen, was pleased to ordain the recovery of an innumerable multitude, and to leave the rest unrestored. So that, with regard to the former, mercy is glorified in their election, redemption, sanctification, and eternal happiness: as justice is in the condemnation of the latter, for their impenitence, unbelief, and disobedience. "Oh, but could they ever repent, believe, and obey?" I am not afraid to answer, with the word of God, that repentance, faith, and sanctification, are God's own gifts, which he is not bound to bestow on any man, and might have withheld from all men. Where these graces are given, rectitude and happiness follow: where they are not given, sin and misery continue to reign. Given they are to some; or none would have them. Given they are not, to all; else none would be without them. The regenerate work the works of God with consent, freedom, and desire; in consequence of grace bestowed: the unregenerate commit evil, with no less desire, freedom, and consent, in consequence of that original depravation which God (for unfathomable reasons) was pleased to permit, and which nothing but his own grace can effectually supersede. Which grace he vouchsafes to, and withholds, from whom he pleases.

Neither election, on one hand, nor reprobation on the other, will be found to clash with the process of the final judgment. Not election: for Christ himself will preach election from the judgment-seat. Come ye blessed of my Father (why blessed of his Father, in particular? because election was God the Father's act), inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Mt 25:34. - Nor reprobation: for God's decree of preterition (evinced by the voluntary transgressions of the persons passed by), will be solemnly appealed to, in that great and terrible day. Whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life, was cast into the lake of fire. Re 20:15.

So much for Mr. Wesley and his Consequences. A few words, in my turn, concerning Calvinism and Arminianism in general; and then, for the present, manum de tabula.

It might naturally enough be expected, that a man who is so liberally lamentable in his outcries against the doctrine of predestination, and carries to such horrid length his invectives against the purposes and providence of God; should himself adopt, and be fairly able to propose, a scheme of salvation, exempt even from the appearance of that unmercifulness, which he affects to find, in the scheme of those, from whom he so violently dissents. But what if the reverse be true? What if that very Arminian doctrine, asserted by Mr. Wesley, should, on a near inspection, be fairly convicted of, not only apparent, but real unmercifulness? even of more, and greater, than malice itself can charge on the most distorted portrait of Calvinism; This I, some pages back, engaged to make good. All passion and prejudice apart, let us coolly, and candidly, address ourselves to the enquiry.

According to Mr. Wesley's own fundamental principle of universal grace; grace itself, or the saving influence of the holy Spirit on the hearts of men, does and must become the ministration of eternal death to thousands and millions. That I do not wrong Mr. Wesley, in asserting this, shall be proved from his own words: or, rather, from the words of Mr. Robert Barclay, the celebrated quaker; from whose apology for that people, Mr. Wesley (without mentioning the name of his author) hath pirated a little Tractate, price 2d. and to which he hath given the title of Serious Considerations on Absolute Predestination. In this Tractate, pirated as aforesaid, Mr. Wesley thus expresses himself (p. 13.): "He" [i. e. God] "hath given to every man a measure of light and grace; which, if it is not resisted, will work the salvation of all: but, if it is, will become their condemnation." So then, there is such a thing as condemning grace, or grace that eventually damns some unhappy persons on whom it is (most kindly!) bestowed. A very odd species of grace, indeed. It would be just as sound divinity, and as sound sense, to talk of a damning salvation, as of damning grace. Surely, such a kind of grace as this, a grace which (as Mr. Wesley himself acknowledges) is too often baffled and foiled by the will of man, and, of course, eventually conducive to sink him deeper into everlasting ruin, had much better not have been given, or offered, than offered or given to increase the condemnation of those upon whom it is conferred! "Oh, but God does not give his grace with a view to increase their condemnation who reject it: so far from this, he seriously intended that it shall, and earnestly desires that it may, work them into a state of salvation. Which it will do, if they are willing to admit it and improve it." I would only ask you one plain question. Does God know, or does he not, previous to, and at the time of, this supposed gift, or offer, whether the persons, to whom the offer is made, will or will not reject it? Let us have no equivocation. No shuffling. No evasion. No shifting of terms.

If you say, "God does not know what the event will be;" I give you up for incurable. It is less impious to deny the very existence of God, than to strip him of his omniscience, and thereby make him (as far as in you lies) such an one as yourself. By pleading divine ignorance (I shudder at the very idea), you certainly slip out of my hands: and it is the only way by which you can. But your escape costs you very dear. In flying from Calvinism, you jump into atheism.

If you say, that "God does know what the issue will be, and that he deliberately offers, or designedly implants (no matter which), his grace, to or in a person, who, he certainly knows, will augment his guilt by finally resisting the grace so offered or implanted;" - then, where, oh where, is the goodness of God? I see not the least trace of it. But I see enough of its reverse: unless love and hatred, mercy and cruelty, are terms synonymous. - To harp on the old string, and allege that ''grace is not offered that it may increase condemnation;" would be nothing to the purpose. So far is it from being able to turn the balance in your favour, that it is “lighter than the breath of a fly." If God knows, that the offered grace will be rejected; it would be mercy to forbear the offer. Prove the contrary if you are able.

As I trust there is no man, who dares, on mature consideration, to deny the all-comprehending foreknowledge, or (if you had rather have it so expressed) the omniscience of God; I will venture to take that attribute for granted: and argue from it, as from a principle assumed. To this end, I shall put the following case.

That ever blessed Being, to whom all futurities are known from everlasting, knew (we will suppose) that a man, named Tiberius, would be born at such a time, of such parents, and live in such a place. God knew, moreover (even before this person had being), that he would obstinately resist and reject the influences of grace, though seriously proposed [I argue on the Arminian principle] and tendered to his acceptance: that he would by no means admit it, or be guided by it, though God sincerely wished he would, and used all feasible methods for that purpose. And yet, it seems, God actually offers grace to this man: nay, even draws him (i.e. according to the Arminian notion of divine traction, God solicits, propounds motives, excites, and would fain have him) to accept of it. But why this waste of divine influence? Is it to add to iniquities already too great? and to seal destruction already too sure? Can God be in earnest, in offering grace to one, who, he infallibly knows beforehand, will infallibly refuse it, and therefore will never be the better, but much the worse, for the offer? or can it be from a principle of loving kindness, that the Deity is supposed to tamper (for, tampering it is) with Tiberius, by an offer of grace, which the Omniscient Offerer knows will be ineffectual? "Oh, but men are hereby made inexcusable." Be it so: yet, surely, God can never be thought, knowingly to render a man more inexcusable, by taking such measures as will certainly load him with accumulated condemnation, out of mere love to that man!

Let those, then, who plead for such grace as this, forbear to charge the asserters of special and efficacious vocation, with representing the Deity as unmerciful: and, for common decency's sake, cease to tax the doctrine we plead for, with tyranny and cruelty. Might I dare to accommodate those awful words to the present occasion, I would say to the patrons of ineffectual grace. Weep not for us, but weep for yourselves. Level your tragical exclamations about unmercifulness, at your own scheme, which truly and properly deserves them. I appeal to the judgment of every capable and unprejudiced man, which system is most worthy of God? the Arminian one, which represents the Father of mercies as offering grace to them, who, he knows, will only add sin to sin, and make themselves twofold more the children of hell, by refusing it? or, ours, which, in perfect harmony with the scriptures, asserts, that grace is given to those only, who, by that very grace so given them, are made willing to receive it, and in whom it is a well of water springing up into holiness, good works, and life everlasting?

Justly does the great Calvin exclaim against the weakness and absurdity of those reasoners, who, while they affect to be "such conscientious advocates for the [mercy and] justice of God, stumble at every straw that lies in their way:" but when they have a turn to serve, or an idol opinion of their own to set up, "make nothing of jumping over massy beams," and fighting through thick and thin. For God to restrain the operations of grace to them who shall actually be saved, is "partiality and injustice." But to offer, and even to give, his grace to those that will certainly reject and make an ill use of it, and thereby render it the means of greater condemnation; this is “mercy, goodness, compassion, and tender loving kindness!" In this manner does Arminianism strain at gnats and swallow camels! even by representing grace itself as the administration of complicated sin and accumulated ruin to millions and millions of Adam's posterity. While honest Calvinism makes grace the real administration of present holiness and endless happiness to all on whom it is conferred. The former turns the very goodness of God into eventual poison. The latter only affirms, that the non-elect are left in a state of nature, without the addition of ineffectual grace to double the measure of their sin and misery; and that, with regard to the elect, whose millions are countless by man, God both intends their regeneration, and actually effects it by the omnipotence of his love. On the whole, we must, 1. either deny the omniscience of God (and we may as well deny his existence outright); or, 2. make grace itself the designed ministration of death to unnumbered myriads of men; or, 3. acknowledge, with scripture, that God is the sovereign dispenser of his own grace; that this grace is divinely effectual; and, consequently, that God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy.

I have often wondered, how so many good people who would start at Arianism, can so glibly swallow, and so easily digest, Arminianism. “Oh, but Mr. John has told us that Arminians are not Arians."True: all Arminians are not; though very many of them are. Most Arians, however, are Arminians, though some Arminians are not Arians. Arianism robs two of the divine persons. Arminianism robs all the three. If Arianism robs the Son and Spirit, of their proper deity; Arminianism robs the Father of his sovereignty, decrees, and providence: the Son, of his efficacy as a Saviour: and the Spirit, of his efficacy as a sanctifier. An Arian represents the Son and Spirit as dependents on God the Father; an Arminian represents God the Father as dependent on the wills of men for the accomplishment of his desires, God the Son as dependent on the wills of men for the success of his mediation, and God the Spirit as dependent on the wills of men for the success of his agency.

Arianism and Arminianism, like water and ice, have a natural tendency to produce each other. Nor was it without reason, that a very able (m) advocate for the doctrine of the Trinity, traces, in the preface to his excellent work on that subject, both the Arianism and the Deism of the age, to Arminianism, as the grand source of both. The reader, I am persuaded, will not only excuse, but approve, my laying before him a short extract from that masterly preface, which I the rather do, as it may be a means of acquainting some with a certain truth they do not seem aware of: viz. that the trite, common-place objection to predestination, drawn from the plausible topics of partiality, unmercifulness, and injustice, does, if admitted at all, conclude as strongly against the whole Christian revelation, as against the doctrines of grace in particular.

(m) The present learned, worthy and venerable Mr. Sloss, of Nottingham.

The argument by which some men "are induced to deny the doctrine of election, will, with equal force, conclude with the deists against all revealed religion: and, according to their [i. e. the Arminian] way of reasoning, it is impossible that the scriptures of the Old and New Testament can be a revelation from God: because, it is not made to all mankind. If it be essential to the goodness and equity of the divine nature, for God to have an equal regard to all his creatures; and if he is so tied up, by those perfections, that he cannot, in his sovereignty and free grace, bestow peculiar and distinguishing favours on those upon whom he pleases to fix his love; then he must either not make any revelation at all, or else that revelation must be made to every individual of the human race. But since it is plain, that the method of salvation, revealed in the scriptures, is not made known to every individual [of mankind]; it would follow, by necessary consequence, [from the above principle], that the scripture cannot be a revelation from God: because his perfections, as is supposed, would oblige him to make those scriptures equally known to all men. - Those, therefore, who deny the doctrine of election, upon this principle, that it is inconsistent with that goodness, equity, and justice, which are essential to the divine nature, whereby he regards equally all his creatures; are obliged, upon the same principle, to deny that the scriptures are a divine revelation. If election be denied, because it makes a difference among those who [are supposed to] have an equal claim to the divine favour; it must be no less inconsistent with the goodness and justice of God, to make any such revelation to any part of mankind, whereby their condition is made better than others of the human race to whom that revelation is not made known. Which [way of reasoning, in either case] throws the greatest reflection on the whole conduct of divine providence, in all those instances of it, whereby the condition of any of God's reasonable creatures is made better than the state of others; and cuts off, entirely, the sovereignty of the Supreme Being, by which he dispenses his favours to his creatures at pleasure, without trespassing on the equity and righteousness of his nature; since none of them have any claim to the least favour, above another, by any thing in themselves, which they are possessed of independently of him who alone maketh any to differ. Since, then, the same arguments made use of by some protestants, against the doctrine of the free grace of God in the eternal election of a part of the apostate race of Adam, hold, with equal force, against all divine revelation, and consequently, against all Christianity; they would do well to consider, how far they may have contributed to the prevailing deism of this present time, by furnishing the adversaries of divine revelation (who know very well how to improve any advantage against the truth) with arguments against Christianity in general." Thus for this calm and judicious reasoner.

As Arminianism fails in its attempts to magnify the divine mercy; so is it equally deficient in its pretences to promote human sanctity. Election ensures holiness to a very great part of mankind: whereas, precarious grace, deriving all its efficacy from the caprice of free-will, could not ensure holiness to any one individual of the whole species. “Oh, but some people, presuming upon election, neglect sanctification." This is much easier said, than proved. Admitting it, however, to be a possible case: shall we mend the matter a single jot, by going over to Arminianism? Let us examine: “The goodness of God is unlimited in its exercise; and Christ died to atone for all the sins of all mankind: moreover, every man is endued, either by nature or grace, with such liberty of will, as to turn to God, if it be not his own fault." Surely, these doctrines (I will not say, necessarily, but) naturally carry a very gentle aspect on neglect of morals. They are, to say the very least, liable to vast abuse. " Oh, but if the doctrines are abused, it is owing, not to the doctrines, but to men of corrupt minds." It may be so. And will not the same remark hold equally true of the opposite doctrines? It will hold still truer. For, no man, according to our system, has a right to look upon himself as elected, until sanctifying grace has converted him to faith and good works. Consequently, the doctrine of election is not so liable even to speculative abuse, as the doctrine which asserts that "God loves every man alike, and that Christ died for the sins of all mankind." I speak it without the least intention either to grieve or offend any: but it is too true, that several remarkable transactions have very lately happened in the Arminian world (I mean in that part of it, which is supposed to be more holy than the rest), which transactions too plainly proved, notwithstanding many truly conscientious people are Arminians, that Arminianism and good works are by no means so nearly related as some folks imagine. Indeed, the farther we extend our observation, the more we must be convinced of this. Arminianism was never more rampant in England, since the reformation, than at present. And I appeal to every man, whether virtue is not as much on the decline. Like alternate buckets, the one rises, as the other falls.

Suppose we carry back our investigation, from the present century, to the last? In the last century, Arminianism was confined to much narrower bounds, and lay in much fewer hands, than now. Yet, where it did obtain, its influence on morals too often resembled the agency of a blast on the blossom. Even the candid Mr. Hickman mentions an instance of it. “This," says that excellent writer, "was the refuge and xrhsqudeton of that grand propagator of Arminianism, Mr. Thomson. When he was in a fit of intemperance, if any one reminded him of the wrath of God threatened against such courses, he would answer, I am a child of the devil today; but I have freewill; and tomorrow I will make myself a child of God (n)."

(n) Hickman's Animadv. on Heylin, p. 91, and 227.

"Oh, but if we bold free-will, we do not hold final perseverance. It is perseverance that throws open the flood-gates of licentiousness." How can that be? It is neither licentious, nor absurd, to suppose, 1. that the truly righteous are the peculiar care of God. And, 2. that, being his peculiar care, they are kept by his power through faith unto salvation (1Pe 1:3-5.): so kept, as to be preserved fruitful in every good word and work. Now, if to persevere in every good word and work be the turn-pike road to licentiousness; then, I grant that the doctrine of perseverance is a licentious doctrine. When holiness and sin are one and the same thing; then, and not until then, will continuance in the former open a door to the latter. - But why do I detain my reader and myself, in wasting arguments on Mr. Wesley? The man who did not blush to call even the exemplary Mr. Hervey an Antinomian, may well be supposed to hurl the name, indiscriminately, at the head of every one who says, with St. Paul, By grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works; which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Eph 2:8-10.

Let us now hear the sum of the whole matter. All things are of God, 2Co 5:18. He is the efficacious ordainer of good: he is the wise and voluntary permitter of evil. There is no good, of which he is not the author: there is no evil, of which he is not the permitter. Consequently, it is a first principle of the Bible, and of sound reason, that "whatever is, is right:" or will answer some great end (an end, at present, unknown) in its relation to the whole, and at the final result of things. I must, even as a rational being, and much more as a Christian, repeat, and continue to insist upon, that celebrated maxim (under certain modifications); notwithstanding the controversial dust it has raised among the Arminians of Mr. Wesley's predicament, and among some small divines elsewhere. Nor will I ever give up that maxim, until I can see the conduct of divine providence fairly vindicated without its help. - You may say, perhaps, with a late great and good man, that "the disposals of providence are undoubtedly right." Allowed. But is there any thing, in which providence has no concern? If there be, tell us what that thing is. If there be not, then it unavoidably follows, that “whatever is, is right," in some respect or other. Even Grotius himself found it absolutely necessary to grant this: else, as that learned man plainly saw, he must have left a very dangerous breach in the fortifications of Christianity.

It was even right, that Mr. Wesley should be permitted to charge me with blasphemies I abhor, with positions I never wrote, and with consequences which my principles cannot produce. “Then why do you rap his knuckles for so doing?” Because, even upon my own maxim, it was no less right that his knuckles should be rapped. Zeno, the founder of the Stoics, one day thrashed his servant for pilfering. The fellow, knowing his master was a fatalist, thought to bring himself off by alleging that he was “destined to steal, and therefore ought not to be beat for it." - "You are destined to steal, are you?" answered the philosopher; “then you are no less destined to be thrashed for it;" and laid on some hearty blows extraordinary.

The motive of the agent is very distinguishable from the eventual tendency of the act. A man, who means ill, deserves chastisement, even though the ill he means be made (by superior direction) conducive to ultimate good. Should it be objected, that, according to the above maxim, "there can be no such thing as ill meaning;" I deny the consequence. Let us weigh the terms of the maxim itself. “Whatever is, is right." Whatever is. Not what has merely an invisible, ideal existence, in the mind of the agent; but whatever has a perceptible, outward existence, in the course and train of things. A being possessed of infinite knowledge, to discern all consequences; of infinite power, to prevent what he pleases; and of infinite goodness, to will the best; cannot, consistently with those perfections, be supposed to permit any event, without some wise and just view. Of these views, we are, by no means, competent judges. In a state of superior existence, we shall, I doubt not, see the propriety and fitness of divine conduct. Here, we know but in part; and, in many instances, we know nothing at all. Hereafter we shall know, even as we are known. What I do, thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Wisdom itself never suggested a more certain truth, than that, with which the following words present us: Behold in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man. Why dost thou strive against him? For he giveth not account of any of his matters. Job 33:12-13.

“It is very reasonable to believe," says Mr. Addison, "that part of the pleasure, which happy minds shall enjoy in a future state, will arise from an enlarged contemplation of the divine wisdom in the government of the world, and in a discovery of the secret and amazing steps of providence, from the beginning to the end of time. In our present condition, which is a middle state, our minds are, as it were, chequered with truth and falsehood; and, as our faculties are narrow, and our views imperfect, it is impossible but our curiosity must meet with many repulses.

“Visu carentem magna pars veri latet.

"We are not, at present, in a proper situation to judge of the counsels by which providence acts: since but little arrives at our knowledge, and even that little we discern imperfectly. Since providence, therefore, in its economy, regards the whole system of time and things together; we cannot discover the beautiful connections between incidents which he widely separated in time; and, by losing so many links of the chain, our reasonings become broken and imperfect. Thus, those parts in the moral world, which have not an absolute, may yet have a relative beauty, in respect of some other parts concealed from us, but open to his eye, before whom past, present, and to come, are set together in one point of view. And those events, the permission of which seems now to accuse his goodness; may, in the consummation of things, both magnify his goodness and exalt his wisdom. And this is enough [at least, it ought to be enough] to check our presumption; since it is in vain to apply our measures of regularity, to matters of which we know neither the antecedents nor the consequents, the beginning nor the end." Spectator, vol. iii. No. 237.

There is, therefore, what Calvin very justly calls, a learned ignorance: for it is real wisdom in man, to acquiesce, with the most absolute and implicit confidence, in the decrees and dispensations of that God, “whose never failing providence," as our church expresses it, "ordereth all things both in heaven and earth."

I shall close the subject, with the following passages: which, though taken from the Apocryphal Book, are pregnant with just reasoning, and speak the language of piety and sense. Let Mr. Wesley listen; and learn, for the time to come, not to asperse the decrees he cannot comprehend.

Thy heart hath gone too far in this world: and thinkest thou to comprehend the way of the Most High? - And I said unto him, yea, Lord. - And he answered me, and said, I am sent to shew thee three ways, and to set three similitudes before thee: whereof if thou canst declare me one, I will shew thee also the way thou desirest to see, and I will show thee from whence the wicked heart cometh. And I said, tell on, my Lord. Then said he unto me, go thy way: weigh me the weight of the fire; or measure me the blast of the wind; or call me again the day that is past. Then answered I, What man is able to do that? And he said unto me, If I should ask thee how many great dwellings are in the midst of the sea, how many springs are in the beginning of the deep, or how many springs are above the firmament, or which are the out-goings of paradise: peradventure thou wouldst say unto me, I never went down into the deep, nor into hell, neither did I ever climb up into heaven. Nevertheless, now have I asked thee but only of the fire, and wind, and of the day where through thou hast past, and of things from which thou canst not be separated, and yet canst thou give me no answer of them. Thine own things, and such as are grown up with thee, canst thou not know? How should thy vessel then be able to comprehend the way of the Highest? And, the world being now outwardly corrupted, to understand the corruption that is evident in my sight? The more thou searchest, the more thou shalt marvel. For the grain of evil seed hath been sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning: and how much ungodliness hath it brought up unto this time! and how much shall it yet bring forth, until the time of threshing come! Ponder now by thyself, how great fruit of wickedness the grain of evil seed hath brought forth. And, when the ears shall be cut down, which are without number, how great a floor shall they fill! - Then I answered and said. How and when shall these things come to pass? - And wherefore are our years few and evil? - And he answered, Do not thou hasten above the Most Highest: for thy haste is vain, and thou hast much exceeded. Did not the souls also of the righteous ask question of these things, in their chambers, saying, How long shall I hope on this fashion? When cometh the fruit of the floor of our reward? And to these things, Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said. Even when the number of seeds is fulfilled in you: for he hath weighed the world in a balance. By measure he hath measured the times: and by number he hath numbered the times: and he doth not move nor stir them, until the said measure be fulfilled. 2 Esdr. iv.

Does God's seeming severity, to the non-elect, stumble us? It is enough for us to know, that infinite wisdom cannot err, and that infinite goodness does all things well. Thou art sore troubled in mind for Israel's sake: lovest thou that people better than he that made them? - And I said, No, Lord; but of very grief have I spoken: for my reins pain me every hour, while I labour to comprehend the way of the Most High, and to seek out part of his judgment. - And he said unto me. Thou canst not. Number me the things, that are not yet come; gather me together the drops, that are scattered abroad; make the flowers green again that are withered; open me the places that are closed, and bring forth the winds that are shut up in them; show me the image of a voice: and then will I declare unto thee the thing that thou labourest to know. - And I said, O Lord that bearest rule, who may know these things, but he that hath not his dwelling with men? As for me, I am unwise: how am I then to speak of these things, whereof thou askest me? - Then said he unto me, Like as thou canst do none of these things that I have spoken of; even so canst thou not find out [on one hand] my judgment [toward the reprobate], nor, in the end, the love which I bear unto my people [on the other]. 2 Esdr. v. - For thou comest far short [of the implicit duty thou owest to me], that thou shouldst be able to love my creature more than I. Chap. 3:47.

One word, to Mr. Wesley himself, and I have done. Time, sir, (I am informed) has already whitened your locks: and the hour must shortly come, which will transmit you to the tribunal of that God, on whose sovereignty, a great part of your life has been one continued assault. At that bar, I too must hold up my hand. Omniscience only can tell, which of us shall first appear before the Judge of all. I shortly may, you shortly must. The part you have been permitted to act in the religious world, will sooner or later, sit heavy on your mind. "Mixed in the warm converse of life, we think with men: on a death-bed, with God. Depend upon it, a period will arrive, when the Father's electing mercy, and the Messiah's adorable righteousness, will appear, in your eyes, even in yours, to be the only safe anchorage for a dying sinner. I mean, unless you are actually given over to final obduration. Which, I trust, you are not; and to which, I most ardently beseech God you never may.

You have told us, totidem verbis, that "Men's believing is the cause of their justification:" that “our obeying Christ is the cause of his giving us eternal life;" and that "our obedience to Christ is the cause of his becoming the author of eternal salvation to us." You have affirmed, speaking of God, that it can never “consist with his unerring wisdom, to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham (s)." Such doctrine may pass well enough, while life and health last: but it will leave us comfortless, hopeless, ruined, in that hour, when heart and flesh fail. Woe be to you, to me, and to all the race of Adam, if the righteousness of Christ will not then stand us in any more stead, than the righteousness of David or Abraham! was that really to be the case, how could Mr. Wesley, in particular, hope for justification at the hands of that God, whom he has impiously compared to “Tiberius” and “the Grand Turk?"

(s) See a Sermon, concerning Justification, in one of Mr. Wesley's three first volumes of Sermons.

May your name, sir, after all that you have done, be found at last in that Book of Life, against which you have so daringly exclaimed! May your person be interested in that only perfect righteousness, on which you have so unhappily trampled! And, as an evidence of your part in both, may your future conduct display the spirit and breathe the language of these excellent lines:

“Let not this weak, unknowing hand

Presume thy bolts to throw,

And deal damnation round the land

On each I judge thy foe.

If I am right, thy grace impart

Still in the right to stay:

If I am wrong, O teach my heart

To find that better way.” (t).

Be this your supplication. And may your supplication be heard!

(t) Pope's Universal Prayer.

An Old Fox Tarred and Feathered;

AN OLD FOX TARRED AND FEATHERED.

OCCASIONED BY WHAT IS CALLED

MR. JOHN WESLEY'S CALM ADDRESS TO OUR AMERICAN COLONIES.

"In politics I dabble too,

Brave Jack of all Trades I!"

Caeciliane, Fur. es.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The following sheet does not enter, seriously and argumentatively, into the merits of either side of the dispute now depending between England and America. This has already been done by others; and, probably, will be, by more. The intention of these pages is, 1. To show Mr. Wesley's honesty, as a plagiarist: and, 2. To raise a little skin, by giving the Fox a gentle flogging, as a turn-coat.

SECTION I.

“Another Face of Things was seen,

And I became a Tory."

Whereunto shall I liken Mr. John Wesley? and with what shall I compare him?

I will liken him unto a low and puny tadpole in divinity, which proudly seeks to disembowel a high and mighty whale in politics.

For it came to pass, some months since, that Dr. Samuel Johnson set forth an eighteen-penny pamphlet, entitled, Taxation no Tyranny.

And, some days ago, a methodist weather-cock saluted the public with a two-penny paper (extracted by whole paragraphs together from the aforesaid doctor), ycleped, A calm Address to our American Colonies. The occasion whereof was this:

There dwelleth, about 99 miles, one furlong, and thirteen inches, from a place called the Foundery, in Moorfields (next door to a noted mad-house), a priest, named Vulposo.

This priest is a perfect man, and an upright: hating forgery, adultery, and covetousness.

Now, he happened to buy Dr. Johnson's pamphlet above-mentioned: and, upon reading thereof, he thus mused within himself.

"This tract, called, Taxation no Tyranny, cost me one shilling and sixpence.

"What a man buys and pays for, is certainly his own.

“Therefore, this tract is no longer its author's, but mine.

“Consequently, I shall do no evil, if I gut the substance of it, and republish it under my own name.

"There is an old Greek proverb, which saith, guwqikairon, know thy opportunity, and seize it. There is also a Latin poet, who saith, Male dum recitas incipit esse tuum.

"No tense like the present. Doctor Johnson has been, for several weeks, absent from the kingdom, on a tour to Paris. Therefore, it is now or never. Like a mouse that has robbed a pantry, I will venture forth, with my stolen morsel, while the cat's out of the way.

"Now, it is not that I care for government, any more than Judas cared for the poor: but I have long wished to be taken notice of, at court; and this pilfering may procure me some preferment in the church.

“I once (a) begged and prayed a foreign vagrant (who styled himself Erasmus, bishop of Arcadia) to give me episcopal consecration, that I might be a bishop at large, and have it in my power to ordain my ragged regiment of lay-preachers.

(a) See some account of this curious transaction, in Mr. Toplady's Letter to Mr. John Wesley.

"Notwithstanding, though I gave the man many fair speeches, he would not hearken to my voice.

"But who knows, whether, in the borrowed (b) plumes of Dr. Johnson, I may not, perchance, obtain a pension, if not slip into an English cathedral: or (at least) be appointed to the first American bishopric?

(b) AEsop relates, that a certain vain jack-daw picked up all the peacock's feathers he could meet with, and stuck them among his own; in hope, that the elegant spoils might pass for the native productions of his back. The cheat was soon discovered: And the enraged birds not only stripped him of his artificial decoration, but made him feel the vengeance of their bills beside.

On this fable, Dr. Croxall very properly remarks, that for a man "to be barely pleased with appearing above what he really is, may justly render him contemptible in the eyes of his equals. But if, to enable him to do this with a better grace, he has feathered his nest with his neighbour's goods; he hath nothing to expect, when found out, but to be stript of his plunder, and used like a _____into the bargain."

“Alas, alas! a sudden thrill goes through me, and my cogitations are perplexed within me! for, before I can be made a (c) bishop, my infamous plagiarism may be found out.

(c) In the Address to the Colonies, Mr. Wesley expresses himself thus: "I gain nothing, either by the Government, or by the Americans; and probably never shall." Page 12. Is not this something like hanging out a sign post to invite custom? or, si mavis, putting up a bill importing lodgings to let? or, setting himself up to auction, saying, "The party, whether Ministerial or American, that bids most for me, shall have me?" At least, is there not, in the above declaration, a loop-hole of reserve? a back door to creep out at? - Not to notice, that, in affirming he "gains nothing by the Government," he is very ungrateful, and advances a known untruth. He "gains" protection, at least, and toleration, from "Government;" and instead of calling this much; has he the face to call it "Nothing?" I should be glad to know, what his gratitude would term something? - Moreover, time was, when Mr. Wesley gained, even from American bounty and civility. Has he forgot his residence at Savanna, and some certain incidents therewith connected?

“However, worst come to worst, what if it be? It is not the first time that my old foxship has been started, and my impositions have been detected.

"Many writers have lustily plundered the works of other men: but I am resolved to out-plunder, and to out-blunder, them all.”

SECTION II.

And it came to pass, while the priest thus communed with his own heart, that a very aged man, in black clothing, rendered himself visible, and said:

“Fear not, my son, to do the thing which thy soul lusteth after:

“For much riches, and renown, and comfort, shall it add unto thee.

“Nothing venture, nothing have. Snatch the precious moment. Distil the doctor's pamphlet. And when thou hast extracted the substance thereof, cork it up for sale, in twopenny phials.

"Yet a little while, and revolving winds will waft the doctor back to his native shore.

"Imitate, therefore, certain worthy sons of mine (vulgarly called, housebreakers), who are never better pleased, than with committing an unmolested burglary, when a family is from home."

And therewith the black veteran gave the priest a tweak by the elbow: who, shaking his locks, and taking his quill in hand, entered immediately on this business of distillation.

How faithfully, how dexterously, how judiciously, and how (d) plentifully, he executed the task, will appear from the following Synopsis: wherein the very words of Dr. Johnson are given, on one side; and the very words of the Foundry priest, on the other.

(d) It may be alleged, that, in Mr. Wesley's plentiful cribbings and carvings from Doctor Johnson, he had rather borrowed, than stolen, the Doctor's paragraphs. To which I answer: that, if he has borrowed them, he is one of those, concerning whom David observes, the ungodly borroweth, and payeth not again. For Mr. Wesley is so far from acknowledging himself a debtor to Dr. Johnson, that he never, so much as once, from the beginning of his two-penny Tract to the end, mentioned the Doctor's name, or made any reference to the Doctor's pamphlet; though that pamphlet is the very hole of the pit, from which Mr. Wesley has dug and fetched up his own.

Dr. Johnson. 1. "An English colony is a number of persons, to a whom the king grants charter, permitting them to settle in some distant country." [Tax. no Tyr. p. 25.]

Mr. Wesley. 1. "An English colony is a number of persons, to whom the king grants a charter, permitting them to settle in some far country." [Ad. to the Am. Col. p. 3.]

Dr. Johnson. 2. "And enabling them to constitute a corporation, enjoying such powers as the charter grants, to be administered in such forms as the charter prescribes.” Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 2. “As a corporation enjoying such powers as the charter grants, to be administered in such a manner as the charter prescribes." P. 4.

Dr. Johnson. 3. "As a corporation, they make laws for themselves: but as a corporation subsisting by a grant from an higher authority, to the control of that authority they continue subject." P. 25

Mr. Wesley. 3. "As a corporation, they make laws for themselves: but, as a corporation subsisting by a grant from an higher authority, to the controul of that authority they still continue subject." P. 4.

Dr. Johnson. 4. "The Parliament of England has a right to bind them [the Americans] by statutes, - and has therefore a legal and constitutional power of laying upon them any tax or impost, - for the defence of America, for the purpose of raising a revenue, or for any other end beneficial to the empire." P. 30.

Mr. Wesley. 4. "The supreme power in England has a legal right of laying any tax upon them, for any end beneficial to the whole empire." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 5. "It is, say the American advocates, the natural distinction of a freeman, and the legal distinction of an Englishman, - that nothing can be taken from him, but by his own consent. This consent is given, for every man, by his representative in parliament." P. 31.

Mr. Wesley. 5. "But you object, It is the privilege of a freeman and an Englishman to be taxed, only by his own consent. And this consent is given for every man by his representative in parliament." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 6. "Whatever is true of taxation, is true of every other law. P. 32.

Mr. Wesley. 6. "Whatever holds with regard to taxation, holds with regard to all other laws." P. 5.

Dr. Johnson. 7. "He that denies the English parliament the right of taxation, denies it likewise the right of making any other laws, civil or criminal. Yet this power over the colonies was never yet disputed by themselves. They have always admitted statutes for the punishment of offences, and for the redress or prevention of inconveniences." P. 32,33.

Mr. Wesley. 7. "He who denies the English parliament the power of taxation, denies it the right of making any laws at all. But this power over the colonies you have never disputed. You have always admitted statutes, for the punishment of offences, and for the preventing or redressing of inconveniences." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 8. "The reception of any law draws after it, by a chain which cannot be broken, the necessity of submitting to taxation." P. 33.

Mr. Wesley. 8. "The reception of any law draws after it, by a chain which cannot be broken, the necessity of admitting taxation." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 9. "That a freeman is governed by himself, or by laws to which he has consented; - every man - feels it to be false." Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 9. "That every freeman is governed by laws to which he has consented, - is absolutely false." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 10. "In wide extended dominions, - - a very small part of the people are either primarily or secondarily consulted in legislation." Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 10. "In wide extended dominions, a very small part of the people are concerned in making laws." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 11. "The business of the public must be done by delegation. The choice of delegates is made by a select number. And those, who are not electors, stand idle and helpless spectators." P. 43, 44.

Mr. Wesley. 11. "All public business must be done by delegation. The delegates are chosen by a select number. And those that are not electors, - stand by idle and helpless spectators." P. 5, 6.

Dr. Johnson. 12. "Of electors, the hap is but little better. - - Where the numbers approach to equality, almost half must be governed, not only without, but against their choice." P. 34.

Mr. Wesley. 12. "The case of electors themselves is little better. When they are near equally divided, almost half of them must be governed, not only without, but even against their own consent.” P. 6.

Dr. Johnson. 13. "How any man can have consented to institutions established in distant ages, it will be difficult to explain. The consent of individuals is merely passive. - As all are born the subjects of some state or other, we may be said to have been all born consenting to some system of government. Other consent,than this, the condition of civil life does not allow." lbid.

Mr. Wesley. 13. "How has any man consented to those laws, which were made before he was born? Our consent to these - is purely passive. And, in every place, as all men are born the subjects of some state or other, so they are born, passively, as it were, consenting to the laws of that state. Other than this kind of consent, the condition of civil life does not allow." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 14. "The Americans are telling one another, - that they are entitled to life, liberty, and property; and that they have never ceded, to any sovereign power whatever, a right to dispose of either, without their consent." P. 35.

Mr. Wesley. 14. "But say, you are entitled to life, liberty, and property, by nature: and that you have never ceded, to any sovereign power, the right to dispose of these, without your consent." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 15. "While they speak as the naked sons of nature, they claim but what is claimed by other men.” Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 15. "While you speak as the naked sons of nature, this is certainly true.'' P. 7.

Dr. Johnson. 16. “Their next resolution declares, that their ancestors, who first settled the colonies, were, at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realm of England. This likewise is true." P. 36.

Mr. Wesley. 16. "But you presently declare, our ancestors, at the time they settled these colonies, were entitled to all the rights of natural born subjects, within the realm of England. This likewise is true." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 17. "But, when this is granted, their boast of original rights is at an end. They are no longer in a state of nature. - These lords of themselves - these demi-gods of independence, sink down to colonists, governed by a charter." Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 17. “But, when this is granted, the boast of original rights is at an end. You are no longer in a state of nature, but sink down to colonists governed by a charter." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 18. "If their ancestors were subjects, they acknowledged a sovereign. If they had a right to English privileges, they were accountable to English laws; and – had ceded to the king and parliament - the power of disposing, without their consent, of their lives, liberties, and properties." P. 37.

Mr. Wesley. 18. "If your ancestors were subjects, they acknowledged a sovereign. If they had a right to English privileges, they were accountable to English laws; and had ceded to the king and parliament the power of disposing, without their consent, of both their lives, liberties, and properties." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 19. "It is required of them to prove, that the parliament ever ceded to them a dispensation from that obedience, which they owe as natural born subjects; or any degree of independence and immunity not enjoyed by other Englishmen." P. 37.

Mr. Wesley. 19. "Did the parliament cede to them a dispensation from the obedience which they owe as natural subjects? or any degree of independence, not enjoyed by other Englishmen?" P. 7.

Dr. Johnson. 20. "They say, that, by such emigration, they by no means forfeited any of those rights: that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy." Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 20. "They did not indeed, as you observe, by emigration, forfeit any of those privileges; but they were and their descendants now are, entitled to all such as their circumstances enable them to enjoy." P. 7, 8.

Dr. Johnson. 21. "That they who form a settlement by a lawful charter, having committed no crime, forfeit no privileges; will be readily confessed. But what they do not forfeit by any judicial sentence, they may lose by natural effects." P. 38.

Mr. Wesley. 21. "That they who form a colony by a lawful charter, forfeit no privileges thereby, is certain. But what they do not forfeit by any judicial sentence, they may lose by natural effects.” P. 8

Dr. Johnson. 22. "He, who goes voluntarily to America, cannot complain of losing what he leaves in Europe. He, perhaps, had a right to vote for a knight or burgess. By crossing the Atlantic, he has (e) not nullified bis right; for he has made its exertion no longer possible. He has reduced himself, from a voter, to one of the innumerable multitude that have no vote." Ibid.

(e) The word not, here seems to have crept in, through a mistake of the printer. The drift of the doctor's arguing is, to prove, that emigration does nullify those rights which the emigrant previously enjoyed in his own country. Mr. Wesley, however, swallows the pamphlet by wholesale, errors and all, rough and smooth as it runs; just as a man takes his wife for better for worse.

Mr. Wesley. 22. "When a man voluntarily comes into America, he may lose what he had in Europe. Perhaps he had a right to vote for a knight or burgess. By crossing the sea, he did not forfeit this right; but it is plain he has made the exercise of it no longer possible. He has reduced himself, from a voter, to one of the innumerable multitude that have no votes." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 23. "As the English colonists are not represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free power of legislation. They inherit, they, say, from their ancestors, the right which their ancestors professed, of enjoying all the privileges of Englishmen. That they inherit the right of their ancestors, is allowed; but they can inherit no more." P. 39, 40.

Mr. Wesley. 23. "As the colonies are not represented in the British parliament, they are entitled to a free power of legislation. For they inherit all the right, which their ancestors had, of enjoying all the privileges of Englishmen. - They do inherit all the privileges, which their ancestors had; but they can inherit no more.” Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 24. “Their ancestors left a country, where the representatives of the people were elected by men particularly qualified, and where those, who wanted qualifications, or who did not use them, were bound by the decisions of men whom they had not deputed." P. 40, 41.

Mr. Wesley. 24. "Their ancestors left a country, where the representatives of the people were elected by men particularly qualified, and where those who wanted that qualification, were bound by the decisions of men whom they had not deputed." P. 8, 9.

Dr. Johnson. 25. "The colonists are the descendants of men, who either had no votes in elections; or who voluntarily resigned them, for something, in their opinion, of more estimation. They have, therefore, exactly what their ancestors left them; not a vote in making laws, or in constituting legislators; but the happiness of being protected by law, and the duty of obeying it." P. 41.

Mr. Wesley. 25. "You are the descendants of men, who either had no votes, or resigned them by emigration. You have, therefore, exactly what your ancestors left you; not a vote in making laws, nor in choosing legislators; but the happiness of being protected by laws, and the duty of obeying them." P. 9.

Dr. Johnson. 26. "What their ancestors did not carry with them, neither they nor their descendants have since acquired. They have not, by abandoning their part in one legislature, obtained the power of constituting another; any more than the multitudes, who are now debarred from voting, have a right to erect a separate parliament for themselves." P. 41, 42.

Mr. Wesley. 26. "What your ancestors did not bring with them, neither they nor their descendants have acquired. They have not, by abandoning their right in one legislature,acquired a right to constitute another, any more than the multitudes in England, who have no vote, have a right to erect a parliament for themselves." P. 9.

Dr. Johnson. 27 "His majesty's colonies are entitled to all the privileges and immunities granted and confirmed to them by royal charters, or secured to them by their several codes of provincial laws. The first clause will be readily admitted. To all the privileges, which a charter can convey, they are by a royal charter evidently entitled. The second clause is of greater difficulty." P. 42, 43.

Mr. Wesley. 27. “However, the colonies have a right to all the privileges granted them by royal charters, or secured to them by provincial laws. The first clause is allowed: they have certainly a right to all the privileges granted them by the royal charters. But, as to the second, there is a doubt." P. 9, 10.

Dr. Johnson. 28. "Provincial laws may grant to certain individuals of the province, the enjoyment of gainful, or an immunity from onerous offices. But no province can confer provincial privileges on itself." P. 43.

Mr. Wesley. 28. “Provincial laws may grant privileges to individuals of the province; but, surely, no province can confer provincial privileges on itself." P. 10.

Dr. Johnson. 29. "They may have a right to all which the king has given them: but it is a conceit of the other hemisphere, that men have a right to all which they have given to themselves." Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 29. "They have a right to all which the king has given them; but not to all which they have given themselves." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 30. "A corporation can no more extend its own immunities than a man can, by his own choice, assume dignities or titles.” Ibid.

Mr. Wesley. 30. "A corporation can no more assume to itself privileges which it had not before; than a man can, by his own act and deed, assume titles or dignities." Ibid.

Dr. Johnson. 31. "The legislature of a colony is only the vestry of a larger parish, which may lay a cess on the inhabitants, but must modify its particular regulations, by the general law; and, whatever may be its internal expenses, is still liable to taxes laid by superior authority."

Mr. Wesley. 31. "The legislature of a colony may be compared to the vestry of a large parish, which may lay a cess on its inhabitants, but still regulated by the law; and, whatever be its internal expenses, is still liable to taxes laid by superior authority." Ibid.

Thus, gentle reader, it appears, that the Foundry wasp has made very free with the Johnsonian hive. No fewer than thirty-one borrowed paragraphs, in the course of only ten pages! In fact, there are more of these pilfered goods stowed in the narrow compass of those five leaves. But the adduced specimens may suffice to convince thee, with what an unsparing hand the master of arts has fleeced the doctor of laws.

But are doctor Johnson's arguments and phraseology therefore the legitimate property of John Wesley, because the latter puffs them off as his own? By no means. We might as well affirm, that Mr. Wesley's body natural is therefore the lawful property of a leech, because the latter may have thought fit to pay its compliments to the veins of the former.

SECTION III.

It is not the intention of this tract, to canvass the merits of Dr. Johnson's reasoning; but merely, to shew, that the best part of what Mr. Wesley, most impudently, and most untruly, calls his own Address to the Americans; is, both as to matter and expression, a bundle of Lilliputian shafts, picked and stolen out of Dr. Johnson's pin-cushion.

If Mr. Wesley had the least spark of shame remaining, the simple detection of such enormous literary theft would be more terrible to his feelings, than an English pumping, or an American tarring and feathering.

I can say, in earnest, what this unblushing priest lately declared concerning himself, viz. “I am no politician; politics lie quite out of my province (f)."It is not for me to enter deeply, much less with acrimony, into those public contests, which now carry so formidable an aspect on the best interests of the English empire. My department and inclination lead me ardently to pray, in humble and pacific obscurity, for the safety and prosperity of my nation, church, and king. But the interested, the inconsistent, the shameless conduct of Mr. Wesley, compels me to put the two following queries to his conscience, if any thing like conscience has fallen to his share.

(f) Wesley's Free Thoughts on the State of Public Affairs, p. 3. printed in 1770. This gentleman laments (Ibid. p. 4.) that "every cobler, tinker, porter, and hackney-coachman," can dabble in politics. And yet the lamenter himself actually employs coblers, &c. to preach what he calls the gospel.

I. Did you not, within this twelvemonth, openly declare in the pulpit, at Bristol, that, in your opinion, and to use your own canting words, "America is the favourite land of the Lord?" Adding, "Woe be to that man, either in England or out of it, that dares to lift up a finger against America!" I only ask, how does this (be it right or wrong) comport with the tenor of that sound, which you now echo from Dr. Johnson's drum?

II. Did you not, in the year 1770, thus express yourself (whether justly, or improperly, I have no design to enquire)? “I do not defend the measures which have been taken, with regard to America. I doubt, whether any man can defend them, either on the foot of law, equity, or prudence.” (g) Probably, the weathercock is not, even yet, completely rusted. It may still vary with the wind. To what point of the compass will it veer next? Certainly not to a new one, for it has, again and again, turned to all the thirty-two. Go on, sir, to prove all things: but, be sure that you do not forfeit your charter, and sully the glory of your past eccentricities, by holding fast any thing that is good. Keep up to your old character:

“Stiff in opinion, mostly in the wrong,

Be every thing by starts, and nothing long."

(g) These are Mr. Wesley's very words, in his Free Thoughts on the State, &c. p. 14.

The fly is now perched, with much solemnity, on Dr. Johnson's wheel. But who can tell, what a moment may bring forth? The quondam (h) admirer of Junius may, possibly, in the twinkling of an eye, commence the panegyrist of an English Cromwell, or of a Scotch Macbeth.

(h) See Mr. Wesley's tract, already referred to; viz. Free Thoughts, &c. p. 4.

This is the Mr. Wesley, who, not long ago, had the modesty to tell the world that his principles have been the same, "for eight and twenty years." Instead of principles, in the plural; he should have said, principle, in the singular. For, I grant, there is a principle, by which he has uniformly abode; viz. to change and shift about, like the minute-hand of a clock. Nor does he bid fair, ever to stand at a point, till all the vital weights are quite run down, and the pendulum ceases to play.

Little more than two centuries ago, a famous temporising priest, who had turned with every tide; who was a half protestant in the close of Henry VIII's reign, a whole protestant in the reign of Edward VI. a good catholic in the reign of Mary, and a protestant again in the reign of Elizabeth; returned the following answer to a friend, who charged him with religious and political unsteadiness, and with having either no conscience at all, or at least a very convenient conscience, made of stretching leather, equally capable of shrinking and dilating, as whim or interest might require.

“You are much mistaken,' said the pious divine: “I am by no means that changeable person, you take me for. No man in the world was ever more steady to his principle, or acted a more consistent part. When I was first presented to the vicarage of Bray, I resolved to hold it as long as I breathed. And I have acted accordingly. Vicar of Bray I was. Vicar of Bray I am. And vicar of Bray I will be, to the end of the chapter."

By way of winding up the whole matter, I will take my present leave of Mr. Wesley, with submitting to the reader a very notable specimen of father John's wretched, but (in him) not astonishing, inconsistency.

"Your ancestors had ceded, to the king and parliament, the power of disposing, without their consent, of both their lives, liberties, and properties.” Wesley's Calm Address to the Americans, p. 7.

"No man can dispose of another's life, but by his own consent. I add, no, nor with his consent. For no man has a right to dispose of his own life. Now, it is an indisputable truth, nihil dat quod non habet: none gives what he has not. It plainly follows, that no man can give to another, a right, which he never had himself, viz. the power of the sword, any such power as implies a right to take away life." Wesley's Thoughts on the Origin of Power, p. 11. printed A. D. 1772.

How delightfully do those two opposite paragraphs coalesce and hang together! But what are contradictions, to John Wesley? I congratulate administration on their acquisition of so wise, so knowing, so honest, so uniform, so disinterested, so steady and so respectable a politician. A politician, who, in some companies, affirms, that his sudden approbation of government measures was occasioned by his perusal of Dr. Johnson's 'Taxation no Tyranny:' and, without a blush, avers, in other companies, that his said political conversion was brought about by virtue of a long conversation with two members of parliament. Pity it is, that great truth-tellers, like great wits, should be so famous for short memories!

London, Oct. 19, 1775.

POSTSCRIPT.

Should Dr. Johnson's echo be asked to preach a charity sermon, larded with Tory politics, in Bethnal Green church; we shall have the title of a good old song realized afresh: and the charity girls may squeak a stanza to the tune of, The blind Beggar of Bethnal Green.

Particulars of Pope Joan

PARTICULARS OF POPE JOAN.

It has been confidently asserted, by some modern members of the Romish communion, that the story concerning pope Joan, is a mere fiction, invented by protestants to blacken the infallible church. In opposition to which insinuation, I here insert the following extract, copied, verbatim, by my own hand, from that scarce and curious old book, entitled The Nuremburgh Chronicle; which was printed at Nuremburgh, in the year of our Lord 1493; in a popish city, by popish printers, and compiled by popish hands, no less than four and twenty years before the first dawn of the reformation which Luther afterwards began.

The reader will find the following succinct history of this famous female pope in the above work, p. 169. b.

"Johannes Anglicus (et ut ferunt), ex mogunciaco ortus, malis artibus pontificatum adeptus; mentitus enim sexum, cum femina esset. Adolescens admodum, Athenas cum viro docto amatore proficiscitur: ibique, praeceptores bonarum artium audiendo, tantum profecit, ut, Romain veniens, paucos admodum etiam in sacris literis pares haberet, nedum superiores. Legendo autem et disputando docte et acute, tantum benevolentiae et auctoritatis sibi comparavit, ut, mortuo Leone, in ejus locum (ut Martinus ait), omnium consensu, pontifex crearetur. Verum postea a familiari compressa, cum aliquandiu occulte ventrem tulisset; tandem, cum ad Lateranensem basilicam proficisceretur, intra theatrum (quod Coloseum vocant) a Neronis coloso and sanctum Clementem, doloribus circumventa, peperit. Eoque loci mortua, pontificatus sui anno secundo, mense uno, diebus quatuor, sine ullo honore sepelitur. Sunt qui haec duo scribant: pontificem ipsum quum ad Lateranensum basilicam proficiscitur, detestandi facinoris causa, et viam illam consulto delinare; et ejusdem vitandi erroris causa, dum primo in sede Petri collocatur, ad eam rem perforata genitalia ob ultimo diacono obtrectari."

Translation of the above,

"John of English descent, but said to have been born at Mentz, obtained the popedom by sinister arts: for, she palmed herself upon the world as a man, when, in reality, she was a woman. In her youth, she accompanied a learned lover of hers, to Athens: and there, by attending the lectures of the best literary professors, she made so great a progress in erudition, that, on her arrival in Rome, she had few equals, and no superiors, in all kinds of theological knowledge. By her learned lectures, and by her masterly disputations, she acquired so much esteem and authority, that, on the death of Leo, she was, by universal consent (as Martinus affirms), created pope.

“Some time after her elevation to the pontifical dignity, she became criminally familiar with one of her domestics; and pregnancy was the consequence. She took care, by every precaution, to conceal this circumstance, as long as possible: until, at last, as she was walking [in public procession] to the Lateran church [in Rome], she was suddenly seized, with labour-pains, and brought forth her infant, in that part of the street which lies between the Theatre and the church of St. Clement. She died on the spot; having held the popedom two years, one month, and four days.

“Some writers affirm that to this very day, whenever the pope walks in procession to the Lateran church, he constantly goes thither by another way, to avoid reviving the memory of the above-mentioned detestable event; and that, in order to prevent a similar imposition" [i. e. in order that the infallible church may not again mistake the sex of her popes], “the new-elected pontiff is properly examined, by the junior deacon, at the time of his holiness' first enthronement in St. Peter's chair; the seat whereof is perforated for that purpose."

Thus far the Nuremburgh Chronicle. To which I add the following indisputable particulars.

1. This said Mrs. Joan (who called herself John VIII.) was successor, in the popedom, to Leo IV. who died, A. D. 855, and she herself was succeeded by Benedict III.

2. Not only do many grave Roman catholic historians assert the fact; but the fact itself has also exercised the wits of more than a few ingenious poets of that communion. Witness the following epigammatic verse:

Papa pater patrum peperit papissa papellum.

Not to mention those lines of Mantuan, who was himself a Carmelite friar, and who represents pope Joan and her lover hanging in the ante-chamber of hell:

Hic pendebat adhuc sexum mentita virilem,

Foemina, cui triplici Phrygiam diademate mitram

Suspendebat apex; et pontificalis adulter.

3. The statue of this she-pope remained, in the cathedral church of Sienna, so low down, as until about the year 1677: when it was demolished, in order to stifle all memory of an incident so disastrous and dishonourable to the holy see.

The reader should be apprized, that a wooden print, representing the said lady and her child, was inserted originally, and still remains, in the Nuremburgh Chronicle above-mentioned.

Was not at least this pope the whore of Babylon?

Contemplation on Snow

CONTEMPLATION ON SNOW.

Job 38:22. "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?

The whole world of nature, no less than those of grace and of glory, is under the absolute dominion and the never ceasing direction of God. Every wind that blows, is of his breathing; and every drop, whether fluid or condensed, that falls from the sky, is of his sending. At this very time, must the adoring nations confess, that he giveth snow like wool; and he scattereth the hoar frost, like ashes; he casteth forth his ice, like morsels: who can stand before his cold? Ps 147:16-17. - He saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength. Job 37:6.

Let the same question be put to my readers, which speaking Omnipotence once put to Job (Job 38:22). "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow?" Hast thou considered its nature, its properties, and its uses?

Dew, mist, rain, snow, hail, and clouds, are no more than coalitions of watery vapours, which have been partly forced towards the surface of our terraqueous globe, by the latent fires with which its bowels are fraught; and partly drawn up from it, by the insinuating, attractive agency of the sun. The humid particles, thus exhaled, naturally ascend; as being, in their uncombined state, lighter than the surrounding air: and persist to soar, until they arrive at a region of the atmosphere, where their flight is stopped by other preceding vapours, already exhaled and condensed into clouds. Thus arrested and detained, they unite (like coalescing spherules of quicksilver, or like the contacting globules of water in a containing vessel) into floating masses; and remain in a state of literal suspense and fluctuation, until, by accumulated compression, and by their own collected weight, they become specifically heavier than the sustaining air, and fall in larger or smaller drops to the earth and ocean from whence they sprung. - Striking representation of man, in his best estate of mortal excellence! Are you rich, or exalted, or prosperous, or gay? remember, that you are under as absolute obligation to providence for these glittering distinctions, as a rising vapour is indebted, for its transitory elevation, to the action of the solar beams. And, vapour-like, you too must fall, after having hovered your few destined moments: for, dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. An inspired pen has both started and resolved the question: What is your life? It is even a vapour that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. Jas 4:14. If so,

“Why all this toil for triumphs of an hour?

What though we wade in wealth, or soar in fame?

Earth's highest glory ends in, 'Here he lies!'

And 'dust to dust,' concludes her noblest song."

Be wise, therefore, to slip the cable of your affections from the world's evanid shore. Supplicate the holy Spirit to make you rich towards God. And, under the sweet breezes of his gracious influence, set sail in good earnest for the kingdom of heaven.

When the watery treasures of the sky descend to their native earth, more like respectful visitants, than like rude invaders, i. e. in moderate quantities, and with not too impetuous force, we call them showers. When they greatly exceed in those two particulars, we give them the hostile name of storms. - Thus the human passions, if rectified and regulated by supernatural grace, are instruments of happiness, and productive of the most beneficial effects. But, if unrestrained by Providence, and unrefined by the Holy Ghost, they operate like the deadly Egyptian tempest, which smote both man and beast, and destroyed every herb, and brake all the trees of the field. Ex 9:25.

While the middle regions of the air are impregnated with frost, the falling drops catch cold (if the expression may be allowed), and are congealed, in the course of their descent. Hail, and snow, are but other names for different modifications of frozen rain. Hail is rain consolidated into a hard and heavy mass. Snow is a multitude of small, hooked icicles, which, interfering with each other in their fall, become mutually entangled and interlinked: and cohere in delicate but irregular flakes, of very light, because of very expansive and superficial texture. - If snow is no more than particles of water, congealed in their passage to the earth, it affords but too just an emblem of our affections, when, instead of aspiring to God in Christ, they subside and gravitate towards a perishable world. Under such spiritual declension, our comforts are chilled, and our graces benumbed: until a fresh rising of the Sun of righteousness upon our souls dissolves the moral frost, and again warms us into the meltings of penitential love. His beams strike upon the rock, and then the waters flow.

Reflections on a Thunder Storm

REFLECTIONS ON A THUNDER STORM.

WHEN the lightning flashes and when the thunder rolls, do we, as it were, hear the Almighty speak in the one, and see a glimpse of his tremendous glory in the other! If, when the clouds pour out water, when the air thunders, and the arrows of his lightning are sent abroad, it is natural for the guilty to tremble, for the just to pray, and for all to look up to him whose voice is thus mighty in operation; where will the ungodly, where will the unbeliever, where will the habitual sinner appear, when the Lord himself descends from heaven with a shout, a shout that shall unbar the gates of death, recal the scattered dust of all mankind, and wake that dust to life?

May we ever listen to the Almighty when he speaks in thunder, or looks in lightning, and call to mind that awful period when the final trump shall summon us to the bar! may every such season, be improved to this beneficial purpose! And though thunder and other effects are under God, owing to natural causes, and may be accounted for on natural principles; yet let us remember, that natural causes are caused by the God of nature, and that the effects which they produce, are in truth the effects of his all active, all governing providence. And this is the glorious God that maketh the thunder. Such a view of things will render the most obvious events lessons of the highest instruction, and means of spiritual improvement. Thus considered, thunder teaches, and lightning holds the lamp to knowledge: nature becomes subservient to grace, and the laws of the material system direct to heaven. And should we not aspire to the friendship of that Being, whose voice shakes the earth, and whose eyes are as a flame of fire? Should we not approach his footstool, humbled in the dust of repentance, and trusting in the propitiation of him, who hushed the infinitely more dreadful thunder of divine resentment, and, in his own blood, quenched the lightning of vindictive wrath? Possessed of interest in his availing merit, and conformed, as far as human infirmity will permit, to his blessed example, we need fear nothing. Though the earth was removed, and the hills carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof should rage and swell, and the mountains shake at the tempest of the same; yet, safely anchored on the rock of redeeming merit, and lodged in the arms of God's everlasting love, we should be equally free both from danger and from dread. Let the inferior thunders grate upon the ear; let sublunary lightnings flash terror on the eye, so we are enabled to take shelter beneath the hiding place of a Redeemer's righteousness, and his Spirit, in gentlest accents, whispers comfort to the heart. Happy they, who thus dwell beneath the defence of the Most High, who abide under the shadow of the Almighty, and to whom his faithfulness and truth are a shield and buckler!

Thoughts on Perseverance

THOUGHTS ON PERSEVERANCE.

Many of God's dear people are frequently afraid, that, on account of their own weakness, and the power of their spiritual enemies, they shall at length make shipwreck of faith, and totally fall away. Yet perhaps none stand more sure and safe than those, who think they cannot stand at all: for “Happy is the man who feareth always," Pr 28:14. Happy the soul that is possessed of that holy fear, which drives him to the Lord, keeps him vile in his own eyes, and causeth him to be ever dependent upon the word and promise of a faithful God, and makes him rejoice with trembling, and tremble with hope.

But we are assured from the oracles of unerring truth, "that the righteous should hold on his way; and he that hath clean hands," he (whose actions are pure, in consequence of his heart being purified by faith) "shall be stronger and stronger,” Job 17:9. As this doctrine is a source of comfort and support to the children of God, I shall humbly offer some arguments to prove it, which have been matter of serious meditation, and, I trust, of consolation to my own mind.

I. The economy of the covenant of grace. - The covenant is said to be "ordered in all things, and sure," 2Sa 23:5. This the holy Psalmist triumphed in, even in the prospect of death; this enabled him to look the king of terrors in the face with composure and serenity; this emboldened him to play on the hole of the asp, and to put his hand on the cockatrice den, Isa 11:8. Feeling his mortal powers decay, he rejoiced in the approaching prospect of that glory, to which, by virtue of this well ordered covenant, he possessed a valid and unalienable right.

All believers have one and the same title to glory; all are equally interested in the blessings of the covenant; and, it being sure, it follows, that none of those, whom God deals with, in a covenant way, can finally perish, or it could not be termed well ordered, or sure. The apostle calls it "a better covenant," Heb 8:6. better than that made with Adam. Our first parents were capacitated to stand, and continue in obedience to their Sovereign; but, being mutable, they fell, no grace being promised to secure their standing. But believers stand and are upheld by the veracity and immutability of God that cannot lie. The covenant of grace, then, is a better covenant, and established upon better promises, which assure the people of God of grace to help in every time of need. It will, methinks, be hard to prove how it can be called a better covenant, if those that are in it may (as some suppose) fall away.

II. The death of Christ is another argument to prove this point. Christ is the head of his church under the covenant of grace, as Adam was of all mankind under the covenant of works; as such, he graciously undertook for all his people, and, by his active and passive obedience, he fully satisfied the law and justice of God on their behalf, and opened a new and a living way for their return to God here by faith, hereafter by sweet and blessed fruition. Nor did he die for all; for there were some, when he died, suffering in their own persons the vengeance of eternal fire, Jude 1:7. It would be blasphemy to say he died for those who were then in torment: this is the natural product of Arminianism. We allow the scripture says, "he tasted death for every man," Heb 2:9. uper pantov cannot signify for all, but for every one. If we attend to the apostle's strain of meaning, it is evident, he speaks of many sons being brought unto glory. Christ is not ashamed to call them his brethren. "Forasmuch, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that by death he might destroy death," &c. Those he represented in his obedience unto death, are his brethren, the members of his body mystical, and he tasted death for every one of them. Hence we are warranted to conclude, every one of his brethren or people shall be saved. To say, all may be saved, is in effect to affirm that none shall: a thing that only may be, may surely not be; and if there is but a peradventure for our salvation, it is easy to prove no soul ever can be saved. Our Saviour says, “All that the Father hath given me, shall come to me; and him that cometh, I will in no wise cast out, but will raise him up at the last day," Joh 6:37-44. In which words is contained, 1. the doctrine of election; 2. of faith; 3. of glorification, in order to which, perseverance is absolutely necessary, and must be implied.

When we consider Christ to be God, he must know for whom he suffered; and if we also consider the greatness, merits, and efficacy of his sufferings; he could not undergo all in vain: but it would (with reverence I speak it) be in vain, if those he died for were finally to miscarry.

III. The work of the Spirit. - When the Spirit begins, he carries on his work in the hearts of his people, till they are made meet for the inheritance prepared for them above; for he has engaged in covenant to bow the wills, to regulate the powers, and sanctify the affections, of all the elect; to lead, guide, strengthen, and direct them through this wilderness; and he never leaves the subjects of his grace, till he puts them into the arms of the Redeemer in glory. To this purpose Christ speaks, Joh 4:14. "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst. But the water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of water springing up (allomenou, bubbling, and still ascending with energy and constancy, till it bubble up) into everlasting life." Pertinent to this point, also, is what the apostle says, "He that establishes us with you, and hath anointed us, is God, who hath sealed us, and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts, 2Co 1:21-22. Those that are established and anointed, and have the sealing and earnest of the Spirit, cannot fall away. This is again mentioned in Eph 1:13-14.

IV. We may argue from God's faithfulness and immutability. That immutability is an essential attribute of God, the scriptures abundantly assert. Mal 3:6. Worthy our attention is what an excellent author says upon the unchangeableness of God: "Could he ever be changed, it must be by others, or himself; by others it cannot be, not being in the power of any; how can the thing made have power over him that made it? Nor by himself: if so, it must be for the better, or the worse: for the worse it cannot be, for then he must cease to be the most perfect being, or cease to be God: nor for the better, for how can he be better, who is already absolutely the best?" Jenks' Medit. vol. ii. 2nd edit., p. 29.

God having bestowed his grace upon his people, he never takes it from them; his unchangeableness will not admit of it: "The gifts and callings of God are without repentance," Ro 11:19. "If when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life," Ro 5:10. If when we were strangers and enemies to God, and the way of salvation revealed in the gospel, his grace reached us, and proved victorious in subjecting us to his will; much more, being made willing to love, follow, and obey him, we shall be saved and preserved to his kingdom of glory. Saving grace is the free gift of God; and he gave it to remain and abide for ever, Ec 3:14. This is his precious promise in Isa 54:8-10. “With everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord, thy Redeemer. The mountains shall depart; and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee," &c. So says Christ, Joh 10:28, speaking of his sheep, “they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands." And the apostle speaks of some who are kept by the power of God (kept as in a garrison), through faith unto salvation, 1Pe 1:5. Whence is that of an ancient father: Horum (videl. electorum) si quispiam perit, humano vitio vincitur Deus: sed nemo eorum perit quia nulla re vincitur Deus: "If any of the elect perish, God is overcome by man's perverseness; but none of them perish, because God, who is omnipotent, can by no means be overcome." August, de Corrupt, et Grat. cap. vii. The saints, therefore, shall be brought off more than conquerors; for God hath said, "I will never, never leave thee: no, no, I will never forsake thee," (for thus that precious promise should be rendered) Heb 13:5. Add to this,

V. The testimony of God's people in all ages of the church. Look at the generations of old, and see, did any ever trust in God, and was confounded? or "when were the righteous cast off?" “The Lord will not cast off his people," Ps 94:14. La 3:31. To this truth they are now enabled, at times, to bear their joint testimony. Bucer, a little before his death, spoke thus to Bradford: Castiget fortiter abjiciet autem nunquam, nunquam abjiciet: which exactly corresponds with the Psalmist, Ps 73:26. “My heart and my flesh faileth; but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever!” How triumphant is the apostle's strain, Ro 8:38-39. We read of Baxter (who, though heterodox in many things, was a partaker of the one thing needful), that, when asked by a friend, when he lay on his death-bed, how he was, he replied, "almost well," which a person, in the view of opening eternity, could never say, unless he found God very precious, and found him faithful. Whatever dross this holy man carried about him in his life, it was consumed in his death, and he received into glory. The testimony of glorified spirits above, as it bears weight in it, so it corroborates this truth. Their song is, "Faithful and true," Re 19:11. This is proved likewise,

VI. And lastly, from the intercession of Christ. “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not," says our Saviour to Peter, Lu 22:32, and we know his prayer was heard; though his faith failed as to the exercise of it, yet the root and habit of it remained, and accordingly sprung forth, revived, and grew so strong, that Peter afterwards was emboldened to suffer and to die for his Lord.

Our Lord began the prayer upon earth which he now offers in heaven for his people: "Keep, through thy own name, those whom thou hast given me," Joh 17:11,24. he prays (or rather demands, as the purchase of his death) saying, "Father, I will, that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am;" on which ground we may conclude, that all Christ died for, shall possess that crown of glory that fadeth not away, it being impossible that Jesus should intercede in vain. This is the foundation of the apostle's challenge, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who also maketh intercession for us," Ro 8:34. May all God's people, who have their faces Zion-ward, take encouragement from these things, to go forward in the name and strength of the God of their salvation, till they arrive safe to the mansions of bliss, and endless felicity.

A Course of Family Prayer, for Each Day in the Week

A COURSE OF FAMILY PRAYER FOR EACH DAY IN THE WEEK.

Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Mt 18:20.

Praying in the Holy Ghost. Jude 1:20.

And the smoke of the incense, which came up with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God, out of the angel's hand, Re 8:4,

SUNDAY MORNING.

[Collect, before reading the appointed portion of Scripture.]

Through the riches of thy mercy, and by the power of thy sustaining goodness, we are brought in safety, to see the light of another day, even the light of a new Lord's day, the best of days, the type of that glorious rest, which remaineth for the people of God. Lord, send forth, and send down thy holy Spirit into our hearts; and make thy sabbath, a sabbath-day, indeed, to each of our souls; a day of spiritual improvement, heavenly consolation, and near communion with thee: O satisfy us with thy mercy, and that right soon; so shall we rejoice and be glad all the days of our lives. Lift up the light of thy countenance upon us at this time; bless us to all the means of grace, whether public or private, in the use of which we wait for thy salvation: O let them not be as wells without water; but make them channels of divine influence, and effectual to the end for which thou hast appointed them. We desire to begin the Lord's day with the Lord, and to hallow it by the word of God and by prayer. Enable us, O thou Father of mercies, to keep it holy unto thee, and to enjoy saving communion with thee, for the sake of Jesus Christ. Amen.

(Here let the family rise from their supplicating posture, and all being seated, let a select portion of holy scripture be read; which ended, a hymn or psalm may be sung: after which, the master of the family may conclude as follows, either standing or kneeling.) Let us pray.

Our Father, which art in heaven; hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil: for thine is the kingdom, and the power and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

We thank thee, gracious God, for the return of the morning light, and for causing the day-spring to know its time and place. O may the day-star from on high, visit our benighted souls; and may that Saviour, who is the bright and morning star, arise and shine within us with healing in his wings: glory be to thy goodness, that the light we see is the Lord's; that this is the day which thou hast made for thyself, and set apart for thy name. May this sabbath-day be a high day to our souls; a day of spiritual feasting and heavenly joy; bring us, O blessed Spirit, into thy banqueting house, and let thy banner over us be love. Blessed be thy name, that we see so many of the days of the Son of man; that we enjoy so many precious opportunities of worshipping thee in the beauty of holiness, and of paying our vows unto thee publicly, in the presence of thy people. May we be in the Spirit on the Lord's day; and call the sabbath a delight, holy of the Lord and honourable. May we cease from our own works, as God on the seventh day ceased from his; and abound only in the work of the Lord. Especially make it to us a sabbath of rest from sin, and a sabbath of rest in God. We are, indeed, utterly unworthy of the honour, and unable for the work of a fellowship, with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ; but we come unto thee, O blessed Lamb of God, in thy own adorable name, who alone art worthy; and depend on the strength and supply of thy good Spirit, to work all our works in us, and to ordain peace for us. Bless all thy ministering servants throughout the whole world, may they obtain mercy of the Lord to be faithful; faithful to thee, faithful to truth, and faithful to the souls entrusted to their care. Particularly, vouchsafe to be with all those who are this day to stand up in thy name, and preach the gospel of thy grace. May they be mighty through thee, to convince the unconvinced, to convert the unconverted, to heal them that are of a contrite heart, and to build up believers on their most holy faith. Enable them to preach thy truths with power, and with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; thou thyself graciously working with them, and confirming the work with signs following. Be in the midst of all thy worshipping people, who shall assemble in thy name today. Have mercy on those who shall be unwillingly detained from thy house, by sickness, or any other providential impediment; comfort them in secret, sanctify their absence by granting them much of thy inward presence. Let them that tarry at home, divide the spoil; and, as they are excluded from the stream, give them to drink the deeper at the fountain head. Lord, assist us, thy unworthy servants, in the religious services of this day. Make us joyful in the house of prayer; when we wait upon thee for a renewal of our strength, may we find our strength indeed renewed; may we inwardly experience the grace of the means, while we attend on the means of grace; and enjoy a saving intercourse with the God of ordinance, in frequenting the ordinances of God. Vouchsafe to take us and ours into thy gracious protection. Bless and preserve us in our going out and coming in. Support and strengthen, direct and guard us; pardon our innumerable sins, the depravity of our nature, and the offences of our lives; and sanctify us to thyself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and seal us thine in body, soul and spirit, to the day of the Lord Jesus. This day, gracious Lord, keep us in thy fear: let us not find our own pleasure, nor do our own ways, nor speak our own words; but live entirely to thee, converse with thee, know more of thee, and grow up into a greater fitness for thy kingdom and glory. All we beg, O gracious Father, is, for thy mercy's sake, in Jesus Christ, our Saviour: for whom we bless thee, and to whom, with thyself and the Holy Ghost, we desire to ascribe, all might, majesty, and praise, for ever and ever. Amen.

The Lord bless us and keep us; the Lord make his face to shine upon us, and be gracious to us, and give us peace, this day and ever more. Amen.

SUNDAY EVENING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Receive us graciously, O thou God of all mercy, though we be not cleansed according to the purification of the sanctuary: we trust we can say, that our whole dependence is fixed on him, on that ever blessed Mediator, between God and men, in whom thou hast declared thyself well pleased. Vouchsafe to clothe us with his righteousness, and to sprinkle both our hearts and our performances with his precious blood, which speaketh better things, than that of Abel. Smile upon us, and be gracious to us, in this our private audience; may our petitions be received with favour at the throne of grace, and may an answer of peace be sealed in our hearts. In this, and all other our doings, may we be enabled to look unto thee for a blessing, and to receive the blessing at thy hand, through Jesus Christ, our Saviour.

[After reading and singing, add]

Our Father, &c.

O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come. Thou art the Lord, by whom we escape death, and enjoy all things pertaining to life and godliness. Thine we are, and thee we ought to serve. Thou hast holden us up, ever since we were born: may our praise be always of thee. We thank thee for thy care over us, and thy favour toward us, this day, both in a way of providence, and in a way of grace. Less than the least of all thy mercies, we are continually favoured with the greatest: we, who deserve justly to be forsaken of thee, and to be cast out of the sight of thine eyes, are yet spared hitherto, to be monuments of thy goodness, and of the love that passeth knowledge. Dearest Father, impress our hearts with a lively and lasting sense of what thou hast done for us; and do thou crown all, by working in us that which is well-pleasing in thy sight. Give us unfeignedly repentance toward God, and saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Sprinkle us with his precious blood, from all the guilt of our sins, both original and actual; clothe us with his righteousness, unto justitication; and grant us that sanctification of thy Spirit, without which, no man can see the Lord. We desire to be humbled in thy glorious presence, for the sins of this day; for the iniquity of our holy things; for our short comings, and our misdoings. Surely, all our personal righteousnesses are as filthy rags, in the eyes of thine infinite holiness; and our best performances, if brought to the test of thy perfect law, would but add to our condemnation, and enhance our punishment. But thou art a God gracious and merciful, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, through the ransom thou hast found, and the Lamb which thou hast provided for a burnt-offering. Give us to see, that our guilt was transferred to him; that his obedience is imputed to us; and that we are, through grace, interested in all the blessings of the everlasting covenant. To the care and protection of thy almighty providence would we humbly commend ourselves this night. Take charge of us and ours, O thou Keeper of Israel, who never slumberest nor sleepest, watch over us for good. When we sleep, let our hearts wake, and our souls lie open to the influence of thy blessed Spirit: keep us without sin, by the power of thy grace. If we have received any spiritual improvement today, Lord grant that it may abide with us, and increase with us ever more and more. Let it not be as the morning dew, that quickly passes away; but fasten thy word upon our hearts, as a nail in a sure place. Cherish every motion of thy good Spirit; begin the work of grace, where it is not yet begun; and carry it on with power, where it is. May our penitence be deep and lasting; may our faith be strong, lively and fervent; and build us up into living habitations of thee the living God. Sanctify and seal us thine, in body, soul, and spirit. Sprinkle, according to thy own most gracious promise, clean water upon us, that we may be clean; from all our filthiness, and from all our idols do thou cleanse us: a new heart also do thou give unto us, and a new spirit do thou put within us: take, O take away the stony heart out of our flesh, and give us hearts of flesh: put thy Spirit within us, and cause us to walk in thy statutes, and to keep thy judgments and do them. May we, from principles of faith in thee, and love to thee, be careful to maintain good works; and go on from strength to strength, until we are called to appear before the God of gods in Zion: there to celebrate that never ending Sabbath, which angels and archangels, with the spirits of just men made perfect, are now enjoying before the throne. With them, may we see thee as thou art; with them, may we cast our crowns before thee; and sing the praises of the great Three-one, of the Father who loved us, of the Son who washed us from our sins in his own blood, and of the eternal Spirit who sanctified us by his grace, and preserved us to the day of Christ. Whatever we ask, we ask it at thy hand, for the merit's sake of thy dear Son, our only Lord and Saviour. Amen.

The Lord bless us, and keep us, &c.

MONDAY MORNING.

(Collect, before reading the Scripture.)

Open our eyes, O Lord, that we may discern the wonders of thy law; and rejoice our hearts with the knowledge of thy love. Take away our iniquities, and receive us graciously. Be light to our darkness, wisdom to our folly, and manifest thy strength in our weakness. Remember us according to the favour which thou bearest to thy own people; stir us up to seek thy face, and to lay hold on thy covenant; and make us find that it is indeed good for us to draw nigh unto thee, and to wait upon thee, in and through the name and merits of Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Advocate.

[The Scripture being read, and a Psalm sung, add as follows.]

Our Father, &c.

Gracious and glorious Lord, the eyes of all wait upon thee; thou art the hope of all the ends of the earth. In thee we live and move and have our being: thou givest us life, and breath, and all things. Still thou takest care of us, and watchest over us; even in the hours of sleep, when we are unable to care for ourselves. And thy mercies are daily renewed; thy goodness is repeated every morning: yea, every moment, dost thou give us fresh occasion of praise and thanksgiving. Blessed be thy name, for the peace, rest, and safety of the night past. Enable us, in the strength of thy grace and of thy gifts, to love thee truly, to serve thee faithfully, and to depend on thee without wavering. In all our ways, may we acknowledge thee; and be thou graciously pleased to establish our goings, and to direct our path. We desire to put ourselves under thy gracious conduct and thy fatherly protection. We beg the heavenly guidance, blessing, and assistance of thy good Spirit, to choose our inheritance for us, and to dispose of us, and all that concerns us, to the glory of thy great name. O Lord, withdraw not thy tender mercies from us, neither shut up thy loving kindness in displeasure. Though we deserve to lose thy favour and thy presence, yet grant us the comfort of thy help, and the joy of thy salvation, and uphold us with thy free Spirit. Punish not our past offences, by leaving us to ourselves, and giving us up to the dominion of our sins; but give us penitent hearts for all the evil committed by us, and thy merciful discharge from all the guilt that lies upon us. And grant us, O good Lord, the comfortable sense and apprehension of thy free acceptance of us, and of thy gracious intentions toward us, in the Son of thy love, the lover of our souls; that our hearts may bless thee, and all that is within us may praise thy holy name. - Lord, keep us from sin this day. Subdue, as well as pardon, our iniquities: and herein may we exercise ourselves, to have always a conscience void of offence, both towards God and towards man. - Whilst upon earth, grant us a due supply of all things needful for us in the house of our pilgrimage. Sanctify to us our enjoyments and our employments, our comforts and our crosses, every condition we are to be in, and every event that shall befal us. Enable us to live to thy honour and glory: and make us to pass through things temporal, as neither to lose nor forget the things eternal. If thou enlighten us not, we shall run into error; if thou prevent not, we shall relapse into sin; if thou preserve us not, we shall fall into dangers. O let thy good providence be our defence and security; and thy holy Spirit be our comforter, guide, and counsellor, in all our ways: until, through the merits of thy Son, and the multitude of thy mercies, we are called away, to be for ever with the Lord. Amen.

MONDAY EVENING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Teach us, O Lord, the way of thy statutes, and make us keep it unto the end. Incline our hearts to thy testimonies, and cause us to go in the path of thy commandments, for therein is our desire. May the law of thy mouth be dearer unto us, than thousands of gold and silver; and let thy holy Spirit accompany thy word with saving power to our souls, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[After reading and singing, add as follows.]

Our Father, &c.

Infinitely great, and infinitely gracious God, thy glory exceeds our utmost thoughts, and thy mercies are over all thy works. We, thy sinful creatures, have particular reason to admire and adore, not only thy patience, which bears with us, notwithstanding all that we have done against thee; but likewise thy never ceasing bounty, by which our comforts are continued, and our wants supplied. We desire to approach thee, as our kind and merciful Father in Jesus Christ: humbly beseeching thee, to wash away our sins in his most precious blood; and to give us a sufficient measure of thy grace and holy Spirit, to enable us against them. Thou didst create man, O Lord, after thy own blessed image; but we have destroyed ourselves, and come short of thy glory: the crown is fallen from our heads, and woe unto us, for we are sinners both by nature and by practice: justly mightest thou swear in thy wrath, that we shall not enter into thy rest. Yet suffer us, and enable us, to plead, in faith, thy gracious promise, that whosoever trusteth in the Saviour thou hast provided, and come unto thee by him, shall never perish, nor fall into condemnation, but have everlasting life for his sake. Lord, we would believe; O help our unbelief! and work in us that unfeigned repentance towards God, and that right faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, that we may be of the number of them that do indeed repent and believe to the saving of the soul. Save us, O good Lord, from our sinful selves; and from the love of the present evil world; and from every thing that opposes thy grace, and tends to hurt our souls. Stablish us in thy love; strengthen us to perform thy will; and settle our faith on Christ, the rock of ages. - To thy mercy in him we would humbly commit ourselves this night. Be our sun, to enlighten us; be our shield, to defend us. Grant us, if it please thee, rest of body, and peace of mind. Let the voice of joy, health, and safety, be heard in our dwelling: make our walls, salvation; and our gates, praise. - Comfort all, who want the comforts we enjoy: and grant suitable supplies of mercy, both spiritual and temporal, to all the afflicted, wheresoever they are, and howsoever tried. - Remember, with the favour that thou bearest to thy people, all our absent friends and relations: be thou a friend to them, and may they stand in a covenant relation to thee. Make them and us such as thou wouldest have us, and as such as thou wilt accept of in Christ Jesus, here to thy gracious favour, and hereafter to thy glorious kingdom. Hear us, O God of the spirits of all flesh! Hear us, in behalf of ourselves and others; hear others, in behalf of themselves and us: and convert those, who pray neither for others nor themselves. Above all, hear the Son of thy love, the lover of our souls, who intercedes we trust, for us, at thy right hand. For him, and to him, with thyself, and the blessed Spirit, enable us to ascribe everlasting praise and glory. Amen.

TUESDAY MORNING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; vouchsafe, at this time, to cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy holy Spirit: that we may perfectly love thee, worthily magnify thy holy name, and offer thee a sacrifice in righteousness, acceptable to thy glorious Majesty, in and through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.

[After reading and singing, add as follows.]

Our Father, &c.

Blessed Lord, thine we are, and thee we ought to serve. The obligations of thy law, and the endearments of thy love, render it our indispensable duty to be faithful in the covenant, and to abound in the work of the Lord. But, alas! we are unprofitable servants, and worse than unprofitable; for we have drank in iniquity like water, our provocations against thee are increased, and our trespasses are grown up unto the heavens. We have lived to ourselves, instead of living unto him who died for us and rose again; we have not, as we should, glorified thee in our bodies and in our spirits, which are thine. - And since it is not in man to recover and save himself, O enable us to look unto thee, in whom alone our help lies. We thank thee, for laying help upon one that is mighty; for committing thy people, and the work of their salvation to the hands of him who hath finished transgression, made reconciliation for the iniquity of them that believe, and brought out and brought in an everlasting righteousness, for their justification. In his name, we come to thy throne of grace, hoping to obtain mercy, and find grace to help in every time of need: for his sake, we humbly intreat thy favour and the light of thy countenance; begging thee to be reconciled to us, and to be at peace with us, as a Father of mercies, and a God of consolation. And, Lord, enable us to walk as becomes those upon whom thy name is called. May we be followers of Christ, as dear children, and adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. O circumcise our hearts, to love the Lord our God: and may thy Almighty Spirit so write the law of holiness upon our minds, that it may be our meat and our drink to do thy will; that we may hate all iniquity, and every false way; and resemble the blessed Jesus, as our pattern, while we trust in his merits as our propitiation. Lord, make our services acceptable to thee, while we live; and our souls ready for thee, when we die. As long as we are in the world, keep us from the evil of it, and from the snares and dangers, to which we are continually exposed, in our passage through it. O make our pilgrimage safe and sure through all the troubles, changes, and temptations of this mortal life, to the unchangeable glories and felicities of the life everlasting. Be merciful to us this day. Keep us in all our ways, bless all our lawful undertakings, and grant that we may take nothing in hand, but what is warranted by thy word, and agreeable to thy will concerning us. Set thy fear before our eyes, all the day long; and put thy love into our hearts, that we may not depart from thee. Bless and preserve us in our going out and coming in. May the angel of thy presence, save us from all sin and danger. Hear and answer us, O Lord, for the sake of him who hath loved and redeemed us, even the Lord our righteousness, to whom be ascribed the kingdom and power and glory. Amen.

The blessing of God Almighty, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, be with us, and all that belong to us, this day, and evermore. Amen.

TUESDAY EVENING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

O LORD, thou art good unto them that wait for thee, and to the soul that seeketh thee. We desire at this time, to wait for thee, and to wait upon thee; and to seek thee in the way of thy appointment. Give us a token for good, and an answer of peace, while we draw near unto thee in the name of Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.

[After reading and singing, add as follows.]

Our Father, &c.

How excellent is thy mercy, O God! and what encouragement dost thou give us to put our trust under the shadow of thy wings! thou art the bountiful giver of the good that our souls desire, and the merciful withholder of the evil that our sins deserve. From thee comes all our help; and in thee make us repose all our hope. We acknowledge thy great and daily goodness to us; and our own absolute unworthiness of the least of all thy mercies. We desire to take shame and confusion to ourselves, that we have so little improved, and so greatly abused, thy patience with us, and the various instances of thy bounty toward us. Thy very mercies help to aggravate the heavy reckoning of our offences; because we have done so much against thee, after all the great things thou hast done, and art continually doing, for us. We would, O Lord, be penitent and humbled for our sins; and intreat thy gracious favour in Jesus Christ for the pardon of them. Forgive us, we pray thee, for his blood and righteousness' sake; absolve us from all the evil, of which we stand guilty before thee; and, being justified by faith, grant us peace with God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. And as we pray, that thou wilt be to us a Father of mercies, and a God of consolation; so also that thou wouldst make us followers of thee, as dear children. Work in us, by thy holy Spirit, that which is well pleasing in thy sight. Lord, thou knowest our weakness, and the temptations to which we are exposed: our dangers from the enemy of souls; and from the present world, which is full of snares; and, above all, from the enemy within, our vile flesh and deceitful hearts, so apt to betray us into sin. We pray, therefore, that thou wilt arm us with the whole armour of God; and uphold us with thy free Spirit; and watch over us for good evermore. O make us experience the strongest aids of thy heavenly grace; that we may never fall a prey to the spiritual adversary that seeks to devour us. And seeing thou art yet pleased to hold our souls in life, and to make us find and feel, by every day's experience, how gracious and merciful thou art; give us hearts more sensible of thy love to us, more enflamed with love to thee, and more thankful for the blessings which thou art pleased to multiply upon us. And cause us to show forth thy praise, not only by speaking good of thy name, but by ordering our conversations as becomes the gospel of Christ. To thy mercy in him do we humbly commend ourselves and ours this night: beseeching thee to visit us with thy salvation, and to preserve us, in soul and body, from all evils and dangers to which the weakness of our frame, and the greatness of our sins, expose us. May our repose be holy, safe, and refreshing; that we may rise again better fitted and enabled to serve thee according to thy will, in the duties of the following day, if it should be thy pleasure to make addition of another day to our lives. And as thou addest days and mercies, add repentance and amendment to our days; that, in proportion as we draw nearer to the grave, our souls may grow fitter for heaven. And for all the good things that we have had, and still have, and yet hope for at thy hands, to thy adorable name be all the praise, O Father, Son, and Spirit, world without end. Amen.

WEDNESDAY MORNING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Unto thee do we lift up our eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Have respect, we humbly beseech thee, both to us and to our offerings, for the sake of him who offered up himself for our offences, and rose again for our justification. Meet us with a blessing, who desire to meet thee in prayer; and make thy throne a throne of grace to us, through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

[After reading and singing, add]

Our Father, &c.

Lord God, bountiful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; thou keepest mercy for thousands, thou pardonest iniquity, transgression and sin; neither dost thou retain thy anger for ever, because thou delightest in mercy. Look down, O Lord, upon us, who would now be looking up to thee; and be favourable to us, as thou usest to be unto those that fear thy name. Look not upon the sin of our nature; nor the sins of our hearts and lives; which are more than we can number, and greater than we can express. O sprinkle us from an evil conscience, by the application of the blessed Redeemer's blood which cleanseth from all sin. And, seeing there is, in him, an infinite fulness of all that ever we can want, or wish, to render us holy, and to make us happy; grant us to receive, out of his fulness, grace sufficient for us: grace to pardon our sins, and subdue our iniquities; to justify our persons, and to sanctify our souls. Begin, or carry on, the new creation within; advance in us that saving change of heart, which may be the power of thy Spirit, more and more transform us into thy blessed image, and make us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light. And now, that we are entered upon another day, we beseech thee to carry us through it in thy fear and favour. Order all our steps in thy word, and, let no wickedness have dominion over us. Teach us to use the world, without abusing it; and may that portion of it which thou hast and shall assign us, be sanctified to us, by the word of God, and by prayer; and by the right employment and improvement of it to thy glory. Whatever we are without, O leave us not destitute of the things that accompany salvation; but satisfy us with the sense of thy favour, and adorn us with the graces of thy holy Spirit. Blessed be thy rich goodness, which has renewed our lives and thy mercies to us this morning. Lord, grant that all our comforts may flow to us in the channel of covenant love; and revert to the praise and glory of the gracious giver. Be with, protect, and bless us, in our going out and coming in. May the angel of thy presence save us, and the God of angels be our shield and exceeding great reward. Make us desire, resolve, and endeavour, to live in the obedience of thy holy will, and to the honour of thy blessed name. O restrain us from the evils and follies, into which we are prone to fall; and quicken us to the offices and duties we ought to perform. Grant that we may think and speak, will and do, the things that are well pleasing in thy sight; and have the strong consolation of acceptance with thee. So visit us with thy salvation, sanctify us by thy grace, and so carry us through life, that thy name may have the praise, and our souls the comfort, in the hour of death, and in the great day of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Lord bless us and keep us, &c.

WEDNESDAY EVENING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings, with thy most gracious favour, and further us with thy continual help; that, in this, and all other our works begun, continued and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy name, offer thee acceptable service, and finally, by thy mercy, obtain everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

[After reading and singing, add]

Our Father, &c.

Enable us, gracious God, to desire thee, as our chiefest good; and to come to thee, as our merciful Father in the Son of thy love. In his great name, and prevailing mediation alone, it is that we, who have multiplied our offences against thee, are encouraged still to present our persons and our prayers before thee. We are utterly unworthy to approach thy footstool, and to enjoy the privilege of intercourse with thee. We durst not appear in the presence of thy holy, glorious Majesty, in our own names, or trusting in our own sinful righteousness; our guilt is so great, and our iniquities so grievous, that we might justly be ashamed to come before thy face, and to tremble for fear of thy judgments. We would therefore fly for refuge to the merits of him, who we trust, has fully satisfied thy justice for our sins, and is now interceding at thy right hand for our souls: whom thou delightest to honour, in sparing, accepting, and saving poor unworthy sinners, upon his account. Deliver us, most gracious Lord, for his sake, from all those transgressions, for which our hearts condemn us; and from all of which thou that art greater than our hearts, knowest us to be guilty: and seal to us a full pardon in his most precious blood, which speaketh better things on our behalf, than we are able to do for ourselves in all our prayers. And may the time past of our lives suffice to have lived to ourselves, and to have served our own corrupt wills. O put an end to all our presumptuous and treacherous dealings with thy heavenly all-seeing Majesty: and create in us new and clean, humble and contrite hearts, to tremble at thy word and presence, and to hate and abandon all our foolish and sinful misdoings. Command thy blessing, and thy saving grace, to descend and rest upon the souls here before thee. Cause us to know the joyful sound of thy gospel, not only by the hearing of the ear, but in the channel of heavenly experience. O take possession of our hearts, and by the power of thy Spirit, draw up our affections to thy blessed self. Grant us union and communion with thee; such a sight and sense of sin, and of our lost estate by nature, as may render Christ and his righteousness precious to us; and such comfortable views of our justification through him, as may enlarge our hearts with joy, fill our lips with praise, and influence us to live unto him that died for us and rose again. - Lord, guide and keep us; make us wise and faithful in our several duties, and blessed and prosperous in the event. Sanctify our respective conditions to us, and fit us for whatever thou shalt please to call us to. - And now, O Lord, we beseech thee to accept our evening sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the mercies of the day past, and for thy unwearied goodness which has followed us all the days of our lives. Go on to abound toward us in loving kindness and tender mercies; passing by our innumerable sins, and supplying our every want. Take charge of us tonight. Hide us in thy pavilion, and compass us about with songs of deliverance. Whether we sleep or wake, keep us safe under thy wings, and may our hearts be occupied in thy statutes. Bring us, at the appointed season, to the heavenly city, where there is no darkness, but the glory of God doth lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And for all thy patience with us, thy care over us, and thy continual mercy to us, blessed be thy name, O Lord, Father, Son, and Spirit. Amen.

THURSDAY MORNING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Thou, O God, art praised in Sion. Angels and archangels, saints below and saints above, the whole family of thy elect, both in heaven and earth, worship thee, the fountain of all blessedness, and the giver of all good. We, likewise, the chief, but not the least favoured, of sinners, desire to join the company of thy redeemed, and to offer up our spiritual sacrifices. Accept, great God, the mite we bring; pardon the iniquity that cleaves to our duties; meet us with a blessing; and receive us graciously, for the sake of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[After reading and singing, add]

Our Father, &c.

O thou, who hast borne so long with us, and done so much for us; of whom alone cometh our salvation, and by whom we escape death! moved by the sense of our own necessities, and encouraged by the daily experience of thy mercies, we desire still to shelter ourselves under the shadow of thy wings, and to continue our supplications at the throne of thy grace: most humbly intreating thee, who fashionest the hearts of the sons of men, that thou wouldst prepare our hearts to come into thy sacred presence, and to call upon thy blessed name. O pour down upon us the Spirit of grace and of supplications; yea, let thy good Spirit help our infirmities, and teach us how to pray. We, who are but poor worms, and sinful dust and ashes, have taken upon us to speak to thee, the Sovereign Majesty of heaven and earth: we, who have too much cause to fear, lest our great and manifold sins might provoke thee to hide thy face from us, and to shut up thy loving kindness in displeasure against us. Lord, be merciful to us sinners; for the sake of him whom thou hast exalted to be a prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto his people, and forgiveness of sins. Heal our souls, which have greatly sinned against thee: heal our backslidings, and love us freely: take away our ungodliness, and thou shalt find none. Renew us daily, unto repentance; establish our hearts in thy faith and fear; and hold up our goings in thy paths, that our footsteps slip not. Make us, in the strength of grace go on from conquering to conquer, all the enemies of our souls, and all the hindrances of our salvation, until thou hast bruised satan under our feet.

We bless thee for the mercies of the night. We laid us down to sleep, and have risen again, for thou hast sustained us, and made us to dwell in safety. May we ever experience the comfort of thy protection, and the help of thy salvation! may we find thee to be indeed a God of pardon, a God of sanctification, and a God of preservation! - Dispose of us, we beseech thee, and of all that concerns us, this day, to the glory of thy name. Keep us, at all times, in all places, and in all companies, from the evil of sin, and from all other evils to which the greatness of our sins make us liable. And take thou, O heavenly Father, the charge, guidance, and government of us; lead us by thy counsel, until thou hast brought us to thy kingdom and glory; and, in the meanwhile, sanctify to us all thy dealings with us, and seal us thine to the day of redemption; for the sake of thy tender mercies, and the abundant merits of Jesus Christ, our blessed Mediator and Redeemer.

The Lord bless us, &c.

THURSDAY EVENING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

ALMIGHTY God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; vouchsafe, at this time, to cleanse the thoughts of our hearts, by the inspiration of thy holy Spirit; that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy name, through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[Reading and singing, being ended, add]

Our Father, &c.

O Lord, the infinite, incomprehensible God; thou hast heaven for thy throne, and earth for thy footstool; and all things are in thy sight, and at thy disposal. Thou art the searcher of our hearts, and the overseer of our lives, here and every where present. Thou compassest our path and our lying down, and art acquainted with all our ways. Lord, put our hearts into a holy frame, fit to attend upon thy glorious, all-seeing Majesty. Work in us, by the power of thy grace, that change, which we cannot work in ourselves: for, of ourselves, we are equally vile and helpless. We were born sinners, and sinners we have lived and continued, and, by continually adding sin to sin, we have made ourselves still more the children of wrath, than we even were by nature. Justly mightest thou withdraw thy tender mercies from us, and pour out thy wrath and indignation upon us to the uttermost; making us to find and feel, by woeful experience, what an evil and bitter thing it is, to depart from thee the living God: but thy patience is wonderful, thy goodness is infinite, and, as is thy Majesty, so is thy mercy. We therefore humbly beseech thee to stretch forth the hand of thy power and grace, which alone is able to set us at liberty, who are tied and bound with the chain of our sins. Call us effectually, and we shall come unto thee; draw us, and we shall run after thee. Cause us to feel, to abhor, and to forsake our iniquities: and, O! give us a well grounded apprehension, and a comfortable persuasion, of our being justified freely by thy grace through the redemption that is in Jesus. - And, for his sake, vouchsafe us the sanctification of thy Spirit, to transform us into thy image, by the renewing of our minds, and to enable us for all the duties of thy service. Perfect, O Lord, that which concerneth us: and make us such, both in our hearts and lives, that we may enjoy thy peace below, and be meet for the inheritance of thy heavenly glory above. Satisfy us with thy favour; and grant us the reviving sense of thy gracious acceptance of us, and of thy merciful intentions toward us. Speak peace to our consciences; say, to each of our souls, "I am thy salvation:" that we may rejoice in thee as our God, and rest upon thee as our reconciled Father in Jesus Christ. And as thou hast been good and kind to us through the day past (for which, and for the mercies of all our days, we would thankfully admire thy love, and bless thy name); so we beg that we may experience the continuance of thy gracious goodness to us, and of thy fatherly care over us, this present night. Preserve and defend, bless and keep us, that no evil may happen to us, nor any plague come nigh our dwelling. Do thou, who givest unto thy beloved, sleep, vouchsafe to favour us with such needed repose, as may refresh and strengthen us for thy service and our respective duties. Prepare us, great God, for the final sleep of death, and for the account we must shortly give at the judgment seat of Christ. When our souls are required of us, and we are unclothed of the body, grant that we may not be found spiritually naked: unsprinkled with the blood of thy Son, unclothed with the robe of his justifying righteousness, nor unadorned with the graces of thy sanctifying Spirit. O cause us, in this our day (the day of life, the only season of preparation), to know, and to follow after, the things pertaining to our everlasting peace, before they are hid from our eyes, and ere death makes us wise too late. Accomplish the work of thy grace upon our hearts, and cause us to finish the work thou hast given us to do: that whenever thou shalt be pleased to send for us away, we may have nothing to do, but to depart in peace, according to thy word, to fly at the signal - to quit the body, with cheerfulness - and with faith, and, without dread, resign our spirits into thy gracious hands; trusting in the riches of thy grace, and the saving merits of thy blessed Son. And, for all that he has so wonderfully effected to recover us, and to obtain eternal redemption for us; for whatever good thou hast wrought in us, and for the hope of glory thou hast given us: to thy name, O blessed God of our salvation, be the praise and honour, now and for ever. Amen.

FRIDAY MORNING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

By thee, O Lord, alone it is that we laid us down in peace, and are risen in safety. May the lives which thy goodness renews every morning, and thy providence preserves every moment, be devoted to thee; and, as a Father spareth his own son that serveth him, so may the Lord our God, continue to have mercy upon us, through Jesus Christ, our blessed Mediator and Redeemer.

[Reading and singing ended, add]

O Lord, we desire to adore thy name, which is excellent in all the earth, and whose glory is above the heavens. Thou art the maker and disposer of all things: and for thy sovereign pleasure it is, that they still exist, and were at first created. Thy hands have made and fashioned us; and all that we enjoy comes from thee. As we are the workmanship of thy power, O make us likewise thy spiritual workmanship, created anew in Christ Jesus, unto holiness and true righteousness. Give proof that thou hast formed us for thyself, by causing us to show forth thy praise; and by making us live to thy glory, as we do every day live upon thy bounty. But, Lord, we have not yielded thee that glory, which thou hast made us capable of, and so many ways obliged us to. We are prone to forget thee, who art never unmindful of us; and to disobey thee, whose goodness to us is unwearied. For these things, O Lord, for the sinfulness of our nature and of our lives, we desire to pour out our hearts, and to humble our guilty selves before thee: entreating thee, for the sake of thy dear Son, and of thy mercies in him, to work in us true repentance, and to grant us full and free forgiveness. Strengthen us, O Lord, with might, by thy Spirit, in the inner man, to make us watchful against, and victorious over, the corruptions of our hearts, the temptations of satan, and the sinful cares and allurements of the world. O destroy in us every root of bitterness, every plant which thy grace hath not planted; exterminate every vicious habit and rebellious motion, which exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and against the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ. Increase and confirm in us, more and more, thy faith, and fear, and love. Let not one grace of thy holy Spirit be wanting: let not one be weak: but grant us such manifestations of thyself, and so conform us to the image of thy holiness, that our lives may be comfortable to ourselves, profitable to others, and bring glory to thy great name. May we still be found in the way of duty, fearing God and working righteousness; making it evident unto all, that we have indeed been with Jesus; that we have learned of him, that we are influenced by his Spirit; guided by his example; and are pressing forward to his kingdom. Day by day would we magnify thee, O Lord, and worship thy name for ever, world without end; who crownest every day with thy tender mercies. We bless thee for the rest, protection, and preservation, of the last night. O cause us to hear of thy loving kindness in the morning, for in thee do we trust: make us to know the way wherein we should go, for we lift up our souls unto thee. Cast us not away from thy presence; take not thy holy Spirit from us: but direct our hearts into thy love, and our feet into the way of thy testimonies. Whether we eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do, may we do all to the glory of God, and walk, as seeing him that is invisible. - Command thy angels to encamp around us, and to bear us in their hands: and may their God and ours be the strength of our hearts, the guide of our goings, and our portion for ever and ever. Amen.

FRIDAY EVENING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Blessed are they, O Lord, who dwell in thy house, and blessed is the house where thou dwellest: blessed is the man whose strength is in thee, and in whose heart are thy ways. May that blessedness be ours, and may the Lord, whom we seek, visit us with his presence, and rejoice us with the tokens of his love, in and through his adorable Son, and our adorable Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.

[Reading and singing, ended, add]

Our Father, &c.

O Lord, we desire to seek thy face, and to wait upon thee in the duties of thy worship. To whom should we make our applications, but unto thee, the father of mercies, and the fountain of all goodness, who art able to do exceeding abundantly for us, even above all that we are able to ask or think: O let our prayer be set forth in thy sight as incense; and may the lifting up of our hands and hearts be a spiritual evening sacrifice, acceptable to thee, in the Son of thy love. It is in his blessed name alone, that we dare to request of thee all that thou knowest to be needful and expedient for us: seeing that there is in us no good thing to recommend us to thy favour and acceptance; but, on the contrary, a proneness and inclination to what is displeasing unto thee, and destructive to our souls. For, besides that we are, by nature, children of wrath, and a seed of evil doers; we have been daily adding to the heavy score of our offences against thee. There is nothing in us, O Lord, but what may provoke thee to reject us; for all our very righteousness themselves are filthy rags: but there is enough, in thy beloved Son, of all grace and goodness, to make thee well pleased with us for his sake. He, who knew no sin, bore our sins, and was made a sin-offering, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us near unto thee. For his sake, blot out our manifold transgressions, apply the benefits of thy salvation to our consciences, that we may be enabled to walk, O Lord, in the light of thy countenance: hasten thy coming and kingdom, that we, with all thy redeemed, may join in ascribing songs of praise to a triune God, for ever and ever. To the care and protection of thy almighty providence would we humbly commend ourselves this night. Take charge of us and ours, O thou Keeper of Israel, who never slumbereth nor sleepeth, watch over us for good. When we sleep, let our hearts wake; and our souls lie open to the influence of thy blessed Spirit, keep us without sin by the power of thy grace: gracious Lord, shower down thy blessings upon us, the unworthy family now before thee: let the voice of joy and health be heard in this dwelling: let thy peace be within these walls, and the plenteousness of thy salvation within those gates; make this a house of prayer, and every soul within it a living temple of thee, the living God, through Jesus Christ, our only mediator and advocate. Amen.

SATURDAY MORNING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy scriptures to be written for our learning. Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ.

[Reading and singing ended, add]

Our Father, &c.

Unto thee, O God, do we give thanks: yea unto thee will we give thanks, because thy name also is so high, and that do thy wondrous works declare. We beseech thee, gracious God, to hear us mercifully at this time, pardon our manifold sinfulness, and supply our manifold wants. Write the law of thankfulness upon our hearts for the experience we have already had of thy goodness, and kindly go on to be nigh unto us, in all that we call upon thee for. Wash away the sins of the last night, and those of this day hitherto, who can tell how oft we offend, none but thou that knowest all things. O cleanse thou us from our secret faults, and from our original depravity, the source of all; may we be justified fully, freely, and finally, by thy grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus, and sanctified by the renewing efficacy of thy blessed Spirit. Bless us in this our private waiting upon thee, we are gathered together in thy name, at the footstool of thy grace; Lord Jesus, be in the midst of us, and give unto us a comfortable view of our interest in thy precious merits. Thy righteousness, blood-shedding, and intercession, are the altar which sanctifies every sacrifice of prayer and praise which we offer up. Thou makest both the persons and the performances of thy people acceptable to the Father, mingle our addresses with the incense of thy intercession, and then they will go up as a memorial before God. O thou risen and ascended Saviour, may our hearts and affections tend upwards, to thy throne in heaven, that by faith in thy adorable person and infinite merits, and by the exercise of continual obedience and deadness to the world, we may safely hope to be with thee, where thou art, there to behold thy glory. O thou uncreated majesty, we acknowledge that all the blessings of a spiritual and temporal cast, that we have received, from our existence to this day, are of thy free and unmerited goodness; were the distributions of thy favours, to be regulated by our deservings, they would soon be withdrawn. Therefore, not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name be the praise and the glory ascribed. Hear us, O God of our salvation, and do more for us than we are able to ask or think, for the sake of thy Son, our Redeemer; to whom, with thee, and the Holy Ghost, three co-equal persons, in the unity of one Godhead, be ascribed all glory and adoration, by the church above and the church below, for ever and ever. Amen.

SATURDAY EVENING.

(Collect before reading the Scripture.)

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who art always more ready to hear, than we to pray, and are wont to give more than either we desire or deserve; pour down upon us the abundance of thy mercy: forgiving us those things, whereof our consciences are afraid; and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, much less to receive, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, our Lord, in whom we desire to be found, and in his name, do we now approach the throne of thy grace, and make mention of his righteousness, only as the ground of our justification in the sight of our heavenly Father: to whom, with the blessed Spirit, be ascribed all honour and dominion, world without end. Amen.

[After reading and singing, add as follows]

Our Father, &c.

Wherewith shall we come before thee, O Lord: or bow ourselves in thy presence, O thou most high God. Cause us to come unto thee in faith: mentioning no other name, pleading no other righteousness, and trusting in no other atonement, than the name, righteousness, and atonement of thy blessed Son, and our adorable mediator Jesus Christ. In him we desire to be found; through him we hope for favour with thee, and acceptance in thy sight. Blessed be thy goodness for the mercies of the day, for the blessings of thy providence, the comforts of thy Spirit, and the privileges we enjoy. - - We thank thee, that we have been protected from danger, and above all, if we have been, in any measure, withheld by grace from sinning against thee. Sinners we are, and sinned against thee we have, even at the best of times, and in the best of frames; but, Lord, make us thankful for the desire which thou hast given us, of living unto thee; and oh! make our desires effectual through the mighty working of thy Spirit, who is able to subdue even our rebellious hearts to himself: Lord, wash out the transgressions of this day, and of this week now nearly closing. Look upon the covenant of thy grace; and through the blood of the covenant, forgive us all our sins, and cancel the hand-writing that is against us, and nail it to the cross. Purge us with hysop, and we shall be clean; wash us and we shall be whiter than snow. Shouldest thou lay judgment to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, shouldest thou deal with us after our sins, or reward us according to our deserts, or if thou wast to enter into judgment with us, upon the footing of our best performances, alas! we could not stand in thy presence, nor be justified in thy sight. Our prayers, our praises, our alms-deeds, and all we are and do, if weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, and brought to the test of thy perfect law, would be found not only deplorably deficient, but altogether lighter than vanity itself - yet, though we are vile, thou art gracious. We bless thee for that rich provision of grace and glory, which thou hast made for thy penitent people, in the righteousness, sacrifice, and intercession of him who is their advocate with the Father, and the propitiation for their sins. Thou hast delivered thy redeemed from going down into the pit, by contriving, finding, and accepting a ransom for them. O certify us, by thy blessed Spirit, and by the tokens of grace, that we are of the happy number: that we are loved by thee with an everlasting love, interested in the sure mercies of David. Continue thy goodness towards us tonight; may we, as the beloved of the Lord, dwell in safety by him. Make us rest under thy defence, O thou Most High, and abide under the shadow of the Almighty. Thy mercies to us have been equally great, numerous, and unmerited; may we ever experience thee to be a God of love. Perfect, O Lord, that which concerneth us, and forsake not the work of thine own hands. Bless us with thy presence, thy grace, and thy protection. Suffer not the enemy to have any advantage over us; neither let the son of wickedness approach to hurt us.

Be with all thine every where. Visit them, in particular, with thy salvation, whom we desire to bear upon our hearts before thee. May those who are near and dear to us, be near and dear to God: and, whatever separation thy good providence may make upon earth, O grant that we and they may meet with joy at thy right hand in the hour of death and in the day of judgment. - Bless the sinful nations, of which we are a sinful part. Maintain the cause of thy truth, and enlarge the kingdom of thy Son, amongst us. Remember for good thy faithful people of every denomination; more especially regard with thy choicest favour, and defend with thy mighty power, the church to which we belong; the gospel vine which thy own right hand hath planted; and which, by thy gracious providence, hath taken root and filled the land. May she extend her boughs from sea to sea, until they have filled the whole earth! may we abide by her doctrines, and walk worthy of the holy vocation with which we are called. - Bless thy servant the king: the queen: and every branch of his illustrious house. May the crown sit easy, and sit very long, upon his royal head. Direct his counsels to the advancement of thy glory, the good of thy church, and the safety, honour and welfare of himself and his dominions. - May all orders and degrees of men, from the highest to the lowest, be fearers of God, lovers of truth, and workers of righteousness; strengthen and relieve those who labour under any affliction in mind, body, or estate, and make all work together for their good. - Preserved by thy gracious mercy we are coming near to the end of another week, many of our fellow creatures since the commencement thereof, have left this scene, and have entered upon an eternal state. O God most holy, O God most mighty, grant that, before our eyes close in death, we may be enabled to embrace the Lord's Christ in the arms of our faith, and under the shinings of thy countenance, and in the unclouded prospect of thy celestial abode, saying, Now, Lord, lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation. Carry us holy, peaceably, and safely, through the ensuing Sabbath. Lift up the light of thy countenance upon us, and may our comforts be neither few nor small. In all the duties that are before us, may we look to the spirit of grace, for willingness and power to serve thee faithfully, and may our entire dependence be upon the merits of Jesus Christ the righteous, to render our defective, polluted services, such as thou wilt mercifully accept in him. Be thou on tomorrow present in the worshipping assemblies of thy saints; meet them that desire to meet with thee, and visit them with thy salvation, who mean to visit and wait on thee in the ordinances of thy appointment; may such as seek thee be joyful and glad in thee; and may they find by happy experience, that one day in thy courts is better than a thousand elsewhere, and that thy house is indeed the house of God, and the gate of heaven. Be with all thy faithful stewards of thy mysteries in every place, who shall administer in thy name. Enable them rightly to divide the word of truth, giving both to saints and sinners their portion. Pardon the unworthiness of ministers and people, and vouchsafe to own thy glorious gospel, by making it effectual to the salvation of them that hear; every spiritual and temporal mercy, we request, for the alone sake of Jesus Christ the righteous. Amen.

ADVERTISEMENT.

It is presumed this little manual of devotion, taken from the manuscript papers of our author, will not be unacceptable to the public, because it is set forth as a form of prayer. Amongst the many unnecessary disputes in the Christian department, a question has been often propounded, whether a person can present himself at the footstool of the divine Majesty, using the words of another, and be a sincere worshipper; certainly, in our private or recluse devotions, it is proper to come before God, and pour out in simplicity and sincerity the immediate mental solicitations that we are in need of, expecting our imperfect aspirations to be accepted only through the mediation of the Lord Jesus. But some indiscreet, captious individuals, have prematurely censured those who have adopted a premeditated course of prayer in their families, or in public assemblies, as the quintessence of hypocrisy, and the apathy of formality. By this criterion, may not the same suggestions be urged against the universality of singing psalms or hymns? If such poetic compositions, which consist of prayer and thanksgiving, are used as a form, wherein can be the impropriety or inconsistency of a devout supplicant offering the same in prose? How assuming must it be in any person to take upon himself the inquisitorial part of pre-judging the uprightness of another, and bearing down the honest efforts of a humble mind, before that period arrives when the secrets of all hearts will be made known. Let us in the interval anticipate that eventful crisis, when we shall enter upon that state where there will be nothing to pray for, but every thing to be thankful for, where mental imperfections will be absorbed in the lustre of uncreated perfection, and every thing give place to unmingled and unalloyed adorations to God and the Lamb for ever.

Editor.

Sketch of a Sermon on John 7:38,39.

SKETCH OF A SERMON ON Joh 7:38-39.

“He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, cut of his belly (heart) shall flow rivers of living water."

“This spake he of the Spirit; which they that believe on him, should receive.”

One would imagine that Christ, who is the prince of peace; that his gospel, which is the message of peace; and that his ministers, who are the ambassadors of peace; should meet with general acceptance, and be received with joy by all to whom the message comes. But our Lord, who knew what was in man, and to whose eye the whole of futurity lies open at one view, has taught us to expect a very different effect from the faithful publication of his word. It is true, that, by his mediatorial obedience unto death, he has made peace with God, and procured remission of sins, for as many as shall believe in his name: and it is the office of the holy Spirit to enlighten believers into the knowledge of the peace and salvation obtained for them by Christ. Yet, with regard to those who are consigned to hardness of heart, and to the blindness of unbelief, the proclamation of peace, sounded by the gospel trumpet, seldom fails to fill their minds with enmity, and to enflame them with rage and embitterment against both the message and its messengers. What is the reason of this? Why are the hearts of unconverted people prone to swell with opposition against the saving truths of God's word? Because, those truths run directly counter to the natural prejudices and the corrupt reasonings of self-righteous pride. It stings a Pharisee, who looks for salvation, from his own doings, to be told, that, all who get to heaven, must be brought thither, not by works of righteousness which they have done, but by the free, unmingled grace of God in Christ. It quite affronts the free-willer, to be informed, that it is God himself, who, by the power of his Spirit, must work in us, both to will and to do those things that are pleasing in his sight. Hence it is, that the gospel of Christ so often meets with hatred and repulse: and hence that remarkable saying, Lu 12:51-52. "Suppose ye, that I am come to give peace on earth: I tell you, nay: but rather, division. For, from henceforth, &c." the truth is, they who receive the gospel, must ever expect to be nibbled at, by those who do not receive it: and the apostle's observation, Ga 4:29, holds as good, at this present day, as it did when he first committed it to paper.

Only review the foregoing part of this chapter: and see whether Christ himself was exempt from hatred, persecution, and abuse.

Ver. 1. After these things, i.e. after he had miraculously fed five thousand persons in the wilderness, Jesus walked in Galilee: "walked," literally, he generally travelled on foot: we read but once of his having rode, and that was on an ass, and merely to fulfil the prophecy. "Walked," figuratively: his life was not a life of idleness, but of zeal, activity, and labour. - Because the Jews sought, &c. He could have preserved himself, but uses retirement as a means: to teach us not lightly to presume on providence, but to trust God in the ways of his appointment. Besides, his hour was not come, and he had more work to do.

Ver. 2. Feast of tabernacles: annually celebrated (a) in commemoration of their having dwelt in tents for forty years, in their journey from Egypt to Canaan. An emblem of Christ's incarnation; and of the passage of the elect through the world to heaven.

(a) See Jenning's Jewish Antiq. vol. ii.

Ver. 3. His brethren; i. e. Some of the Virgin Mary's relations: for the Jews called all near kinsmen, especially first cousins, brethren. Literally, Christ had no brethren: as God, he is the only son of the Father: as man, he was the first and the last, and the only son of his mother. Depart hence: put thyself into danger's way, by going among thy most virulent foes, in order to work a miracle (if thou be the Messiah) for thy own rescue.

Ver. 4. As much as to say, "thou art ostentatious: therefore go and work thy miracles at Jerusalem, among the great men of the law, the Scribes and Pharisees."

Ver. 5. Of so little spiritual benefit are merely outward advantages, without the saving grace of God.

Ver. 6. How meekly Christ answers! i.e. “Every step I take is regulated by the immediate interposition of Providence; and, when the time appointed arrives, for my being at Jerusalem, I shall go. It matters not, when you go: but every moment of my time is charged with some important commission for the glory of God!"

Ver. 7. Men of the world do not hate one another, as such. Their hatred turns chiefly towards the excellent of the earth; and, above all, on faithful ministers.

Ver. 12. Much murmuring: They were divided in their opinion of him.

Ver. 13. Spake openly, what they thought in his favour.

Ver. 14. Midst of the feast: when the number of worshippers was largest. Christ knew not what the fear of man was. To the Temple: to pray, and preach. Christ's own example sanctifies and enforces the duties of public worship. I fear, if Christ were to live again on earth, he would not have the privilege of preaching in some of our churches: many a pulpit door would be shut against him.

Ver. 17. Ean tiv qelh, if any man he willing, or have a desire. A spiritual will and desire to heavenly things, is the gift of God, and a token for good. - This whole verse shows, that the grand reason why any disrelish the pure gospel, is, because they are unrenewed by grace.

Ver. 18. Of himself: Plausible doctrines of his own dressing up. - Is true: he preaches the truth, simply as he finds it in the word. No unrighteousness; no dishonesty, no sophistication, nor artful glossing of God's word.

Ver. 25. Whom they seek to kill: But they were restrained by invincible power which they knew nothing of.

Ver. 26. He speaketh boldly: The more they threatened, the more bolder Christ preached.

Ver. 28. Whom ye know not: Sad to profess God, and yet not know him savingly!

Ver. 37. If any man thirst: Alluding to the Jewish custom, at their feast, of pouring water on the sacrifice as it lay on the altar. Christ shews the spiritual meaning of this. Himself was the one sacrifice; and the Holy Ghost, compared in scripture to water, anointed him as Mediator for the discharge of his offices, and gives us faith by which his merits are applied to the soul. Come: i. e. believe. - Drink: be satisfied, comfortable, and happy.

Ver. 38. Believers as the scripture, &c. i.e. as the scriptural faith of God's elect.

Out of his heart: The heart is the seat of vital religion.

Rivers, &c. His heart shall overflow with, 1. The comforts of the Spirit; 2. With good works, which, like elegant streams in a garden, shall enrich and adorn his life and conversation.

Compared to rivers, because, 1. As all rivers derive their origin from the sea, so all grace and holiness flow from the ocean of God's gratuitous love to us in Christ; - 2. A river widens, the farther it flows; and a converted believer increases in the knowledge of God, and in obedience, more and more to the perfect day. - 3. A river tends to the sea from whence it took its rise: and all true grace leads to God, and at last perfectly unites the soul to him in glory.

Living waters: i.e. 1. Operative; 2. Perpetual.

Ver. 39. Of the Spirit: See Isa 41:17-18; 44:3. Eze 36:25,27.

Broad Hembury, March 20, 1770.

Table of Contents

Title Page

Book V - Works of Augustus Toplady

The Church of England Vindicated...

The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination - Preface

Some Account of the Life of Jerom Zanchius

Observations on the Divine Attributes;...

The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, Stated & Asserted

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER V.

Fate of the Ancients

A Letter to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley;...

More Work for Mr. John Wesley;...

An Old Fox Tarred and Feathered;

Particulars of Pope Joan

Contemplation on Snow

Reflections on a Thunder Storm

Thoughts on Perseverance

A Course of Family Prayer, for Each Day in the Week

Sketch of a Sermon on John 7:38,39.