Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

I ask, Why were these mighty works done in Capernaum? Was it out of love to bring Capernaum to repentance? Or was it out of wrath-that it might be more tolerable in the day of judgment, for Sodom than Capernaum? There is no medium: Mr. Toplady must re cant this part of the Bible, and of his book; or he must answer one of these two questions in the affirmative. If he says [as we do] that these mighty works, which might have converted Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, were primarily wrought to bring Capernaum to repentance, he gives up Calvinism, which stands or falls with the doctrine of necessitating means used in order to bring about a necessary end. If he says [as Calvinism does] that these mighty works were primarily wrought to sink Capernaum into hell-into a deeper hell than Sodom, because the end always shews what the means were used for; he runs upon the point of his own objection; he pulls upon his doctrines of grace the very unmercifulness, which he charges upon ours, and he shews to every unprejudiced reader, that the difficulty arising from the prescience of God, with which the Calvinists think to demolish the doctrine of general grace, falls upon Calvinism with a double weight.-Mr. Toplady is sensible that God could never have appeared good and just, unless the wick ed had been absolutely inexcusable, and that they could never have been inexcusable, if God had condemned them for burying a tal ent of grace which they never had; and there fore Mr. T. tries to overthrow this easy solution of the difficulty by saying.

ARG LXII. [p. 88.]" Be it so," [that the wicked are made inexcusable by a day of grace aud temporary salvation]" yet, surely, God can never be thought, knowingly to render a man more inexcusable, by taking such mea. sures as will certainly load him with accumu• lated condemnation, out of mere love to that man !" We grant it and therefore we assert, that it is not out of mere love that God puts us in a gracious state of probation, or temporary salvation; but out of wisdom, truth, and distributive justice, as well as out of mercy and love. If God, therefore, were endued with no other perfection than that of merciful love, we would give up the doctrine of judicial reprobation for a God devoid of distributive justice could, and would save all sinners in the calvinian way, that is, with a salvation perfectly finished without any of their works. But then, he would neither judge them, nor bestow eternal salvation upon them by way of reward for their works, as the scripture says he will.

Oh! how much more reasonable and scriptural is it, to allow the doctrine of free-grace and free-will, established in the Scripture Scales; and to maintain the reprobation of justice-an unavoidable reprobation this, which is perpetually asserted in the gospel,

and will leave the wicked entirely inexcusa. ble, and God perfectly righteous:- How much better is it, I say, to hold such a reprobation, than to admit Calvinian reprobation, which renders the wicked excusable and pitiable, as being condemned for doing what Omnipotence necessitated them to do:-a reprobation this, which stigmatizes Christ as a shuffler, for offering to al! a salvation from which most are absolutely debarred;-a cruel reprobation, which represents the Father of Mercies as an unjust Sovereign, who takes such measures as will unavoidably load myriads of unborn men with accumulated condemnation, out of free-wrath to their unformed souls.

Should Mr. Toplady say, "That, according to the gospel which we preach, the wicked shall certainly be damned; and therefore the difference between us is but triffing after all; seeing the Calvinists assert, that some men [namely, those who are eternally reprobated by divine Sovereignty] shall certainly and unavoidably be damned; and the anticalvinists say, that some men [namely, those who are finally reprobated by divine justice] shall be certainly, though avoidably damned:" -1 reply, that frivolous as the difference between these two doctrines may appear to those, who judge according to the appearance of words, it is as capital as the difference between avoidable ruin, and unavoidable destruction; between justice and injustice ;between initial election and finished reprobation;-between saying that God is the first cause of the damnation of the wicked, and asserting that they are the first cause of their own damnation. In a word, it is as great, as the difference between the north and the south-between a gospel made up of Antinomian free-grace and Barbarian free-wrath, and a gospel made up of scriptural free-grace and impartial, retributive justice.

Upon the whole, from the preceding answers it is evident, if I am not mistaken, that, though the grand, calvinian objection taken from God's foreknowledge, may, at first sight, puzzle the simple; yet, it can bear neither the light of scripture, nor that of reason and it recoils upon Calvinism with all the force, with which it is supposed to attack the saving grace, which has appeared to all men.

SECTION IX.

An Answer to the Charges of robbing the Trinity, and encouraging Deism, which charges Mr. T. brings against the doctrine of the Anti-calvinists.

Mr. T. thinks his cause so good, that he supposes himself able, not only to stand on the defensive; but also to attack the gospel which we preach. From his Babel therefore, [his strong tower of Confusion] he

makes a hold sally, and charges us thus: ARG. LXIII. [p. 91.] "Arminianism robs the Father of his sovereignty."-This is a mistake; Arminianism dares not attribute to him the grim sovereignty of a Nero: But if it does not humbly allow him all the Sovereignty, which scripture and reason ascribe to him, so far it is wrong, and so far we oppose Pelagian Arminianism, as well as Manichean Calvinism.-It "robs the Father of his decrees:"-This is a mistake: it reverences all his righteous, scriptural decrees; though it shudders at the thought of imputing to him unscriptural, calvinian decreess more wicked and absurd, than the decree of Nebuchadnezzar, and Darius.-It" robs the Father of his providence :" Another mistake! Our doctrine only refuses to make God the author of sin, and to lead men to the Pagan error of Fatalism, or to the Manichean error of a two-principled god, who absolutely works all things in all men, as a showman works all things in his pup pets; fixing a necessary virtue on the good, and necessary wickedness on the wicked, to the subversion of all the divine perfections, and to the entire overthrow of the second gospel-axiom, of Christ's tribunal, and of the wisdom and justice, which the scriptures ascribe to God, as judge of the whole earth.

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

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

All angels and men were primarily made to enjoy an accepted time, aud a temporary day of salvation. Those angels and men, who know and improve their day of salvation, were secondarily made for the day of renumerative love, and for a kingdom prepared for

darfly made, is to be the day of the RIGHTE ous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds, Rom. ii. 5,6; and not the day of the unrighteous judgment of Calvin, who [doctrinally] renders to every man according to a finished salvation in Christ, productive of necessary goodness: and according to a finished damnation in Adam, productive of remediless wickedness, and all its dreadful consequen.

ces.

ARG. LXVI. [p. 921 Mr. Toplady produces a long quotation from Mr. Sloss, which being divested of the verbose dress, in which error generally appears, amounts to this plain abridged argument. "If the doctrine of Calvinian election is false, because all mankind are not the object of that election, and because all men have an equal right to the divine favour, it follows, that the infidels are right when they say, that the Jewish and the Christian revelations are false; for all man. kind are not elected to the favour of having the Old and New Testament: and therefore, Arminianism encourages infidelity."

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

2. That very revelation, which Mr. Sloss thinks we betray to the Deists, informs us, that, though all men are not indulged with the peculiar blessings of Judaism and Christianity, yet they are all chosen and called to be righteous, at least, according to the covenants made with fallen Adam, and spared Noah. Hence St. Peter says, that," In every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, [according to his light, though it should be only the lowest degree of that light, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world] is accepted of him :" and St. Paul speaks of some Gentiles, who though they have not the law of Moses, or the Law of Christ, do by nature [in its state of initial

them from the beginning of the world. But those angels and men, who do not know and improve their day of salvation, were secondarily made for the day of retri. butive wrath, and for the tire prepared for the devil, his angels, and his servants, who are faithful to him unto death.

restoration, through the seed of life given to fallen Adam in the promise] the things contained in the law, are a law unto themselves; shewing the work of the law written in their hearts. Therefore, though there is a gratuitous election, which draws after it a gratuitous reprobation from the blessings peculiar. to Judaism and Christianity; there is no Calvinian election, which draws after it a gratuitous reprobation from all saving grace, and necessarily involves the greatest part of man kind in unavoidable damnation. Hence, if mistake not, it appears, that when Mr. Sloss charges us with "having contributed to the prevailing Deism of the present time, by furnishing the adversaries of divine revelation with arguments against Christianity," he [as well as Mr. Toplady] gratuitously imputes to our doctrine, what really belongs to Calvinism. For there is a perfect agreement between the absolute necessity of events, which is asserted by Calvinian bound-willers; and that which is maintained by deistical Fatal ists and it is well known that the horrors of the absolute reprobation which the Calvinians fancy they see in Rom. ix. have tempted many moralists who read that chap. ter with the reprobating glosses of Calvin and his followers, to bid adieu to revelation; it being impossible that a scheme of doctrine which represents God as the absolute Reprobator of myriads of unborn infants, should have the Parent of Good, and the God of Love

for its author.

SECTION X.

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

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

gument.

ARG. LXVII. [Page 93, 94.] Calvinian

*The author of A Letter to an Arminian Teacher,

[a letter this which I have quoted in a preceding note] advances the same argument in these words, p. 5. "The doctrine of eternal" [he means Calvinian] "election" [for we believe the right, godly, eternal election maintained in the scriptures] concludes God more merciful than the Arminjan doctrine of supposed universal redemption, because that doctrine, which absolutely ascertains the regeneration, effectual calling, the sanctification, &c. as well as the eternal salvation of an innumerable company, &c. Rev. vii. 9.

"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."-Had Mr. T. stated the case properly, he would have said, "Calvinian election, which ensures necessary holiness to a minority of mankind; and Calvinian reprobation, which ensures necessary wickedness to a majority of mankind, promote human sanctity more than the partial election of grace, which formerly afforded the Jews, and now affords the Christians, abundant helps to be peculiarly holy under their dispensations of peculiar grace:yea, more than the impartial election of justice, which, under all the divine dispensations of divine grace, chooses the man that is godly, to rewards of grace and glory;-and more than the reprobation of justice, which is extended to none, but such as bury their talent of grace by wilful unbelief and voluntary disobedience.

[ocr errors]

If Mr. T. had thus stated the case, according to his real sentiments and ours, every candid reader would have seen that our doctrines of grace are far more conducive to human sancity than those of Calvin: 1. Because Calvinism ensures human sanctity to none of the elect for a sanctity, which is as necessary to a creature, as motion is to a moved puppet, is not the sanctity of a a free agent and, of consequence, it is not human sanctity: 2. Because Calvinism' ensures remediless wickedness to all the reprobate, and remediless wickedness can never be human sanctity."

ing our doctrines of grace, which do "not With respect to what Mr. T. says concernensure holiness to any one individual of the whole species;" if by "ensured, holiness" he means a certain salvation, without any work of faith, and labour of love, he is greatly mistaken; for our gospel absolutely ensures such a salvation [and of consequence infunt holiness] to that numerous part of mankind who die in their infancy. Nay, it absolutely ensures mankind, so long as the day of grace, or ina seed of redeeming, sanctifying grace to all tial salvation lasts; for we maintain, as well as St. Paul that "the free gift is come upon all men to justification of life," Rom. v. 18: such [of infants] is the kingdom of heaven, and and we assert, as well as our Lord, that of therefore some capacity to er joy it, which capacity we believe to be inseparably connected with a seed of holiness. Add to this, that our gospel, as well as Calvinism, ensures eternal salvation to all the adults, who are faithful unto death: according to our doctrine these shall never perish: to these elect of must represent God more merciful than the Arminian scheme, which cannot ascertain the eternal salvation of one man now living,' &c. As it is possible to kill two birds with one stone, I hope that my answer to Mr. Toplady will satisfy Mr. M Gowan.

[blocks in formation]

66

which every man has to believe the truth, Mr. Toplady tries to retort the charge of Antinomianism upon our doctrines of grace : and he does it by producing one, Thompson, who, when he was in a fit of intemperance, if any one reminded him of the wrath of God threatened against such courses, would answer, I am a child of the devil today but I have Free will: and to-morrow I will make myself a child of God."

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

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

This flimsy salvo has quieted the fears of many godly Calvinists, when the Antinomianism of their system stared them in the face. To show the absurdity of this evasion, I need only ask, has not every man a right to believe the truth? If I am absolutely elected to eternal life, while I commit adultery and murder, while I defile my father's wife, and deny my Saviour with oaths and curses; why may not I believe it? Is there one scripture which commands me to believe a lie, or forbids me to believe the truth?"Oh but you have no right to believe yourself elected, till sanctifying grace has converted you to faith and good works."-Then it follows, that as an adult sinner, I am not elected to the reward of the inheritance, or to eternal life in glory, till I believe and do good works; or it follows, that I have no 3. If Thompson had been sober and rearight to believe the truth. If Mr. T. affirms, sonable, Mr. Wesley might easily have made that I have no right to believe the truth, he up the pretended Antinomian gap of Armin makes himself ridiculous before all the ianism, five different ways:-1. By shewing world and if he says that I am not abso- him, that, although free-will may reject a good lutely elected, till I am converted to faith motion, yet it cannot raise one without freeand good works; it follows, that, every time grace; and therefore, to say, To-morrow I am perverted from faith and good works, will make myself a child of God," is as abI forfeit my election of justice. Thus under surd in a man, as it would be in a woman, tothe guidance of Mr. T. himself, I escape the say, To-morrow I will conceive alone :—it is fatal rock of Calvinian election, and find my as impious as to say, To-morrow I will absoself in the safe harbour of old, practical lutely command God, and he shall obey me. Christianity: "Ye know, that no whore- -2. By shewing him his imminent danger, and monger, nor unclean person, nor covetous the horror of his present state, which he, man, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of himself, acknowledges, when he says, "I am Christ and of God:" Let no man deceive a child of the devil to-day."-3. By urging you with vain words. For if I have no the uncertain length of the day of salvation. right to believe myself an heir of God, and a Grace gives no room to depend upon to-morjoint heir with Christ, while I turn whore- row; its constant language being, Now is the monger it is evident that whoredom de- accepted time.-4. By pressing the hardening prives me of my right;-much more adultery nature of presumptuous sin.-And 5. By disand murder. Hence it appears, that Mr. T. playing the terrors of just wrath, which frecannot prop up the calvinian ark, but by quently says, "Take the talent from him." flatly contradicting Paul, which is a piece ofBecause ye refused, I will be avenged."." I impiety and by asserting, that elect whoremongers have no right to believe the truth while they commit whoredom, which is a glaring absurdity.

I

ARG. LXIX. [p. 95.] After having made up the Antinomian gap, by giving up either Calvinian election, or the incontestible right

give thee up to thy own lusts, to a reprobate mind." "Thou fool! this night shall thy soul be required of thee."

These are five rational and scriptural ways of making up the supposed Antinomian gap of our gospel. But if Mr. Thompson had been a Calvinist, and had said, like Mr. Ful

Some, "I have had a call, and my election is Safe as my good works can add nothing to my finished salvation, so my bad works can take nothing from it. Satan may pound me if he please; but Jesus must replevy me. Let me wander where I will from God, Christ must fetch me back again. The covenant is unconditionally ordered in all things and sure. All things work for good to the elect.". "And if all things," [says Mr. Hill] "then their very sins and corruptions are included. in the royal promise," "Whoredom and drunkenness may hurt another, but they cannot hurt me. God will over-rule sin for my good, and his glory: Whatever is, is right: for God worketh all things in all men, even wickedness in the wicked, and how much more in his elect, who are his chosen instruments!"-If Mr. Thompson, I say, had been a Calvinist, and had thus stood his ground in the Antinomian gap, which Calvin, Dr. Crisp, Mr. Fulsome, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Toplady have made; who could reasonably have beaten him off? Do not all his conclusions flow from the doctrine of absolute election and finished salvation, as unavoidably as four is the result of two and two?

:

ARG. LXX. [p. 97, ] Mr. T. attempts again to stop up the Antinomian gap, which Fatalism and Calvinian predestination makes in practical religion. Calling to his assistance Zeno, the founder of the Stoicks, or rigid predestinarians among the heathens, he says, "Zeno one day thrashed his servant for pil fering. 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."-I do not wonder if Mr. Hill, in his Finishing Stroke, calls Mr. Toplady's arguments "most masterly;" for this argument of Zeno is yet more masterly than his own "I shall not take the least notice of him, any more than, if I was travelling on the road, I would stop to lash, or even order my footman to lash every impertinent little quadruped in a village, that should come out and bark at me." Mr. Toplady, in the Advertisement placed at the head of his pamphlet, represents some of us as unworthy of even being pilloried in a preface, or flogged at a phamplet's tail :" We are now arrived at the tail of his pamphlet, in the body of which he has thought Mr. Wesley so highly worthy of his rod, as to" flog" him with the gratuity, absoluteness, mercy, and justice which are peculiar to the reprobation defended through the whole performance. If seriousness did not become us, when we vindicate the injured attributes of the Judge of all the earth, I might be tempted to ask with a smile, has Mr. T. so worn out his rod in making

66

[ocr errors]

more work for Mr. Wesley," that he is now obliged to borrow Zeno's stick to finish the execution at the pamphlet's tail? For my part, as I have no idea of riveting orthodoxy upon my readers with a stick, and of solving the rational objections of my opponents by "laying on some hearty blows," and so" thrashing" them into conviction, or into silence, I own that Logica Zenonis and Logica Genevensis being of a piece, either of them can easily beat me out of the field. Arguments a lapide are laughable but I fly before arguments a burculo. However, in my retreat, I will venture to present Mr. T. with the following queries.

:

If Zeno, in vindicating Fatalism, could say to a thief, that he was absolutely predestinated to steal and to be thrashed for stealing; is it not more than Mr. Toplady can say in vindication of Calvinism? For, upon his scheme, may not a man be absolutely predestinated, not only to steal but also to escape thrashing, and to obtain salvation by stealing? Mr. Toplady is Mr. Hill's second; and Mr. Hill, in his fourth letter, [where he shews the happy effects of sin] tells the public and me, "Onesimus robbed Philemon his master; and flying from justice, was brought under Paul's preaching, and converted." Thus Zeno's predestination failed, and, with it Zeno's argument: for robbery led not Onesimus to thrashing, but to conversion and glory, if we believe Mr. Hill. And if Mr. Fulsome is an elect, why might he not be guilty of as fortunate a robbery ? Why might not a similar decree" secure and accomplish the [same evangelical] end by the [same Antinomian] means?" Mr. Toplady may prevail over us by borrowing Zeno's cane, and the whip of Mr. Hill's lashing footman; but his pen will never demonstrate, 1. That Calvinism does not rationally lead all her admirers to the deepest mire of speculative Antinomianism: and 2. That when they are there, nothing can keep them from wallowing in the dirt of practical Antinomianism, but an happy inconsistence between their actions and their peculiar principles

SECTION XI.

A Caution against the tenet, Whatever is is right an Antinomian tenet this, which Mr. T. calls "a first principle of the Bible."An Answer to his challenge about finding a middle way between the Calvinian doctrine of Providence, and the Atheistical doctrine of Chance.

Whatever the true God works is undoubtedly right. But if the deity absolutely works all things in all men, good, and bad, it evidently follows, 1. That the two principled deity preached by Manes, is the true God: 2. That the bad principle of this double deity, works wickedness in the wicked, as necessa

« AnteriorContinuar »