eae SSS Digitized by the Internet Archive | in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/refutationofaria0Opaul_0O— ber, a a : REFUTATION ARIANISM: ~ A DEFENCE OF THE _ PLENARY INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE SUPREME DEITY OF THE SON AND HOLY GHOST, THE ATONEMENT, ORIGINAL SIN, PREDESTINATION, THE PERSE- VERANCE OF THE SAINTS, ETC. ; IN REPLY TO DRS. BRUCE, MANT, MILLAR, AND GRAVES. x “’ Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.’’—Paun. ‘tS Contend earnestly. for the faith once delivered to the Saints.”’—Jupr. ‘‘ Buy the truth, and sell it not.’,—So.tomon,. “a, = TO WHICH Is ADDED, A DEFENCE OF CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. BY THE REV. JOHN PAUL, CARRICKFERGUS. NEW-YORK: PRINTED FOR AND PUBLISHED BY ROBERT LOWRY. 1828. _ PREFACE. = ‘Wirta a deep-rooted aversion to the usual practice. .of apologizing, I feel it necessary to write a preface replete with apologies. My readers, I presume, are prepared to ask a variety of questions, all of which deserve to be answered. First, they will ask me, why my Reruration did not appear sooner. I answer: Much time was lost in vain expectation that some abler advocate would plead the same cause: and, after I had reluctantly engaged in the controversy, my vari- gus avocations, and a number of other circumstances, _ the detail of which would be altogether uninteresting, - tended greatly toretard my progress. I regret indeed _..in common with my readers, that my REFUTATION oF ARIANISM did not appear sooner; but I regret still more, that a much longer period of time was not al- lowed me for executing a task so arduous and impor- tant—for writing a book which embraces a whole body of controversial divinity—a book which professes to ‘defend almost all the leading doctrines of our holy re- ligion. A question, however, of far more importance, and involving a far more serious charge, will probably, be put by some of my readers. In your Refutation of Arianism, they will say, why do you attack the Church _ of England? Answer—I do not attack the‘Church of England ; I defend the Church of or I de- ae ie iv fend the doctrines of the Thirty-nine Articles. But why, they will ask, do you attack the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr. Millar, and Dr. Graves—An- swer—lI do not attack those Dignitaries? I am not the assauant: Lam only the humbie defendant: I reluc- tantly submit to the painful necessity of defending my own principles—the doctrines of the Church of Scot- land—the doctrines of the Church of England—against the attack of those venerable Divines. Was it not, ” however—the querist will say—was it not highly im- proper to class the Arminians with the Arians ?>—An- swer—lI did not class them; they classed themselves with the Arians. Dr. Millar made common cause with Dr. Bruce in attacking Calvinism. It is not, therefore, from choice, but from necessity, that I have attempted to defend my principles against their united attack. But was it not imprudent to make so many enemies ?’——Answer—lI hope I have made no enemies at all. Surely the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, Dr. Millar, Dr. Graves, and Dr. Bruce, are Divines of more candour and liberality than to be offended at me for an humble attempt to defend my own principles —principles which 1 believe to be founded in fruit : reason and scripture. | ‘Still, however, it will be said, that had I balevii no notice of the Dignitaries of the Church of England, the members of that church would have rallied round me; the Arminians would have patronised my publica- tion ; 1 would have had more friends, and larger pro- fits—All this may be true ; but it does not convince me of the impropriety of my conduct. I contend for truth, not for money. Accustomed from, my youth to submit to privations for the sake of truth, and a good conscience, I will not temporize now when I am — 2 paar ‘old. No man can finally be a loser by an uncom- promising attachment to truth. {£ know who has said, * Be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.” But what necessity, it may be said, for mentioning - the names of those Arminian divines in my Prospectus, or in my Title-page ?—Answer— Because I do not choose to fight under false colours : I do not wish to practise deception; I wish my Prospectus or Title-page to be a faithful index of my book. My readers, how- ever, will carefully observe, that whilst I contend against Arminianism, as well as against Arianism, I do not regard the two systems as equally remote from truth. TI believe that the difference between Armini- ans and Calvinists is frequently more in words than in ideas : J believe that multitudes who are Arminians in head, are Calvinists in heart. Were the Calvinistic system fairly represented and well understood, I am confident opposition would in a great measure cease. The view I have given in the following Defence is, I flat- ter myself, agreeable to the standards of the Churches of England and Scotland—it is substantially the same, if presume, with that of the great body of Calvinists. This view [ have never yet seen opposed. Anti-Cal- Vinists, so far as I know, have never yet ventured to attack it, , though it has been frequently exhibited by. “such writers as Edwards, Fuller, Newton, and Scott. When our opponents attack Calvinism, they attack a view of it which"the Calvinists themselves do not ae- ‘ knowledge.— They form a kind of medley system, ‘ composed of passages taken out of their natural order _ unguarded expressions extracted from the works of ancient divines—and large quotations from Antino- ‘mian writers—this JOS ths, monstrous system 92 vi ——a system which nobody ever beiieved, and which nobody defends—they heroically attack, and trium- phantly demolish. They then shout victory, and are . hailed by the acclamations of the unthinking multitude, the dupes of their artifice, By such sleight of men and cunning craftiness the simple are deceived, truth is laid low, and error enjoys a temporary triumph. ‘This disgraceful. mode of warfare I am reluctantly compelled to expose in the subsequent pages. Should - Arian or Arminian divines think proper to follow up their attack—and I have no objections at all to see them in the field—I shall expect them to come for-— ward as honourable antagonists. I shall expect them to attack, not a shadow, not a man of straw, not amock Calvinism, but the real Calvinistic system, as exhibit- ed in our standards, and defended in the following sheets. ‘Some readers may See say, You have treated Dr. Bruce with too little ceremony—You are guilty yourself of the very same things which you censure in him—Y ou blame him for using abusive epithets, such as fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots j and yet you em- ploy language 1 no less severe, as msrepresentation, ca- lumny, forgery, &c.—Answer—I do not blame the Doctor merely for calling his opponents fanatics, en- thusiasts, amd bigots; but I blame him for using those. epithets in a licentious and wanton manner, without proof.—lf I arraign a man for theft, and bring for- ward evidence to substantiate my charge, I may call him a thief; but if without proof I apply such epithets, oo myself to an action for defamation of charac- Dr. B. employs opprobrious epithets without cat or shadow of evidence: it is for this I blame him—it is for this I censure him. On the contrary, I j vii hope my readers will find, that such terms as misré- presentation, calumny, forgery, &c. are used by me, only when the charges implied in those epithets are fully substantiated,—But why use such epithets at all ? —Answer—Because I wish to call things by their Proper names. I do not wish to call evil good, and good evil. I do not wish by soft names to reconcile men’s minds to errors or to vices—a practice quite fashionable indeed, but fraught with consequences the most baneful and pernicious. "Towards those learned, and highly respectable Divines, on whose writings I animadvert, I am conscious of no feelings but those of kindness and benevolence. Should any of my expres- sions appear too strong, or be regarded as personal, I shall feel much mortified 3 for, Ican assure my readers, that, if I know any thing of my own heart, it was errors, not men, I meant to attack. My “ Refutation”’ is a work entirely argumentative. Against such books I know there is a prejudice—a prejudice, as I conceive, highly unreasonable. Rea- soning and argument characterised the first propaga- tion of Christianity.’ The founder of our religion reasoned and argued: when on,! twelve years of age, he disputed with the Doctors. During the whole pe riod of his public ministry we find him addressing the understandings of men—reasoning with the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Scribes and the Lawyers—detecting their impostures, and exposing their corruptions, re- -_futing their errors and putting them to silence. Imi- tating their Divine Master, the Apostles and Evange- lists reasoned and argued. In the synagogues of the Jews, the Apostle Paul reasoned every Sabbath. In the school of Tyrannus he disputed daily. The Epi- curean and Stoic Philosophers, the Jewish Rabbin, Vill and the learned counsellors of ‘Mars-hill, he encoun- tered by reasoning and confounded by argument. ‘The proto-martyr Stephen reasoned down the ‘ Libertines, “the Cyrenians, and ‘Alexandrians—they were not «© able to resist the wisdom and. spirit by which he spake.” | Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and all the fathers of the Reformation, reasoned and argued. By reasoning and by argument the strong holds of the “man of sin” were stormed, and a spiritual emanci- pation gloriously effected. Nor need we anticipate — a victory over the many-headed monster ERROR, if we refuse to wield those spiritual weapons. Impressed with this conviction, I have humbly attempted to de- fend by argument what I regard as the great funda- mental truths of Christianity. I have addressed my-~ self, not to the feelings, the passions, or the prejudices, but to the understandings of my readers. . In replying to the polemical sermons of the Rev. Dr. Bruce, I have endeavoured to meet every argu- ment which I considered material. The only subject which I have not discussed, is the eternity of punish- ment. The Doctor’s idea, that the wicked will be punished in hell for ascertain period of time, and then annihilated, being a completely gratuitous assumption, and having no countenance from either Scripture or reason, I considered unworthy of a refutation. What reason to believe, that the happiness of the righteous will be everlasting, and the misery of the wicked only temporary, when, in the very same passage,* the very same word in the original is employed to designate the duration of both? With regard to the wicked, Our Saviour assures us, that “ their worm dies not, and the ">® Matt. xxv. 45. 1X »» fire is not quenched.” Now, if the Doctor’s idea be correct, the Redeemer’s declaration is not true: for ‘surely the worm of conscience will die, when the sub- ject is annihilated—surely the fire of misery will be quenched, when the unhappy victims are all reduced to nothing ! Those who wish to see a triumphant defence of the eternity of future punishment, may consult “* Edwards against Chauncey,” and President Edwards’ “ Remarks.” ! Doctor B., in his preface, boasts of the progress of Arian principles, particularly in the Synod of Ulster. I am happy, however, to find, that the Synod has de- nied the truth of the charge, and very properly re- pelled it by a counter-declaration. ‘The truth is, that in the Synod of Ulster, Arianism seems to be in the last stage of a consumption, When an Arian minister dies, he is almost uniformly succeeded by one of ortho- dox principles. Of the Synod of Munster there is no room for boasting: that body appears to be reduced to a skeleton, and Arianism to be dying a natural death. That Arian principles have obtained the ascendency in Geneva, I believe is true; but the tide is turned, and the Arians are endeavouring to stem it by perse- cution. The attempt. however is vain: those who have drank the new wine of Arianism are turning © from it with disgust, exclaiming, as they embrace their ancient principles, ‘* The old is better !” The reader of the following treatise will not sup- pose, that I mean to condemn every thing contained in the Doctor’s sermons; nor that I approve of all those sentiments which I have not opposed. The ser- -mons reviewed contain many things which I not only approve but admire: particularly on the intercession of Christ and the doctrine of repentance. They also x contain many things which J disapprove, but on which my limits would not allow me to animadvert. Should the Doctor himself, or any of his fr iends, think proper to stand for ward in defence of his principles, I may then have an opportunity of extending my animadversions. In the mean while, it is my heart’s © desire and prayer to God that he would render my humble exertions instrumental in arresting the progress of error, and extending the triumphs of truth, ‘ Arise, *O God, plead thine own cause,” ‘ CONTENTS. Lom CHAPTER IT. Objections to Dr. Bruce’s mode of managing the controversy. . Page. OBsEcr. I.—Abusive epithets applied to his opponents—Fana- = __ tics—Enthusiasts—Bigots de erae) - - = 33 OBsECcT. If.—Doctor Bruce meanly attempts to raise a prejudice against his opponents, by raking together the most foolish and \ absurd things found in their writings during a period of three hundred years - - - = - - - - 21 OxsEcT. UI.—The Doctor misrepresents and misstates the doc- trines of his opponents—he puts in their mouths sentiments _ which they never entertained, never uttered, never wrote - 25 OgesEecT. 1V.—He blends Calvinistic doctrines with those of Anti- nomians and other enthusiasts — = Gr tate - - 36 OprEct. V.—He has not studied, and he does not understand, the system he opposes - ~ - - - - id. OxBsEcT. Vi.— Finding that his principles cannot be defended on the broad basis of Divine Revelation, he retreats to the citadel of the four Gospels—nor is he willing to appeal to these as the standard of doctrine; but only to those few verses which are found in them all* - - - se - OgsEcr. VII.—The Doctor’s principles have a. chilling and be- numbing tendency—by sinking divine truth in our esteem, they are calculated to repress a spirit of inquiry and to arrest the progress of religious knowledge - - - - 716, CHAPTER It. Doctor Bruce’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures - repelled - - - - - - - = - 42 What the Doctor recommends asa “sure guide,” shown to be _ false, destructive, and impious - eu es - . What he recommends as a “ safe rule,” shown to be subversive of _ all divine ordinances and doctrines—inconsistent with his ’ priuciples as a Protestant, i Dissenter, and a member of the 41 Antrim Presbytery ie Se ee " . 5 54 A maxim laid down in ‘his *« Being and Altributes” examined— leads to Deism, to Atheism, and to Blasphemy - - , 60 Wie Ay % See Chapter I]. p. 48, & ry é Xi | CHAPTER III. The Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ defended. Srcr. I.—Proved from his names - - ° - 64 Sxcr. Il.—from his attributes - - - - - - 77 Sxrct. Il].—from his works - ~ - - - - 79 Sect. 1V.—from the worship ascribed to him - a ae 85 SacT. V.—from the absurd and blasphemous consequences of _ Anti-trinitarian principles - - - - - - Srct. VI.—Objections answered _ - - - - - 95 CHAPTER IV. The Supreme Deity of the Holy Ghost defended, and the absurdity - - 0 of the Arian system exposed Sa on - Doctor Bruce’s view of the sin against the Holy Ghost shown to be erroneous - < 2 fe Sets a 2 a 42 Leis objections answered siti, RT Ta ‘A116 Baptism and the Apostolic Benediction, on Arian principles, in- volve great absurdities Bi te es - = - - 118 CHAPTER V. a The Atonement Defended. Sect. I.—The necessity of it proved nt om - ates AD Sect: II].—Reconciliation shown to be necessary on the part of . God as wellasonthepartofman = - -os - 126 Srcr. [J.—The death of Christ vicarious - - - - 1832 Secor. IV.—Objections answered - - - - - 142 Smct. V.—The moral tendency of the Atonement = - - - 148 Secor. VI.—Extent of the Atonement yr ie Oe a ere 8! : CHAPTER VI. | : Original Sin defended - oie ~ one - - - 158 Calvinistic opinion. - - = - oy - - - 159 Arminian opinion - - “ - - =) "162 Arian opinion - - - - - - - - =) ab. * Dr. Millar inconsistently joins with Dr. Bruce in condemning the Westminster Divines’ description of Original Sin, whilst the Ninth Article of his own Church teaches that doctrine in the strongest language - - - + be me - 165 Dr. Bruce’s objections answered =—- - - - ~tano His attempt to answer Calvinistic reasoning shown to be weak and unphilosophical - he ae - - wee te LTRS ee CHAPTER VII. oY oe : Predestination defended. ze Secor. I.—The grace of God distinguishing—Arminian doctrines ‘quite subversive of the grace. of God - - - - 175 Sxcr. 1].—Opposition to Calyinism originates in erroneous ideas of liberty and free agency - eh uae = - - 186— Sect. II].—Election and reprobation more formally defended, — and the attacks of the most eminent Anti-Calvinists repelled 205 eee CHAPTER VIII. — The Perseverance of the Saints’defended - - - ~- 246 Sreene and Confessions defended <= © aif ode - - + 261 eS as ee ae Le We va r t - “study,” &c. ( INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. Objections to Dr. Bruce’s mode of managing the con- troversy.— Objection 1st—Abusive epithets applied to his opponents, — Fanatics— Enthusiasts—Bigots. In the controversial Sermons of the Rev. Dr. Bruce, we would naturally expect fair, candid, and manly discussion. His reputation as a Divine, and celebrity as a scholar, would lead us to conclude, that he would never condescend to excite vulgar prejudice by any of those low, mean arts, which too frequently characterise inferior controversialists, In these reasonable expectations we feel ourselves not a little disappointed. ‘The Doctor’s mode of managing the controversy appears to me, in many respects, highly excep- tionable. I shall state my objections in order. . OBJECTION I. I object to those abusive epithets with which he constantly loads his opponents. Fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots, with him are quite common appellations—appellations ~ -. which, it must be confessed, are but too well calculated to foment in the minds of his hearers Pharisaic pride ; to rivet upon them the chains of their prejudice; and to inspire them with hatred, animosity, and contempt. Whilst the Doctor charges his opponents with fanaticism, enthusiasm, &c. he probably flatters himself, that he is quite free from those odious vices. It is possible, however, that he may be mistaken. Let us examine a few of his sentiments. : | | In his first Sermon, (p. 6,) he assures us, that ‘The -“humblest rustic, who is in the habit of assiduously and ** seriously perusing his Bible, knows all that is known by “the wisest man upon earth of the divine nature.—The ‘** existence, attributes, and providence of God are his daily — - 14 Now, if all this be so, for what purpose have thousands of sermons been preached? For what purpose have thousands of treatises been written on those subjects ?— What becomes of Dr. Clarke’s famous demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God? What becomes of Aber- nethy’s Sermons? And, above all, what becomes of Dr. Bruce’s own treatise ?—that treatise on the Being and At- tributes for which he expected the Aberdeen prize? Why ‘publish volumes upon volumes on the Being and Attributes of God, when the humblest rustic knows as much of the divine nature, as the wisest man upon earth ?—What egre- gious trifling ! 7 ty With regard to the same illiterate rustic, the Doctor as- sures us, that “the scenes of nature are exhibited to his «©mental eye—that he is taught the benevolent uses for «which they were designed ; and how they demonstrate << the wisdom, power, arid goodness of their Creator—and <¢ what more,’’ he asks, ‘‘ does the wisest philosopher know ‘‘ than this? Make out an account of all his surplus know- “ledge, and what does itamount to?” 0 Of course, Ray, Derham, Paley* and others, who wrote | volumes on the wise ends and benevolent uses of the works of God, were all laborious triflers!)§ They knew nothing more on those subjects, than the humblest rustic! Why then should the world be pestered any longer with such useless lumber? All such treatises, according to Dr. B., are quite superfluous ? ger But this is not all—The Doctor’s rustic is a character still more extraordinary. ‘He is conversant with all the <¢ authentic information which any man possesses, of the « conduct of Providence in the government of nations.” Indeed! And does Dr. B. mean to assert, that there is no authentic history in.the world, but Scripture history ? Does he mean to assert, that the histories of Rollin, Robert- son, Gibbon, Mosheim, and a thousand others, give the man of letters no advantage over the rustic, in contemplat- ing the wisdom of God in the conduct of Divine Providence? A atrange and novel assertion indeed! nije ae Finally—The Doctor’s rustic is net only on a level with” the ‘philosopher; he is far above him !—‘* He can look # Ray's. Wisdom of God in the Works of Creation. Derham’s Astro- theology, and Physico-theology, and Paley’s Natural Theology, are the works referred to. 15 « for at to ne end and destination with as much substan- ** tial knowledge, and MORE cond irmed assurance, than the “man of letters.” If thig doctrine be true, then—Wo to learning! Down with all Academies, Colleges and Universities! Learning is no longer a blessing but a curse! What pious parent would ai his son toa “College or an Academy, if convine- -ed that, in these seminaries, no substantial knowledge can be acquired—and that a liberal education, so far from being the handmaid of religion, would shake his son’s assurance with regard to his prospects of endless glory ?* I acknowledge, indeed, that learning, when not imbued with piety, is a dangerous thing. It has been the bane of the religious world ; and the source of almost all the errors and heresies, with which the church of God has been hitherto infested. Those ‘‘men who have crept into the church «‘ unawares, bringing in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them,” &c. have been, generally, nen of learning ; but destitute of piety—‘‘ ever learning, but never *‘ able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”’ | All this, however, amounts to no proof, that ignorance is better than learning—and that a man ‘+ should study to be- ‘come a fool, a perfect simpleton in worldly matters,” as the Doctor has taught us in his second sermon.—-On the contrary, Solomon’s proverbs still remain true, ‘For the’ ‘soul to be without knowledge is not good. —Wisdom « excels folly as far as light excels darkness.’ The preference which Dr. B. gives to the illiterate rustic is not more extraordinary, than his ideas respecting the ac- quisition of knowledge. In page 68 he assures us, that -s¢ we are furnished by our Creator with an instinctive know- ‘sledge of certain necessary truths, both natural and moral” —And in page 74 he asserts, ‘‘ Such knowledge of the *¢ qualities and uses of things about us, as is necessary, to ‘‘ subsistence, is easily acquired by instinct, or a simple ap- 6“ plication of our corporeal senses ; such religious truths, *< also, as are essential to godliness and eternal life, are ‘readily discovered or apprehended by conscience, or learn- ] * Ta the subsequent paragraph, the Doctor speaks of *£a view of ereation, &c.”—a view dispersed—a view accumulated—a view deliver- ed. In order to prove his favourite point—tbat the bible-reading peas- ant is superior to the man of letters—did he really conceive it necessary to abandon his own accuiacy by fs ola such a massacre of language? 16 ‘‘ ed from scripture by the exercise of our reason, and our ‘¢moral faculties.’ an . s Instinctive knowledge of truths both natural and moral! Acquiring knowledge by instinct !—Discovering truth by conscience !—Learning truths, not only by reason, but by our moral faculties !—'These are new things under the sun.* . In his epistle dedicatory the Doctor writes thus: « For ‘“ my own part, am more afraid of singularity, than ambi- ** tious of originality. I have always felt a dread of deal- ‘¢ing out my own crude conceptions fos your spiritual *‘ nourishment; and have preferred food, that had been “* well concocted by more skilful hands,’ &c. » Without waiting to inquire whether food previously con- cocted by other hands be most nutritive—or whether hands be the proper organs of concoction—I may venture to affirm, that the passages on which I have been animadvert- ing were never concocted by any hands but the Doctor’s. Though, in the sermons under review, there 1s little origi- nality, yet the sentiments quoted above must be acknow- ledged to be completely original. Nobody, | presume, will be so uncharitable as to suspect, that any of *‘ those emi- ‘« nent ministers, Haliday and his (Dr. B.’s) grandfather, ‘¢ Drennan and Brown, Mackay and Crombie,’’—or that any other member of the Antrim Presbytery, ever taught doctrines so unphilosophical, so hostile to learning. Without any proof, our learned author politely stigma- tises his opponents, as fanatics and enthusiasts. With great ~ _* From a divine, who assumes the right to look down with contempt on so learned, and so respectable a body, as the Synod of Ulster—(as the Doctor does in his late speech before the proprietors of the Belfast Academical Institution)—from. a divine, who superciliously charae- terises the Ulster Synod, as having no claims either to science or lite- rature, we would naturally expect a more favourable specimen of literary and scientific talent, than we find exhibited in the sermons under review; and particularly in the preceding quotations. What minister—what probationer—what student ofthe Synod of Ulster, does not know that the doctrine of innate ideas, or instinctive knowledge, 1s long since exploded? The veriest smatterer in metaphysics knows that the idea of acquiring knowledge by instinct is absuid. He knows that progressive improvement is utterly incompatible with instinct. He knows that conscience is a witness: he knows that conscience is a judge: and he knows also, that whatever metaphysical account may be given of it, no metaphysician was ever so fooltsh as to imagine that its office is—THE DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. Finally, he knows that truths can be learned by no moral faculty distinct from reason, bg ts respect, I would entreat him to lay aside « that inordinate self-love which we indulge for ourselves ;’’* and to read with candour the preceding remarks; he will then proba- bly be convinced, that his own doctrines are not quite so free from fanaticism and enthusiasm, as he at first imagined. He will probably sce reason for being more sparing in the use of such opprobrious epithets in future. He will perceive the propriety of ** casting first the beam out of bis own eye, ‘¢ that he may see more clearly to pull the mote out of his *« brother’s eye.”’ ; , On the epithet bigot, so liberally bestowed by the Doc- tor, I shall now offer a few remarks. ‘+ Bigot,’? says an eloquent American writer, ‘is a brand of infamy, not less *« than infidel or heretic ; and quite as freely applied. Se- ** rious as the subject is, one can hardly forbear smiling at “ the mistakes we are apt to commit in estimating our own *‘ characters, ‘Mhere are no more decided bigots on earth, “ than those who are bigoted to liberality.” ate _ That these observations are perfectly appropriate, the fol- lowing paragraph (p, 52, 53) will clearly evince. «If then, “ any candid and inquisitive person be desirous of knowing what light may be obtained from the researches of learn- ed and pious men, I do not advise him to resort to coun- cils, nor any other assemblies of divines ; because they all differ from each other, and have generally been con- ‘““vened for the purpose of fomenting discord, and sup- pressing free inquiry, or to promote somé political view. «¢ Neither do I recommend commentators and controver- sial writers; for these are generally warped by their attachment to some human system of doctrine, which ** has been engrafied on the word of God; and are, in general, the most strenuous advocates for some favourite “* system, for which they wish to be distinguished as cham- pions. For the same reason, you should not consult any authors, who are deeply involved in controversy, or ‘‘bound to any human profession of faith. But there are ‘* some paraphrases, which express the sense of scripture ‘in plainer, more intelligible or more modern language “than our translation, without enlarging on particular topics. These may be applied to with profit, if their authors be men of liberal sentiments, and not servilely $ sah The Doctor’s own language,—Being and Attributes, (p. 103.) oe jt Rae “ devoted-to any particular sect or denomination. Of this “ class are some of the most distinguished authors in our ‘‘Janguage, and most eminent philosophers of modern ‘© times, neither influenced by sectarian prejudices, nor fet- ‘“ tered hy professional trammels. ‘There are some inen of “this character in almost every church ; men who, from ‘< principle, prejudice, or interest, adhere to its forms and ‘ doctrines in general, but keep themselves at liberty to “« éxercise the right of private judgment on particular ques- “tions. [hese authors, though justly chargeable with ‘‘ some degree of insincerity by their respective churches, and of timidity by more resolute Christians, are, upon ‘¢ the whole, among the safest guides.” aa Such is the liberality and candour of our learned author. Solomon thought, that “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety ;”? but Dr. B. is of a different opinion. He does not allow his hearers to consult councils, or as- semblies of divines. By this means he contrives to keep out of their hands such books as the Westminster Confes- sion of Faith, Catechisms, larger and shorter, the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England, &c. “y ‘Again; he prohibits the perusal of authors bound to any human confession of faith. By this measure he proscribes, at once, all books written by the divines of the Church of England, the Church-of Scotland, or any other church requiring subscription.*. stein Once more ; he proscribes another large class of books —ALL COMMENTARIES WHATEVER! None of his hearers must look into commentaries. All such works are entirely prohibited. : Still farther he proscribes, Ist, «‘ Controversial writers,” and, @ndly, ‘* Authors deeply involved in controversy.” By the proscription of those two classes—two, I mean, according to the Doctor’s arrangement—he prudently keeps out of the hands of his hearers the works of the * T have subscribed a confession of faith; my writings are therefore useless. Dr. B. has proscribed them. He has prohibited his hearers from reading any such books. Before this sentence of proscription is executed, 1 would say, * Strike, but hear.”’? Hear my defence of creeds and confessions before you condemn them. My defence is before the public. It has silenced one Antitrinitarian opponent. If Dr, B. choose to renew the attack, the field is open. If he decline entering the lists, I shall consider my reasoning in favour of confessions equal, at least, - 10 his ipse diwtt against them. Wee rns ioe Sac ats acai ae Sete stupa wera ces sass es suk Sea aie tp Ra LE ee ee sa Fa a oe eee eye Sats eg a) ee are Sao 19 most eminent independent divines.. Dr. Owen, President Edwards, Fuller, Wardlaw, and many such lights, must all be extinguished. Dr. B. has condemned them to be « put under a “bushel. Why ?—they are either “ controversial “writers,” or ‘* authors deeply involved in controversy.” Let us not, however, imagine that our author meant to pro- hibit the éontroversial writings of Arians. By no means. That he did not mean to prohibit their controversial wri- — tings, is evident from two decisive facts. ist. If he had intended to proscribe their writings, he would not have countenanced the republication of the controversial ser- mons of Price and Channing. 2ndly. He would not have published, and put. into the hands of his hearers, his own controversial sermons. Magowan, in his letters to Priestly, happily blending hu- mour with good sense, says: ‘I heartily concur with you *« in believing the Bible to be the only rule; and, to adopt *¢ your own words, sincerely wish that all persons, of all ** sects and parties, would study their Bibles more, and ** books of controversy less; yet, I shall have no objection * to all people, of all sects, reading what may pass between ‘“ you and me. I am ready to think, indeed, that it is usual ‘** for polemic writers to suppose that all books of contro- *versy are hurtful, except those of which they themselves *« happen to be the authors.’ Agreeably to these judicious remarks, it 1s quite evident that Dr. B. regards as hurtful, and therefore proscribes, all books of controversy, eacept his own and those of his Arian brethren !—An admirable plan indeed! and well calculated - to promote the Arian system ! Such are the books prohibited by our learned author :— | 1. All books published by councils and general assemblies. —2. All books published by the Ministers of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, or any other church that requires subscription to a confession of faith.—3. All com- mentaries.— 4. All controversial books, except those pub- lished by himself and his brethren. Such is the Index Ez- purgatorius* of Dr. Bruce !—yes, of that Dr. Bruce who interlards his sermons with the opprobrious epithets of enthusiasts, fanatics, and bigots ! a * The Index Reiurcatarie was a catalogue of those book svohibit- Le : ved by ihe Charch of homes 86 ! ; 4 {t must be granted, indeed, that whilst our author prohi- bits commentaries, he does not prohibit all books. With certain qualifications and restrictions, he tolerates the use of paraphrases. Why he should prohibit the one class and - tolerate the other, is not so clear. That commentators are more warped by attachment to human systems than para- phrasts, is by no means self-evident. Besides, Dr. Camp- bell, (a divine no.less eminent than Dr. B.) in his Philoso- phy of Rhetoric, condemns paraphrases, as calculated to weaken and dilute the meaning of the sacred oracles ; and, on that account, gives to commentaries a decided prefer- ence. But, waiving these things, it must be acknowledged that our author has not prohibited ali books; that, under certain restrictions, he has tolerated paraphrases—and pa- raphrases too, written by the members of different churches: but what sort of members? Not those who conscientiously believe the principles they profess ; but men who, tamper- ing with their own conscience, burst the trarmmels of their profession—men who cowardly and hypocritically subscribe orthodox creeds, whilst they teach a different kind of doc- trine! Is not this the plain meaning of the Doctor ? If not, I should be glad to know what he means. According to -Dr, B.,—if I do not mistake his meaning, and I presume I do not,—a cowardly hypocrite, subscribing one class of doctrines, and teaching another, is ‘* upon the whole among the safest guides’”’—a safer guide than the orthodox minis- ter, who conscientiously believes, and sincerely teaches, the doctrines he has subscribed! Such is the liberality of that divine who so liberally bestows on his neighbours the epi- thet—s1eors ! ese Ne Dr. B. censures those, who ‘‘ neither read nor listen to ‘any thing that is inconsistent with their distinguishing *« tenets, and who esteem it an abomination to read a book ‘‘ written by one of an opposite persuasion’’—observing, ** that implicit faith is no longer the peculiar characteristic ‘‘ of the Romish communion. It is equally prevalent among ** Protestants of this description, and renders them equally «< invulnerable to (by) reason and inaccessible to argument.’ May not such characters turn round, and, with a sarcastic, sneer, reply, ‘* Physician, heal thyself?’ What Protestant divine of any denomination—what priest—what Pope— ever made so bold an attempt to stop up the avenues of knowledge—to render men invulnerable by reason, and in- accessible to argument—to wrap them up in the impeze- 21 trable veil of.an implicit faith—and, in a word, to consti- tute them fanatics, enthusiasts, and bigots ? OBJECTION I. Dr. B. meanly attempts to raise a prejudice against his opponents, by raking together the most foolish and absurd things found in their writings, during a period of three hun- dred years. He quotes, for instance, from the Monthly Repository, the following absurd expressions of Luther : ** Christ became the greatest transgressor, murderer, thief, *¢ rebel, and blasphemer, that ever was, or could be, in the «* whole world; for he, being made a sacrifice for the sins ** of the whole world, is not now an innocent person, and ‘© without sin.’’* | | In an unguarded moment did such absurd, I had almost — said blasphemous, expressions drop from the pen of Luther | the reformer. What then? Are they believed? are they adopted ? By no means. They are, so far as [ know, uni- versally condemned. Why do our opponents ransack the archives of antiquity ; select detached sentences from musty _ volumes which few possess; and attack rash and unguarded sentiments, which none believe? Why do they expend all their strength in attacking those weak or foolish sayings, which have been a thousand times attacked, and which no- body will defend? If they think they are able to oppose the orthodox faith, why do they not come forward, and attack it as men? Why do they not attack the doctrines of the Church of England, as contained in her articles and ho- milies ? Why do they not attack the doctrines of the Church of Scotland, as contained in the Westminster confession-of faith, and catechisms larger and shorter ? Why. are they so shy, so cautious, and so timid in attacking those subordi- nate standards? Why do they attack them so seldom, and 80 slightly? They know, that they contain the real senti- ments of the great body of the orthodox—sentiments, which thousands are willing and able and ready to defend. __ Again: Why do not our opponents attack our standard * All that Luther meant was, that our blessed Redeemer stood in the room of the murderer, the thief, Wc. so as to bear the penalty of their sins. The Apostle says, “he was made sin for us!” Luther. ‘says, “he became a sinner for us.” The meaning of both is, that he became a substitutionary sin-offering. I do not, however, defeud _ buther’s phraseology. . 22 works, both of the last and the present century? Why do they not attack an Edwards, ‘a Fuller, and a Wardlaw, a Scott, anda Magee? Dr. B. never looks such champions in the face; but with great magnanimity he attacks a few antiquated sentiments—sentiments a thousand times at- tacked, and long since abandoned. A & Thrice he routed all his foes— . * Aud thrice he slew the slain!” > { will not imitate Dr. B. I will not pollute my pages by recording the absurd and blasphemous expressions of Arius and his followers. I will not attack the dead. but the liv- _ ing. I will show to the world, that our venerable reformers were not the only men, in whose voluminous writings a few unguarded or foolish expressions may be found. I will make it appear that even Arian Doctors, now in the nine- teenth century, are not altogether exempted from this come mon frailty of our nature, and that the learned Dr. B. him- self is not quite infallible. A few quotations from his works will show, that, in writing silly and absurd things, he is not behind “the very chiefest”’ of our reformers. f In his Treatise on the Being and Attributes, (p. 88, 89,) the Doctor denoiminates creation, ‘ that superlative act of power.” When we read a few sentences farther, we find him declaring, that other ‘‘ acts may require MORE power ‘¢ than creation itself.” Waving thus compared these dif- ferent acts of power ; and having shown us that other acts may be greater than the superlative act; he gravely informs us, that itis ‘idle to pretend to compare things that are ¢ unknown, and to institute a comparison between degrees ‘© of power, when they are all equally incomprehensible !”” He compares acts of power, and then tells us that it is idle to compare them! He pronounces one to be the superlative act, and then tells us, that other acts may be. greater! And all this confusion of ideas is exhibited in that very specimen, inserted in the Belfast News-Letter, for the purpose of showing off, and recommending the Doctor's Treatise. ‘ Passing over the two next sentences, we find him writing thus : | fl « The power that could produce a single plant, is a sub> * ject of wonder. Its structure and growth, the expansion *«< of the leaves, the penciling of the flowers, the ripening ‘ of the fruit, and, above all, the mysterious configuration Tie a 2 ee ee rar ee i 4 # BS 4 SS 23 ‘st of the seed, are alike inimitable and inexplicable by the _ ** most ingenious.naturalist. x In this ‘paragraph the Doctor declares, that all the cir- cumstances mentioned are alike inimitable and inexplica- ble; and yet, in the very same paragrapli, he affirms that they are not alike inimitable : The configuration of the seed is above all! Dr. B. commences his abstract proof of the Being and Attributes of God thus: (p. 27.) ‘‘ In order to lay a firm ‘* foundation for proving the existence of God, we must *« carry back our thoughts beyond the period of creation, ** into that vast vacuity, that dark abyss without matter or ‘© motion, where time itself stood still. ‘The mind is swal- ** lowed up in its own idea. It feels a similar vacuum ‘¢ within itself, the same darkness, the same inanity, the *« same inactivity: yet here we must lay the corner-stone *¢ of the universe ; here must we seek for the cause of all “things. In this unsubstantial void of metaphysical ab- ** straction, let us look out for some fixed point, on which ‘* we may rest, till we bring the world into being, and put the mighty machine in motion. This point is our own ‘¢ existence.’ In this beautiful paragraph, the Doctor directs us to carry back our thoughts beyond the period of creation, into that vast ; vacuity, that dark abyss without matter or motion, where time itself stood still. In this vast vacuity we must look out for some fixed point, on which we may rest, till we bring the world into being, and put the mighty machine in motion ; and this point is our own existence. So then, the vast vacuity was no vacuity ; ‘ for our own existence was a fixed point in it!—So then, we existed before we exist- ed !—we existed before the creation!—before there was any matter, or any motion !—where time itself stood stil] !— and upon our own existence we take our stand! Our author assures us, that in reflecting upon this « vast vacuity,” the mind feels a similar vacuum within itself—the same darkness—the same inanity—the same inactivity. ’ That the Doctor’s mind felt all this, no person who reads the preceding paragraph can reasonably doubt. _ Itis impossible to dismiss the passage under review with- out remarking, that it is the commencement of the Doctor’s abstract proof of the Being and Attributes of God—the most aes part of that proof, for which he modestly expected the Aberdeen prize! 24 From our author’s Treatise on the Being and Attributes, | let us now turn our attention to his polemical sermons, that. volume, on which I design more particularly to animadvert. In page 19th, he assures us that the Almighty, through the medium of the Jews, ‘communicated to the whole — ‘“ world a full declaration of his will, a free dispensation of “grace, and a glorious immortality, reserved for ail his ‘* faithful servants by the Lord Jesus Christ. What! did the Almighty ever communicate through the Jews, a full declaration of his will to the whole world? Never! One quarter of the world has never yet enjoyed | this privilege. ea, Did the Almighty ever communicate through the Jews, a free dispensation of grace to the whole world?) Never’ One quarter of the globe has never yet enjoyed this privi- lege. fs Did the Almighty ever communicate through the Jews, a glorious immortality to the whole world? Never! Had he communicated a «“ glorious immortality” to the whole world, the whole world was consequently saved!’ A com-_ fortable doctrine indeed, and sufficiently liberal! But how does it accord with the doctrine which the same Dr. B. teaches? (p. 49.) Itis stated thus: ‘ But it is a strange ‘¢ imagination, that our Saviour should leave this world as ‘‘ he found it, ignorant of those essential principles, with- — ** out which they could not be saved.”’ What sentence was ever written by Luther, by Calvin, or by any of our reformers, half so absurd or uncharitable as. this ?—A sentence as inconsistent with liberality as with grammar. What! Did Jesus Christ find the world ignorant of those essential principles without which they could not be saved? If so—tremendous idea !—so long as they had previously remained in that state, the whole human family were damned ! When Dr. B. finished his volume of sermons, he pro- nounced it consistent both with itself and the gospel. (See preface, p. 2.)—How far it is entitled to so high an enco- — mium, let the reader of the preceding pages judge. Fone The quotations [have given—and I have given only a few—are sufficient to show, that were I to rake together all the foolish and absurd things written by Dr. B.; and were I to imitate the example he has set me, by ransacking the writings of Arians for centuries past; it would be an easy thing to exhibit a picture a thousand times more dark 25° and gloomy, than that exhibited in the Doctor’s sermons: For every foolish or absurd expression found in the writings of Luther, Calvin, or any other eminent reformer, I will engage to point out ten in the same number of pages writ- ten by the learned Doctor. “Are we accountable for all the foolish or absurd things written by any of our venerable re- formers? No more accountable than modern Arians are — accountable—than the Antrim Presbytery is accountable, for all the foolish and absurd things written by the Ex- 4 Shi cipal of the Belfast Academy. I come now to OBJECTION Il. In opposing the orthodox, our author resorts to another stratagem, still more despicable. He not only rakes together —or rather refails—the most foolish and absurd expres- sions, found in their writings for centuries past; but he misrepresents, misstates, and puts in their mouths, senti- ments which they never entertained, never uttered, never wrote. He forms a man of straw, knocks him down, and shouts victory. He forges sentiments, and triumphantly exposes them. Whilst flourishing away in this manner, his superficial reader thinks he sees ‘orthodoxy bending under his manly blows, and crumbling under his victorious feet, These severe and heavy charges, the following quotations will fully substantiate. In page 86, he declaims thus: ‘‘ How can men bear to © ~ hear this glorious and holy Being blasphemed, and to ‘shave their own sacred feelings insulted, by being told, <¢that mankind were created, only to be plunged into the «abyss of hell, to wallow in lakes of inextinguishable ie ‘¢ and writhe in ever-during torments ?”’ But in the name of candour and common sense, where did Dr. B. ever hear such blasphemy ? No wueEre !— Who preaches such blasphemy ? Nozopy !—If the mem- bers of the first Presbyterian congregation in Belfast believe such rhapsodies, they must be extremely credulous indeed— they must regard their fellow Christians, not as men, but as monsters. « In-the same licentious strain of invective, he proceeds thus: (Appendix, p. 313.) ~ All these feelings may be indulged with enthusiasm, in ‘the good sense of that word, without beingshocked by cruel 3 26 ‘Cand unrelenting decrees, an unjust and tyrannical saeri- “ fice, the ruin of human nature, and the eternal torments “of mankind, without regard to principle or conduct.” To say nothing of the blasphemous epithets, cruel, unre- lenting, unjust, and tyrannical, applied to the decrees of God, and the atonement of his Son ; who ever believed in <<‘ the eternal torments of mankind, without regard to. prin- «—“ But “ this I do not conceive to be the apostle’s meaning,” &c. What is not his meaning ?—Page 152. “ This sympathy with human feelings,” &c. What sympathy ‘—Page 169. ‘+ Now, if we can suppose it possible, ‘that any good end may be answered by such injunctions,” &c. What injunctions ‘—Page 179. ‘ Who are little inclined to those foolish “* questions, strifes of words, and perverse disputings.” What foolish: questions? what strifes of words? what perverse disputings ?—Page 180. “That body of people—whom he thus foreknew,” &c. How foreknew ?—‘‘ For the doctrine is founded on foreknowledge.” What doctrine ?—Page 195. “ The word is explained in the next clause,” &c. What word?’—‘ In Hebrew the simple word means fo be a sin- ner.” What simple word ?—‘¢In another form of the verb,” &c. What. verb ?—These instances, out of many, show that the Doctor thinks, and of course writes, incoherently. They show, that it is easy to mis- take his meaning, but difficult, if not impossible, to refute all his de- _tached, disjointed, and erroneous sentiments. ae 4 & 38 which he had not formed from eternity, he would be muta- ble, liable to change, and ‘ shadow of turning !?? All Calvinists universally maintain, and have always maintained, that all the decrees of God are eternal.- ‘Their children. as soon as they are capable of lisping their cate- chism, know that the decrees of God are his “eternal pur- pose.’ ‘The eternity of the divine decrees was never con- troverted, either by Sublapsarians or Supralapsarians. ‘The subject of their controversy was not the date, but the object of God’s decree of predestination. The Supralapsarians maintained, that the object of this decree was men consi- dered merely as creatures; but the Subiapsarians contend- — ed that the decree of predestination contemplated men, not. merely as creatures, but as falien creatures. bein * Would not Dr. B. have displayed more wisdom by stu- dying the disputes between Sublapsarians and Supralapsa- rians, before he pretended to explain them? What! Ex- plain what he did not understand ! teach what he had never learned! oppose opinions which he had never studied ! That our author, in attacking Calvinism, is opposing @ system which he has not studied, and which he does not understand, the following extracts from his «« Being and Attributes” farther evince. In page 52, speaking of the free agency+of the Deity, he writes thus: : «¢ This freedom must extend to what has been called the | «< liberty of indifference. It is thought by some, that ne .< being ean act, except there be a motive for acting in one /¢ manner rather than another; and that when all modes of ‘‘ acting are indifferent, there can be no action. If this ‘< were the case, the universe could never have been cre- «© ated: for it is impossible to imagine, that there could be ‘‘ any reason for creating it in one part of vacant space, or ‘¢ at one period in eternity, rather than another. A suffi- ‘¢ cient motive for acting may therefore exist, though there ‘be none for preferring one particular mode to every «< other. It is so far from being foolish, in this case, to act ‘s without a motive, that it would be unspeakable folly to ‘¢ suppose that the Deity would refrain from acting on such ‘¢a notion. The two equal bundles of hay are a slander ‘< even on the stupidity of the ass. ‘These, and many other ‘¢ notions, originate in our confounding spirit with matter, ‘ thought with motion, and motives with impulse.” Maun After the Doctor has written about two pages more, he completely forgets all this, and writes as follows: - . = ma 65. oh = aS a ao aS EN? 39 _ If we imagine that the existence of two perfect beings ig even conceivable, a little consideration will convince “us, that, in fact, we are only thinking twice of the same “© thing. Their omnipotence is exercised in the same place, ‘¢ at the same time; and is directed by infallible wisdom, “ and consummate goodness. It must, therefore, be always ‘* performing the same acts: for the perfection of wisdom *¢ will not admit of their thinking or acting differently ; the << wisest determination must be preferred’by both. Even | “* two men, who are perfect in any demonstrative science, ‘© cannot possibly differ. Their conclusions on that subject “ must infallibly correspond. ‘This results from the perfec- ‘* tion of their knowledge in that science ; and, therefore, “if two perfect beings existed, their knowledge and *« thoughts on every subject must be the same. Jor the «* same reason, their wills, intentions and actions will co- -<* incide.”’ fue v In the former of these extracts, our learned author - strongly asserts the doctrine of free will; in the latter, he as firmly maintains the doctrine of necessity. In the for- mer, a liberty of indifference is taught ; in the latter, the doctrine of moral necessity is asserted. In the former, Ar- minianism is taught; in the latter, the highest Calvinism. If the two Supreme Beings, supposed by the Doctor, are both possessed of a liberty of indifference—why must their omnipotence be exercised in the same place, and at the same time? Might not the one exert his omnipotence in one part of space, and at one period in eternity, and the other in a different department, and at a different period ? If they be possessed of a liberty of indifference, why must they always think alike, and act alike? Why may they not think differently, and act differently ? If they cannot think differently, will differently, and act differently, they cannot be possessed of a liberty of indifference—they must be Ne- -cessarians. If their wills, intentions and actions must co- incide, then they are no longer Libertarians ; they must be the subjects of moral necessity. Excellent divinity !—Sound doctrine !—not only Calvinism, but the highest Calvinism !* ~ * From the heights of Calvinism the Doctor descends to the depths of Socinianism. Page 24, he writes thus: “ While others waste their *¢ time in disputing about the nature, person, and office of Christ, it is *S enough for the humble disciple to be assured that he was invested 66 with divine authority, and that he made known the nature and the ~ 40 —So high, that some very judicious: Calvinists have oppos- ed it. It is one of those points on which the celebrated Witherspoon opposed his illustrious predecessor, President Edwards. I am happy, however, in this instance, to find Jonathan Edwards, the Calvinist, and Dr. B., the Arian, going hand in hand in the support of truth. Dr. B. has proved clearly, that the Deity himself is not possessed of a liberty of indifference. But if the Deity be not possessed of such a liberty, how can man be possessed of it? ‘To say that God is not possessed of a liberty.of indifference, but that man is possessed of it, would be blasphemy ; it would be to say that man has more liberty than bis Maker !—the creature than the Creator! Such is the blasphemous con- clusion, to which every man must be reduced, who main- tains the doctrine of a liberty of indifference. Should any continue to defend that. doctrine, I would refer them to the preceding reasoning of Dr. B., which, in my opinion, is altogether unanswerable. I would say to them, read Dr. B., and become Calvinists. | _ Not only the reasoning, but even the testimony of Dr. B. in favour of Calvinism, ought to have great weight and in- fluence. It is the testimony of an enemy. It is the testi- mony of common sense, bursting the barriers of an-hereditary creed, and forcing its way through the deep-rooted preju- dices of an early education. That both God and man are - possessed of a liberty of indifference, is a tenet, which the Doctor had received by tradition from his fathers. It con- stitutes an important part of that hereditary creed, handed down by his boasted predecessors, ‘« Halliday and his grand- ‘ father, Drennan and Brown, Mackay and Crombie.” But that the Deity possesses no such liberty, and, of course; that man possesses no such liberty, is the dictates of the Doctor’s own common sense: it is the dictate of truth ; and a corner-stone of the Calvinistic system.: &¢ will of God; that he pointed out the way to life eternal, and evinced ‘the truth of that doctrine by his resurrection from the dead, and 66 ascension into heaven, where he ever liveth to make intercession for us, and whence he shall come to judge both the living and the dead.” This is a Socinian creed, and Dr. B. pronounces it quite sufficient !— At one time a professed Arian—now a high Calvinist—again a Soci- nian —and all this in that same volume of sermons, which he modestly pronounces, * consistent with itself and the gospel 1”? bo begy abi ip _ nil fuit unquam : 9) i yf ' Sic impar sibi! A = j 41 The extract given above proves two things: first, it proves the truth of Calvinism ; and secondly it proves, that Dr. B. does not understand the system he has. undertaken to oppose. If he really understood it, there is reason to believe, that he would not oppose it. As his opposition arises from ignorance, I would fervently pray for him and all such, ‘‘ Father, forgive them; for they know not what “* they do.”’ - OBJECTION VI. _ _ Anti-trinitarians, in their attempts to subvert what I re- gard as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, first ‘waged war with creeds and confessions, and loudly vociferat- ed Chillingworth’s maxim,. «‘ The Bible, the Bible is the ‘religion of Protestants.”? But now, finding that their principles cannot be defended on the broad basis of divine revelation, they retreat to the citadel of the four gospels. Nor are they willing to appeal to these as the standard of doctrine, but only to a few verses, which are found written. in them all. The testimony of three evangelists, according to Dr. Bruce, is not sufficient to establish any important truth !*—Could any thing but conscious weakness account for such timidity and tergiversation ? 6 _ Our learned author betrays the same weakness and timi- dity, by deprecating argument and verbal criticism. He criticises, and then condemns an appeal to criticism. He argues, and then condemns an appeal to argument. Is not this to sound a retreat? Is it not to abandon that field, to which he had rashly challenged his opponents? The honest Quaker, when pressed with an argument which he could not answer, very piously exclaimed, ‘* The Lord rebuke “« thee, O Argument! the Lord rebuke thee!”’ OBJECTION VIL. _ Finally: I object to Dr. Bruce’s sermons on the study of the Bible, because they have a chilling and benumbing ten- dency. By sinking the greater part of the sacred volume into comparative insignificance, they have .a tendency to lessen men’s attachment to it, and, of course, to draw them off from the reading and perusal of it. By sinking divine’ truth in our esteem, they are calculated to repress a spirit * The truth of those charges wall appear in the subsequent chapter. 4 4 42 of inquiry, and to arrest the’ progress of religious knowledge. But on this objection I shall not insist, as the force of it will appear in the ensuing ch apter, to which I now proceed. CHAPTER II. Dr. Bruce’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scrip- tures repelled. ise » Havine in the preceding chapter stated my objections to the Doctor’s mode of managing the controversy, I come now to the defence of those doctrines, which, in his ser- mons on the study of the Bible, he has so boldly assailed. In «‘ contending for the faith once delivered to the saints;”’ it is sometimes necessary to defend one particular truth, and sometimes another. At present the attack is general. Our learned author, with an intrepidity altogether unparalleled; at least in this country, has attempted to raze the very foun- dations of the Christian system. He has attacked; not merely the doctrines of the Bible, but the Bisue rrsEur. That this charge, though awful in the extreme, is not unjust, the following quotations too clearly prove. =) Page 60—*«“ Respectfully and gratefully receive that va- sé riety of religious knowledge, which is communicated in “the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles ; but fix upon “ the words of Jesus as the standard of your faith, &c.”’ Page 49— It is evident, that we should collect the ' 6¢ whole of the Christian doctrine from the words of Jesus, <¢ as recorded in the four Gospels.—For the knowledge of «« God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the terms of acceptance, << and other doctrinal points, we should depend solely on ‘“‘ the gospels,” pias r Page 87—*‘ We should interpret their (the Apostles) rea- ‘¢ soning in.conformity with his precepts, not his precepts “< by their reasoning.” ‘it Rest Pp. 50—* But you are never to set up the authority of ‘“< the disciples against that of their master; nor consider ‘¢ their writings as the primary source of knowledge on doc- “ trinal questions, as is too often done. On the contrary, «you should form your opinions from the discourses of 43 _ Christ, on every branch of his religion, and consider thé « writings of the Apostles as comments upon them,”’ &c.: ~.. P. 180—« Tf I can explain these (the 8th and 9th chap- ‘¢ ters of the Romans), it will not be necessary to occupy ‘* your time with any others. If we cannot interpret them <‘ conformably to our Saviour’s doctrine, we should rather «¢ abandon them as unintelligible, than prefer the lower au- ‘* thority to the higher, and what we cannot understand to ‘what we do.” _ P. 91.—* For the general purport of their writings (the *« sacred penmen’s writings) coincides with the declarations * of our Lord.” ; ~~ P. 123—« Ts it not clear, that the authority of our Lord “* is paramount to every other ; and that ifany of his Apos- tles differ from him, their authority must be set aside ? Is * it not absurd to suppose that they should; and most of ~“¢ all, that any of them should contradict their master and *¢ one another, and even themselves.” P. 26—*< Being now well grounded and settled in the ‘“* genuine doctrine of Christ, as delivered by himself in the *« Gospels, his* faithful followers: must take it for granted “that the chosen disciples of our Lord taught nothing in- ‘consistent with it,* and that any obscurity in their wri- tings must be cleared up by referring to his own words. *« He will therefore expound those texts which are hard to ** be understood by the plain doctrine of their master—the *« sincere and singleminded reader of the Bible will look to his Saviour as his polar star, and, in perusing the Epistles *¢ will dwell and rely on those points of edification in which ** the Apostles and their master coincide.” sf ~ P. 19—* He will, however, distinguish the history from “‘ the divine communication. He will see, that it has been ** composed by fallible men, but under such direction and an superintendence, that though left to themselves, as to pe- culiarities of style, the narration of ordinary facts, and the ey ll * Tf we must take it for granted that “ the chosen disciples of our “Lord taught nothing inconsistent with his doctrine”—-what does our ‘author mean by telling us that the general purport of their writings coincide with the declarations of our Lord ;—that if any of his apostles differ from him, their authority must be set aside—and that we should dwell and rely on those points of edification, in which the apostles and their master coincide ?—I say, what does the Doctor mean? The most ‘charitable answer is, he means=-NOTHING AT ALL. me & 44 tc insertion of occasional reflections, they hand down the « revelation itself, as it was actually made.” j In confirmation of these sentiments, he quotes with ap- probation (P. 297) the following sentence from Grotius— ‘© Jt was not necessary that the histories (in scripture) ‘© should be dictated by the Holy Spirit ; it was enough “‘ that the writers had a good memory.” Such is the humble rank, to which the inspired Apostles are degraded !—We must not depend upon them for any doctrine! Tne wuoxr of Christian doctrine we must re- ceive from our Saviour, and not from the apostles. On him we must depend souery for our knowledge of doctrines. The writings of the Apostles are only to be regarded—so far as doctrine is concerned—as ‘‘ comments’’ on the dis- courses of our Lord. Nay, the Apostles are to be regard- ed, if our author’s doctrine be true, not only inthe humble capacity of commentators; but—shall I utter the impiety ?— as BADCoMMENTATORS! Our learned author constantly re- presents the Redeemer’s doctrines as plain, but those of the Apostles as obscure. Of course, the Apostles must be bad commentators ; for their commentary is more obscure than the text! Instead of their commentary explaining out Saviour’s text, his text must explain their commentary ! «¢ We should interpret,’ says the Doctor, “ their reasoning _ « in conformity with his precepts, and not his precepts by ‘< their reasoning |”? Now, if the reasonings of the Apos- tles do not assist us in the interpretation of our Saviour’s precepts, they must be useless commentaries indeed ; and the Apostles themselves silly commentators! Such is the impious, but inevitable conclusion. | Dr. Bruce maintains, that the authority of the Apostles is inferior to that of the Redeemer—that his authority is paramount—that they were fallible men, &c.—As men, the Apostles were fallible, [grant ; but as writers of the sacred volume, they were infallible. ‘The authority by which the whole Bible was. written is the same—THE AUTHORITY OF Gop. tian doctrine—to abridge the sacred volume—to exclude the: Old Testament, and the greater part of the New, from the creed of the Christian, is to subvert the Christian faith, and overturn the Christian system—it is an attempt to tear away the greater part of that imperishable foundation, on which the church of God is built. Vain and fruitless attempt !— When the Doctor has first inverted the highest pyramid of Egypt—when he has succeeded in placing that stupendous pile of building on its apex instead of its base—then, and not till then, let him attempt to invert the church of Ged, by endeavouring to poise that glorious fabric on the narrow pivot of a few pages, instead of rearing it on the broad basis of ‘ the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief’ ‘* corner stone.’’* Whilst degrading the other Scriptures, our author exalts - the Gospels t too high. This, to a superficial thinker, may appear impossible ; but it is not. We exalt them too high, when we raise them on the ruins of the other Scriptures. We exalt the Gospels too high, when, with Dr. B., we vainly imagine, that creeds doen Geni them must be necessarily '* The Antrim Presbytery, in their petition tothe House of Commons, make the following declarations :—“ that your petitioners are so far « from entertaining any sentiments derogatory to the Holy Scriptures, <¢ that they do believe, that there, and there only, can be found the true “ unpolluted doctrine of Christ crucified—that they invariably appeal *$ to the sacred volume for the truth of what they teach, and are at all “ times ready to reject any opinion that can be sai hide to be at variance 66 with the word of God.” — According to this declaration, the members of the. Antrim Presbytery hold no sentiments derogatory to the Holy Scriptures.—With what truth Dr. B, could sign such a declaration, let the reader of the prece- ding pagesjudge! That the sentiments, on which Ihave been animad- verting, are not only derogatory, but HIGHLY derogatory to the Holy Scriptures, no unprejudiced person can deny. ° The declarations of the Antrim Presbytery, I regret to say, are am- biguous and equivocal. They declare, that the doctrine of Christ crucified may be found in the Holy Scriptures. How found?—asa few grains of wheat ina bushel of chaff? This, as we have already seen, appears to be Dr. Bruce’s view of the subject ! They declare again, that they appeal invariably to the sacred volume for the truth of what they teach. But how do they appeal to the sacred volume?) Do they appeal to the whole of it, or only to the one hundreth | part of it? Do they make the whole of it the standard of their faith, or only a few pages? What a pity wise are Fh Sa were NOE nore explicit ? Be ~ 5A pure, calculated to eradicate all evil, and to introduce all good. What, I ask, is in the words of Jesus Christ, which — prevents them from being perverted, as well as the other Scriptures? Noruine.—Notwithstanding all the Doctor’s high encomiums on the Gospels—and they are worthy of encomium—have they not been actually perverted? THEY - HAVE.) © | What words have been more perverted than these, ‘‘ Thou ‘¢ art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church ?”’ Has not the supremacy of the Pope been founded upon them? What words have been more perverted than these, «¢ This ‘‘ismy body. Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood ‘“ of the son of man, ye have no lifein you?” Has not the | monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation been founded upon them ? ce What words have been more perverted than these, «* Ex- ‘¢ cept ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish?” Has not the doctrine of penance been founded upon them ? ; What words have been more perverted than these, «« Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven?’ Has not the blasphemous doctrine of indulgences been founded upon them ?—Thus it appears, that the Doctor’s fine theory is contradicted by facts. Facts prove, that the most*mon- strous and abominable creeds have actually been drawn from the very words of our blessed Redeemer ! After extolling the Gospels too high, by raising them on the ruins of the other, Scriptures, he finally degrades them, by admitting that «they have produced unhappy effects on “ our perverse and crooked generation.’ Neither the Gos- pels, nor any other part of the Scriptures, ever “+ produce unhappy effects.” They may be the innocent occasions, but-can never be the causes of evil.* 1) OO De Ate ‘Having examined the Doctor’s “‘surE eurpE,” let us now attend to his ““SArE RULE.” ail | DRE Ni Page 39, he writes thus: ‘* But, the question, to which ° J mean chiefiy:'to confine myself, at present, relates to * J do not impute this to the Doetor as a designed charge upon the Gospels. It is only one of those numerous instances in, which he has failed in expressing what he meant. In the present case, he has, unin- tentionally. degraded the Gospels, by confounding the distinction between an occasion and a cause. . 2 Cee a0 I! 55 « disputed doctrines. Here, if you were asked, Understand ‘‘ ye what ye read? you might well reply, How can we, ‘¢ except some man guide us /—And then the question re- <¢ curs, Who shall guide us? What direction shall we look ‘¢to in controversy? ‘l'o whom shall we apply, when ‘‘ learned men and whole churches differ? How shall the ‘« people decide, when their teachers, and other learned di- “vines, disagree ? This is an interesting question, at all ‘times; and never more so, than at present, when reli- ‘¢ gious controversy is so much the vogue. ‘«¢ Perhaps, the shortest answer that can be given. is, Let ‘them alone. Let them differ, and do you adhere only to ‘‘ those points in which they all agree. Christians must ‘¢ necessarily coincide in opinion, upon many important “truths. We may, I believe, safely say, that they concur ‘« on every doctrine, which can justly be called fundamen- «tal. Their agreement on these, while they differ on other ‘* points, is a strong reason for exabracing them: their dif- ‘¢ ference upon subordinate doctrines, must excite a suspi- < cion that they may not be true ; and a belief, that they “are not essential. So that, if there be any tenet, upon *‘ which you have not the means of attaining to a rational ‘¢ belief, you had better leave if among polemics and con- «-troversionalists, till they agree among themselves ; and, ‘cin the mean time, addict yourselves to those practical, ‘* edifying, and well established principles, in which they Ks concur. This is the safest general rule that 1 can give to sVvOu.. So then, with regard to all those doctrines which have been disputed, the safest ruic Dr. B. can give, is, “unr THEM ALONE.”’ Now, really, if our learned author had no better rule to give than this, with great submission, I con- ceive, it would have been inf initely better to have ah Ne rule-at all. 1 shall assign my reasons. Taking the Doctor’s safe rule in their hands, the pity, i cade part of his congregation might reason thus:— ‘«« Whether any day be holier than another, is a point dis- ‘« puted by learned divines; we will therefore let the obserd- ‘Cance of the Christian Sabbath alone. t cannot be a mat- “ter of any great importance, whether we dts it in teli- * gious services, or in business an id amusement. “ Baptism is a disputed poiat : we will < Tet it n eoWe will not have our children baptized; for iti isof no Ss Peeeranee whether they are baptized or not. 56 *« The Lord’s Supper is a disputed point: we will ¢ fet “¢ ¢t alone.’ ‘Whether we commemorate the dying love of ‘¢ Jesus or not, is a matter of no importance. «Secret prayer, family worship, social worship, public ‘© worship, in a word, all divine ordinances, public and pri- “* vate, are disputed points: according to the safe rule of ‘© our good minister, Dr. B., we will let them alone.. We ‘¢ will neither worship God in public nor in private. . At- ‘‘ tendance on such ordinances can be of no importance. ‘«¢ Particularly, we will ‘ let the Bible alone ;’ for whether ‘¢ the laity should read it at all, has been matter of dispute ; ‘‘ and at present it is disputed whether we should read it ‘‘ without note or comment. We will leave the Bible ‘*‘ among polemics and controversionalists, till they agree ‘¢ among themselves about the reading of it. “We will let the moral law alone: for whether we are ‘* obliged to keep it or not, is a matter of dispute among ‘< learned divines. It is therefore a matter of no conse- - «¢ quence, whether we study to keep the commandments of ‘¢ God, or live in the open violation of them; whether we. ‘* study purity in heart, speech and behaviour—or live in “* rioting and drunkenness, chambering and wantonness— ‘¢ giving ourselves up to work all uncleanness with greedi- “ness. The difference cannot be great: for some sects ‘« have maintained that good works are so far from being “* necessary, that they are obstacles to our salvation. Ac- - cording to the safe rule of our good minister, we will let <¢ the moral law alone !”’ . But I must now stop. I cannot go farther. into detail. To point out all the absurdities of this ‘‘ sarm RULE,”? would fill volumes. If this safe rule of the Doctor’s be a good one, where are all our peculiar principles as Dissenters? All these principles were disputed principles. They were, therefore, of little importance ; and yet our forefathers shed ther blood in defence of them. According to the Doctor’s ~ safe-trule, they «‘ died as afool dies!” 9. 2 ey _ Again: If the Doctor’s ‘‘ saje rule’’ be a good one, what besomes of all our peculiar principles as Protestants ? What betomes of all the peculiar doctrines of the Reformation— thoye doctrines, which the martyrs sealed with their blood ? Thty were all. disputed doctrines, and, therefore, unimpor- tant. The blood of the martyrs was shed in vain! © ~ In one sense, indeed, the Doctor’s rule must be acknor- ledget to be a safe one. et Pei 57 No rule could be safer for the Church of Rome. Yt would ‘have put an extinguisher on the Reformation. With regard to the disputed doctrines, our author would have said, ** Let ‘< them alone. Leave them among the polemics and contro- “ versionalists, till they agree among themselves.”? Now, as they have not yet agreed among themselves, the Reforma- tion would not have yet commenced ; Dr. B. and his hear- ers would have been, at this very moment, stanch Catho- lics, in the warm embraces of the old mother church!—My readers will forgive me, if, impelled by the force of truth, I proceed still farther, and say : , No RULE COULD BE SAFER FOR THE KINGDOM OF SATAN. If universally adopted, it would have effectually secured the perpetuity of his reign, and the integrity of his empire. With great deference, I call upon Dr. B.—I call upon all the Arians in the world—to mention, if they can, one single truth, which Satan and his emissaries have not disputed. Under the Old Testament dispensation, Satan’s emissaries, his false prophets, opposed and disputed those truths deli- vered by the prophets of the Lord. Would Dr. B. have said on this occasion, ‘‘ Let those disputed truths alone, “ till the prophets agree among themselves ?”’ A safe rule, indeed, for Satan’s kingdom! The Old Serpent himself could have invented none better. : Again: In the commencement of the Christian era, Sa- tan’s false apostles opposed and disputed the doctrines taught by the true apostles of Jesus Christ. (¢ Cor. xi. 13, 14, 15.) <‘* For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, ‘* transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And ‘no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an ‘angel of light. Therefore, it is no great thing if his “‘ ministers also be transformed, as the ministers of right- <¢ eousness, whose end shall’be according to their works.” When the apostles of Jesus and those of Satan were thus disputing the great doctrines of the Gospel, would our au- thor haye said, “‘ Let those doctrines alone. Leave them «© among the polemics and controversionalists, till they have _ agreed among themselves ?”” No rule in the world would- have contributed more effectually to the safety and prospe- rity of Satan’s kingdom! On the principle of this rule, the . Christian religion could have never been propagated. . As Satan had his false prophets under the legal dispen- sation, and his false apostles at the commencement of the ‘Christian era, so in every subsequent period of the church, 58 at least till the time of the millennium, he has had, or will have, his false teachers. Our Saviour warned us against such seducers. (Matthew, viii. 5.) ‘+ Beware of false pro- ‘* phets, which come to you in sheeps’ clothing ; but in- ‘¢ wardly they are ravening wolves.”? The apostle Peter sounds the alarm, and puts the church on her guard against the intrusion of men, who would “ come in unawares, and ‘* privily introduce damnable heresies, denying the Lord *‘ that bought them, and bringing upon themselves and ** their followers swift destruction.”? ‘The apostles Paul, Jude, and John, all blow the trumpet and sound the alarm.. Their injunctions to us are, «« Beware! Beware! Be not ** deceived. Let no man beguile you. Stand fast in the ‘* faith. Contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to ‘‘ the saints. Stand fast in one spirit and one mind, striv-_ ‘* ing together for the faith of the Gospel.’ With these apostolic injunctions, the advice of Solomon is completely In unison; ‘* Buy the truth, and sell it not.” : I’rom these observations, it is abundantly evident that ‘“‘the Devil, our adversary, is still going about as a roaring ** lion, seeking whom he may devour ;’”’ that he is still opposing the truths of the Gospel. The adoption of the Doctor’s safe rule would be a base desertion of truth, and dereliction of duty. Instead of ‘' resisting the Devil, that he may flee from us,” it would be a surrendering to Satan | at discretion. It would be leaving his emissaries in undis- . turbed possession of the field. No, Doctor Bruce! The friends of the Redeemer are not so cowardly. Rallying round the standard of truth, in the name of their God they will display their banners: nor will they leave the field till they “see Satan falling like lightning from heaven to earth ;” till they see truth bursting through the clouds of error, and ‘ the knowledge and glory of the Lord covering ‘* the earth, as the waters cover the sea.” ea If the Doctor’s safe rule be adopted, what becomes of all his own principles ?—his principles as a Protestant ?—as a Dissenter ?—as a Presbyterian ?—as a member of the An- trim Presbytery? What becomes of the doctrines taught in his volume of sermons—the same doctrines which were taught previously by ‘those eminent ministers, Halliday “* and his grandfather, Drennan and Brown, Mackay and . ** Crombie’’—the same doctrines which were taught for a century past, by the Presbytery of Antrim? These are all disputed doctrines ; and this very circumstance, according 59 _ to the Doctor’s own acknowledgment, ‘ must excite a suse picion that they may not be true.’’ Why, then, should he preach those suspicious doctrines? Why did his boasted predecessors, for a century past, preach those suspicious. doctrines? Why do all the other members of the Antrim Presbytery, as well as himself and his son, continue to preach those suspicious doctrines ? What! the Presbytery of Antrim preaching, for a century, doctrines confessedly suspicious? ‘Tell it not in Gath! publish it not in Aske- lon! lest Deists should rejoice, and Infidels triumph. I have dwelt the longer on the Doctor’s safe rule, as I believe it to be arule too generally adopted ; and a rule fraught with incalculable mischief. Why are so many dis- -senters returning to the bosom of the church of England ? Why are so many Protestants returning to the bosom of the church of Rome? I answer, our author’s safe rule, and other kindred maxims, have a powerful influence in pro- ducing these effects. ‘* No matter what we believe, if we ‘are sincere.’’ ‘* Those doctrines, about which good “* men differ, cannot be important.”’ *¢ For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight : - His can’t be wrong, whose life is in the right.” These have been the prevailing, fashionable maxims of the past century—maxims, as unphilosophical, as they are unscriptural—maxims, which separate theory and practice ——maxims, which confound truth and error ; absurdly repre- senting both as equally favourable to virtue! Upon the principle of such maxims, it is natural to ask, Why did those graceless zealots, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, and the rest of our reformers, fight with the church of Rome about modes of faith? Why did they throw all Europe into flames for no purpose? “ These graceless zealots’”—ma the patrons of such maxims say—‘ acted as fools by des- “< troying the peace of Christendom; but we are men of “ pacific dispositions, and will show our superior wisdom, ‘* by returning to the bosom of our mother church,’ 4 ** part of all will be saved.”” ‘* When we goto Heaven, it ‘© will never be asked, Are you Catholics, Churchmen, or Dissenters ?”’—I ask any man of candour—any man ca- pable of the slightest reflection—Have not such « safe rules’ and liberal maxims a direct tendency to stop the > 60 march of mind—to arrest the progress of Reformation— and to lead us back into darkness and Popery ? How different the sentiments of our blessed Redeemer and his Apostles! ‘* Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy ‘< word is truth.” ‘God hath chosen you to salvation ‘¢ through sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth. ‘«< Because they received not the love of the truth, that they “«‘ might be saved, God gave them over to strong delusions ‘© to believe a lie, thatall might be damned who believe not ~<¢ the truth.” ‘Come out from among them, my people,” dc. | Nearly allied to the Doctor’s sure guide, and safe rule, is the following maxim laid down in his treatise on the Being and Attributes, (P. 12): ‘+ It is also a law of our nature, “that we cannot discredit testimony, when sufficiently “strong.” Though this maxim, at first sight, appears quite plausible ; yet, ifduly examined, I humbly conceive, it will be found to subvert the foundation of the Christian system, and to lead directly to Deism, to Atheism, and to blasphemy, __'These assertions are strong, I acknowledge. That they are not too strong will appear, I am convinced, by the fol- lowing syllogisms : | «« It is a law of our nature, that we cannot discredit tes- ‘¢ timony, when sufficiently strong.” But the testimony in favour of the truth of Christianity, has beeri discredited ; Therefore, the testimony in favour of the truth of Chris- tianity, was not sufficiently strong. : Does not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor’s maxim, level to the dust the whole fabric of Christianity ? Does it not lead directly to Dzism? Again: “ Itis a law of our nature, that we cannot dis- << credit testimony, when sufficiently strong.” But the testimony, which God has given in favour of the truth of his own being and attributes, has been discredited ; Therefore, the testimony, which God has given in favour of the truth of his own being and attributes, is not suffi- ciently strong ! . I ask again: Does not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor’s maxim, lead directly to Arnersm ? Once more: ‘It is alaw of our nature, that we cannot <¢ discredit testimony, when sufficiently strong.” But the testimony God has given of his Son, the testi- mony which the Son has given of the Father, and the testi- 61 7 mony which the Holy Spirit has given of both, have been » discredited ; f ; Therefore, the testimonies of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not sufficiently strong! : Whether or not this syllogism, founded on the Doctor’s maxim, leads to blasphemy, let the reader judge. If testimony, when sufficiently strong, cannot be discre- dited; neither faith isa duty nor unbelief a sin. Necessity of nature is quite incompatible with virtue and vice, praise and blame. Hence it is, | humbly presume, that the un- philosophical, and unscriptural ideas of the innocence of error,* and the trivial importance of truth, have gained such currency in the present age. When testimonies or doctrines are discredited, the fault must either be in the evi- dence, or in the mind that perceives it. Now, with regard to the doctrines of the Bible, or the testimony in favour of the truth of Christianity, what Christian would say, that the fault is in the evidence? God never requires of his rational crea- tures any thing unreasonable—any thing naturally impossible. If he requires men tc believe in the truth of Christianity, he has given sufficient evidence of that truth. If he requires men to believe in the doctrines of the Gospel, he has given suffieient evidence of the truth of those doctrines. Itis on __* this principle alone, that faith is a duty, and unbelief and _ €rror, sins. ‘The understanding is the judge, bound to give a verdict according to evidence; but the judge may be bribed.—The will, the affections, thé appetites and passions, blind the understanding, pervert the judgment, and influence the belief. . It is almost proverbial, that what we wish we easily believe; and that— we) ‘* A man convinced against his will ‘* Is of the same opinion still.” Say vi Jet MUORT ALM abnaT ae ea a ee ST SS —® * Dr. B. maintains that error may not only be innocent, but right- eous and holy! The well-instructed Christian, he assures us (P. 157), will see—* that while he adhered to the gospel he was at least safe: “ that the sincere profession of a holy and righteous faith, though it ‘‘ were erroneous, must be pleasing to a holy and righteons God.” What! Holy and righteous erroneous faith! Whatia combination of words! _“ Pious frauds” are not more monstrous, than holy and right- eous- errors. It is not more blasphemous to affirm, that the God of — holiness may delight in sin, than to assert, that the God of truth must _ be pleased with error !—Need we be at all astonished that Infidels ex- claim, Priestcraft! and Imposture! when we hear an erroneous faith hot only pronounced innocent, but righteous and holy, by a learned - Divine, a Doctor of Divinity ? : ' - ; 6 \ 3 ~ ‘ 62 If error, unbelief, Deism, and even Atheism, arose purely from the exercises of the understanding, without any con- . cern of the will, the affections, the heart; they would not be criminal. But the case is quite otherwise. Each of these is highly criminal ; because the decision of the judg- mentis perverted by the influence of the will, the affections, and dispositions of the heart. It is ‘‘ with the heart man believes” —there is “‘ an evil heart of unbelief’ *«« the fool gays in his heart, There is no God.” This is a subject of great delicacy and importance. Confounding the pure acts ‘of the understanding, with those which are influenced by the will and inclination, has induced men of the greatest talents, to consider error, unbelief, Deism, and even Athe- ism, as innocent. A remarkable instance of this we have in Brougham’s inaugural address, in Glasgow University ; and in his speech in the House of Commons. In the for- mer he represents man, as having no control over his belief, and as no more accountable for it, than for the «‘ hue of his «< skin, or height of his stature.” In the latter, he declares, «< that if a man were an Atheist, or an Infidel, it was his ‘¢ misfortune, not his fault ; and that he should be viewed «¢ with pity, not with blame.” All this proceeds upon the erroneous hypothesis, that our wills, inclinations, appetites, * passions and prejudices, have no influence on our belief. Were the premises true, the conclusion would be unavoida- ble ; but the premises are false, and therefore the conciu- sion is erroneous. It is equally opposed to the philosophy of the human mind, and the infallible dictates of divine Revelation. “ He that believes not shall bedamned. And ‘<< this is the condemnation, that light is come into the «¢ world, and men love darkness rather than light ; because «< their deeds are evil. (2 Thes. ii. 10, 1], 12.) ‘« Because «« they received not the love of the truth, that they might be << saved. God shall send them strong delusion, that they « should believe a lies that they all might be damned, who © «believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- s¢ ness.” ft ! By confounding what is natural with what is moral, some orthodox divines have fallen into the same error. : / MacGowan in his letters to Priestly, speaking of those who are grossly erroneous, says: “ They are certainly ‘* more properly objects of my pity, than of my resentment. «© With as much propricty might I be offended with a poor «« man, who was born blind, and continues so, because he 3 63 ~e is not a judge of colours; or with a deaf man, because ‘che understands not the harmony of sounds.’? Thus the acute and penetrating MacGowan stumbles on the same ground with our great Parliamentary Orator. Hestumbles by confounding natural with moral blindness. ‘The cases, however, are completely distinct, and altogether different. The man born btind says, ‘“* Lord that I might receive my « sight.” Qn the contrary, those who are morally blind, kate the light ; they love darkness rather than light. ‘This is their condenmation. ‘This is the ground of their crimi- nality and guilt.* ~By what I have written in the preceding pages, I do not mean to deny, that some parts of the sacred volume, and that some doctrines of divine revelation, are more im- portant than others ; but I maintain that they are all im- portant. They are all necessary—necessary to complete the glorious fabric of divine truth. We hear much of essential truths, fundamental truths, &c. It is true, in- deed, that the removal of foundation stones is the speediest mode of destroying a building ; but it is no less true, that a greater number of houses are ruined by the deficiency of their slates, pinnings, mortar, &c. than by the razing of their foundations. What wise man would say, when rob- bers are attacking his house, ‘“‘ Let them alone. If the foundation stones are safe, the other parts of the house are of inferior importance?” , All the paris of the human body are not equally import- ‘ant, but they are all necessary to complete the frame. “The eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of *¢thee ; nor, again, the head to the feet, I have no need ‘Sof you. Nay, much more those members of the body ** that seem more feeble are necessary.’?> The same is the case with regard to the different parts of the Bible. They are not all equally important ; but they are all necessary— necessary to complete one glorious body of divinity. The BRE RIE eS 2 Ee * [had intended to proceed farther in the discussion of this subject ; but, with much surprise and pleasure, I find myself anticipated by an able defender of the faith of the Gospel—the Rev. Dr. Wardlaw, Glas- gow. This pious and learned divine has published two sermons in re- futation of those very sentiments, which I had previously marked out as the subject of animadversion.—These sermons I would ‘recommend as useful and important—giving at once a scriptural and philosophical view of this dificult subject. ' G4 . amputation of a leg, an arm, or even a finger or a toe, de- stroys the uniformity, and mars the beauty of the human body. Who would not contend for his feeblest members, as well as for his head or his heart ? On similar princi- teks what true Christian would wilfully suffer the body of evelation to be maimed or mutilated? ‘That man is not worthy of the name of a Christian, who would wilfully sur- render ‘* one hair or hoof” of truth. She was not the true mother of the child, who unfeelingly exclaimed, ‘« Let it be ‘‘ neither mine nor thine, but divide it.” —— CHAPTER III. The Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ defended. SECTION If. His names—particularly the names Jruovam and Gop. It is, I conceive, no contemptible proof of the doctrine . 1 advocate, that the opponents of our Lord’s Divinity, feel it necessary to depreciate the sacred oracles. No man can degrade the Son of God, till he first degrade the Word of God. Having, in the preceding pages. erideavoured to repel our author’s attack on the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, we shall now proceed to defend the Supreme Deity of our blessed Redeemer. | “The reader of these pages may be anxious to know, why the defenders of the Divinity and Atonement of Jesus Christ appeal more frequently to the Epistles than the Gos- pels. The reason is this; In the Epistles those doctrines are more clearly taught. Were the question put, Why more clearly taught by the Apostles than their Master? I an- - gwer, first, “« Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy “ sight.”? This is a sufficient answer to all those who do not suppose their own wisdom superior to the wisdom of God. In the second place, I answer the question by asking another. Why were more souls converted by one sermon of the Apostle Peter, than by all the sermons which his 65 Master preached during his life ? Thirdly, I answer, Had the Master taught the doctrines of his Divinity and Atone- ment, as clearly as those doctrines were afterwards taught by his Apostles, he would have counteracted the end of his mission. Had so much light been shed upon his character, the princes of this world would have known him; and «had they known him, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” Does Dr. B., by wishing to confine us to the Gospels, mean to reject that flood of light poured on the character of our Redeemer after his ascension? Does he wish to reduce us to that partial light under which our blessed Lord was crucified? Could he succeed in this un- hallowed attempt, I have no doubt in saying, as human nature is the same in every age, multitudes would homolo- gate the crime of the Jews, they would cry out, ‘ Away “with him, away with him.”’ « Crucify him, crucify him.” «¢ They would crucify afresh the Son of God, and put him “to an open shame,” by degrading his person and vilifying his blood ; by denying. his Divinity and rejecting his Atonement. : | In defending the Supreme Deity of the Son of God, I shall follow neither the Doctor’s «sure guide” nor “ safe «rule ;?? but the direction of our blessed Lord himself, «Search the Scriptures ; for they are they which testify of cee." Our author’s attack on the Deity of our Redeemer is not very formidable. Out of his own mouth he stands con- demned. To enable me to prove, that the Lord Jesus is ‘¢ Over all, God blessed for ever,”’ I need ask nothing more than what the Doctor himself admits. In his Being and Attributes, (p. 161) he says, ‘‘ The self-existence of the «Deity is expressed by his name Jenovan.”’ And, in his sermon on the pre-existence and example of Christ, he observes, (p- 133) ‘“‘ We have every reason to believe, that ‘¢the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations were con- «« ducted, under God, by the agency of one Super-eminent «¢ Being, denominated the Angel of the Covenant, the «¢ Angel of the Lord, and Jenovan.’’ In one volume the Doctor grants, that the name Jrnovau denotes self-exist- ence ; and in the other he admits, that Jesus is JEHOVAH. Jesus,'therefore, must be self-existent, and thus the self-ex- jstence of the Redeemer,. and, of course, his Supreme Deity, are proved by Dr. Bruce himself. Jesus Christ is stg 6* : 66 , proved to be, what our author, chalw here, strentiously denies—*‘ the underived and self-existent cause of all.” The name Jrnovan is the distinguishing, appropriate, and peculiar name of the Supreme Being. This is granted by some of the most sensible Antitrinitarians. Yates, in his reply te Wardlaw, says, “‘ Jenovau, it is well known, ‘+ is used in the Old Testament, as the peculiar and appro- ‘¢ priate name of the Supreme God.’”? And Dr. Bruce him- self grants, that this peculiar and appropriate name of the Supreme God, is also the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. After this, ‘‘ What need of further witness? Have we not ‘heard from his own mouth 2?” Is not the conclusion inevit- able—that Jesus Christ is the Supreme God? Should any person think, that the Doctor has betrayed his own cause ; or, should any person deny, that the name Jrenovan is the appropriate, peculiar, and incommunicable name of the Supreme God, I would refer him to the following texts. I shall quote them as they stand in the original, substituting the word Jenovan for Lory; for the English reader will observe, that when the word Lord is printed in capitals, the original is Jenovan. When God proclaimed his name to Moses, (Ex. xxxiv. 5, 6,) he passed by and proclaimed ¢ JEnOVAH, Jrnovan.” (Amos, v. 8,) « Jenovan ig his “name.” (Amos, ix. 16,) ‘‘Jnnovan is his name.” (Hosea, xii. 5,) «* Jenovan is his memorial. ”? (Neh. 128,35 «‘ Thou, even thou, art Jenovan alone.” (2 Sam. xxii. 32,) ‘‘ Who is God save Jrnovan?’’ (Psalms, Ixxxii. 18,) ‘¢ Whose name alone is Jenovan.”’ (Isaiah, xlii. 8,) “1 am « Jpnovan, that is my name; and my glory I will not give ‘to another, neither my praise to graven images.” From these, and a multitude of other texts, it is abundantly evi- dent, that Jnnzovan is that name iwhich exclusively belongs to the Supreme Being. It isa name which he possesses in common with no other being. The glory of it he will not - give to another. In the Old Testament our blessed Redeemer is not only denominated Jenovan, but Jrnovan or Hosts, ‘‘ Hory, ‘“ HOLY, HoLy, Hoty JEHOVAH oF HOSTS: THE WHOLE ‘¢ EARTH IS FULL OF HIS GLoRY.’’ By an inspired commen- . tator this sublime description is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ (John, xii. 41,) «* These things said Esias, when he “« saw his glory and spake of him.” Now, if the name Jetiovan, that glorious and peculiar name of Deity, and not only the name Jenovan, but JEHo- 67 VAH OF Iosts, be given to our Lord Jesus Christ ; will So- cinians and Arians venture to say, that our blessed Re- deemer is not the Supreme God ?—that he-is only a crea- ture, an angel, or a man?—Such was the’veneration with which the name Jrnovan was regarded among the Jews, that they conceived it a kind of impiety to utter it: they treated it as ineffable, and substituted another in its stead.— Now this great and dreadful name of the Deity, this name -which the Supreme God claims as his exclusive preroga- tive, and which he declares belongs to none but himself, is also the name of Jesus Curist. This is granted by Dr. B., and is evident—as we shall afterwards see—from a multi- tude of portions of Old Testament scripture. Doctor Bruce, therefore, and all Socinians and Arians universally, are necessarily reduced to this dilemma—they must either deny that the Supreme God has any peculiar name by which he may be distinguished from his creatures—they must deny this in the face of all those texts, quoted above—or then they must grant, that Jesus Christ is tun SurpremE Gop.* Our author agsserts, that ‘* the: instances in which the ‘* title God is applied to Christ, are very rare ; and attended ‘* with no greater difficulty, than those in which he is styled “aman.” ‘l'o find Arians balancing such difficulties, is not strange. In either of the cases mentioned by the Doc- tor, the difficulties—on the Arian hypothesis—are great in- deed—insuperably great. We feel none of them: they are peculiar to the Arian system.—In the sacred volume, Jesus Christ is declared to be a man, and we believe him to be really aman. Jesus Christ is declared to be God, and we believe him to be really God. Arians believe neither.— The Bible affirms that the Redeemer is God; but Dr. B. affirms that he is a creature. The Bible asserts that the Redeemer is a man} but Dr. B. asserts that he is an angel. These contradictory assertions, notwithstanding the boasted simplicity of the Arian scheme, present to the mind great. and insuperable difficclties. On the absurdity of Arian ideas, with regard to the humanity of Jesus Christ, I can- not deny myself the pleasure of laying before my readers * To evade the force of the preceding dilemma, should any allege ‘that the Supreme God has some other peculiar name, and not the _ name JEHovAH, I challenge them to the proof. Let them produce it “if they can, ; ; + 68 the following observations—observations which character- ise the Logician, the Philosopher, and the Divine. They are extracted from the introduction prefixed to Stuart’s an- swer to Channing : acs «© Those who ascribe to him (the Redeemer) true Divi- « nity and Humanity, do so from conviction, that no other “< view does justice to the varied exhibitions of his charac- ‘ter in the Scriptures: ‘They think that even the Arian ‘¢ hypothesis, which has been often recommended, particu- “‘ Jarly in a late publication, (Dr. B.’s sermons) as avoid- ‘ino all the difficulties of other schemies, and « having ‘* none of its own, except such as must attach to any su- ‘¢ pernatural interposition,’ is essentially defective in two “ respects: not only as falling short of the majesty ascribed ‘(to him—but is opposed to the most obvious accounts of ‘‘ his humanity. ‘Uhe latter circumstance deserves parti- “ cular attention. Many do not seem to be aware, that, on “such a hypothesis, the humanity of the Saviour is as com- “« pletely rejected as his Divinity. According to this fash- “ionable view of his person, he was not man. He had ‘merely a human body, but not a human soul. The only “intelligent principle connected with the body was a pre- ‘ existent spirit, of a distinct and superior order, who con- « descended to adopt it as a frame or residence; and who “« thus possessed only the outward form, the shell of huma- “nity.” Now, it may be asked, What constitutes a human being? Dr. B. says, by man ‘* we mean only a human ‘body, inhabited by a rational soul. ‘The origin, or pecu- ‘liar properties of that soul, excepting reason, do not ‘¢ come within our consideration.” ‘* But were a person ‘< of plain common sense asked, whether an Angel con- ‘« nected with a body like ours was really a Man, would he « not feel that there was a trifling with common and obvious “ language in the very question ? Doesnot the term Man, “< primarily refer to the intelligent principle connected with « the body ; and tosome peculiar properties of that princi- ‘ple, by which it is distinguishable from other orders of «« intellectual existences ? It is surely not any rational prin- ‘‘ ciple connected with a human body, that constitutes hu- ‘smanity. The general principal of reason may exist, «« while the laws to which it is subjected in different beings, “ may vary so much as to form distinct orders of intelli- ‘« gences. To constitute a human being; therefore, requires ‘a rational principle, having all the faculties and capaci. ‘ SB ais Trans Sire seh ws Ro ee 69 ‘« ties, and all the laws of thought that are common to the species, and form their distinguishing characteristics.— «Such is the accuracy of Doctor Bruce’s definition of “© Man; to which, he says, ‘ Jesus. conformed in every «‘ thing.’ According to such a definition, could it be said ‘< of him, that ‘ he was in all things made like unto his ‘¢ brethren ?’? Even if this supposition were made, it would « still be a question, whether it is consistent with possibi- “¢ lity 2. Have we any reason fo believe, that the organiza- “tion of the human body could be adapted to an intelli- ‘gence of a different nature from the human mind ; or ‘“‘ could be the means of awakening in it ‘sensations, ideas, «‘ andemotions? Every thing about our constitution shows, ‘¢ that there is the nicest and most delicate adaptation of the *¢ corporeal frame, to the peculiarities of the rational princi- * ple which we possess ; whilst we have reason to think that ‘a change in either would disturb the whole economy, and ‘¢ derange all the laws of thought. It should thus be seri- ‘‘ ously considered, whether the Arian hypothesis does not “‘ involve difficulties and mysteries, as great as those which “¢ it proposes to avoid ; and whether it is more consistent ‘¢ with the known laws of human thought, than with the s¢ plainest declarations of Scripture.” In that same page (111) on which the previous animad- versions are made, we find the following assertions :—‘* A ‘< spirit, therefore, of superior excellence may, if it be the ‘¢ will of God, occupy a human body; as we are assured “ that angels have done.’’* Now, where are we assured that angels have occupied human bodies ? No wHERE. Weare assured, indeed, that angels appeared in human form ; but we are no where assured that they occupied real human bodies. _ The philosophical observations quoted above, prove. the -Doctor’s opinion to be in the highest degree improbable, if not absolutely absurd. Besides, if angels occupied real human bodies, our Saviour himself occupied one before his incarnation in the womb of the virgin.—Three angels ap- peared to Abraham in the form of men; one of them was the Redeemer ; for the patriarch styles him Jenovan, and I _. * I take it for granted, that the case of demoniacs was not contem- plated by the Doctor. In that cass it was not mere bodies that were possessed; but bodies previously occupied by souls, ‘ ~ 90. intercedes with him in behalf of Sodom. Now, if the other two angels had real human bodies, so also had the Angel of the Covenant. ‘The evidence in both cases is the same. Tf, then, our Saviour had a real human body in the patriar- chal age, the absurd conclusion follows—that he has had two bodics, and has been twice incarnate! If the ideas of Arians respecting the human nature of Jesus be antiscrip- tural and unphilosophical, still more untenable are their opi- nions respecting his Divine nature ; they are directly op- posed by almost every page of the sacred volume. Dr. B. asserts, ‘* that the instances in which the title ‘© God is applied to Christ are very rare.” With all due deference, | assert, that they are very numerous—almost innumerable. The principles laid down by our author him-- self will clearly evince the truth of this assertion. He lays it down as a principle—a principle in which I fully acqui- esce—that when God is represented as appearing, convers- ing, &c. the Lord Jesus Christ is intended. For no man hath seen God (the Father) at any time. No man hath seen him, nor can see him. He is the King eternal, im- mortal, invisible.—It is only Jesus Christ, but not God the Father, that has ever become the object: of our senses. Now, if it was the Son of God that appeared to the patri- archs and Old Testament saints—if it was he that convers- ed with them and conducted the patriarchal and legal eco- nomies—if it was he that chose the Israelites, brought them out of Egypt, led them through the wilderness, drove out the Canaanites from before them, and put them in posses- sion of the promised land—if it was he that was called the Angel of the Jord, the Angel of his Presence, the Angel of the Covenant—if it was he that was denominated Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of Israel, the God of Bethel, &¢.—if Dr. B. grant all this—and all — this he fully grants—with what consistency can he main- tain, that ‘‘ the instances in which the Redeemer is called, ‘* God are few?” Are not God and Jehovah the common. appellations by which that glorious personage is designa- ted? The attentive reader of his Bible will find that it is not in a few, but in hundreds of instances, that those epi- thets are applied to our blessed Redeemer. In the very commencerhent of the Bible—in the third chapter of Genesis, our blessed Saviour is represented as conversing with our first parents, and is styled the Lorp Gop, or Jenovan Gop, at least eight times.—In the thir- ne ay ee ee 71 teenth chapter of Judges, the Lord Jesus Christ is ten times styled the Angel of the Lord—or the Anert Jenovan, ac- cording to the original—and in the 22d verse he is expressly called Gop. ‘* And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall ‘¢ surely die, because we have seen Gov.”? That the glo- rious personage who appeared to Manoah and his wife was -the Redeemer, admits of no rational doubt. In conjune- tion with the circumstance of his appearing, the names as-__ cribed to him sufiiciently prove it. He is not only styled Gop and Jrenovan, but Wonderful (verse 18), ‘* Why ask- ‘¢ est thou after my name, seeing it is secret.’’ The epithet translated secret, should have been rendered WonDERFUr. It is so rendered by the Septuagint in this place, and by our translators themselves in [saiah, ix. 6, ‘* His name shall be * called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Ever- *‘ Jasting Father, and Prince of Peace.’”’ ‘To point out all the instances in which our Redeemer is styled Gop and Jr- “HovanH, would fill a volume. The reader may consult at . his leisure those passages where he is represented as ap- pearing to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to Moses, Joshua, the seventy elders, and other patriarchs. He will then be fully convinced, that the glorious personage, who appeared to them, and conversed with them, is,in multitudes of in- stances, called God and Jehovah—and Dr. B. himself will tellus, that the person who thus appeared was not God . the Father—(for he never appeared)—but. God the Son, our blessed Redeemer. Should not our author have paused ?—Should he not have read his Bible with a little more care, before he risked the bold and groundless assertion—that the instances in which the title God is applied to Christ are “ very rare?” The Doctor proceeds to make other assertions equally groundless. P. 112 and 113, he writes thus: «In the «¢ Hebrew tongue there are several terms denoting, some, ** the Supreme God, and others, subordinate spirits, invest- “* ed with authority and power. From the poverty of ourlan- ‘* guage, in this respect, we are obliged to translate them ‘Call by the word God. The same deficiency exists in ‘‘ Greek, the original language of the New Testament. ‘* Hence arises the use of the word, God, in different senses, “* and the common opinion, that this term always signifies _ ** the Supreme Being.” ‘ What, Task, are those Hebrew terms, some of them de noting the Supreme God, and others subordinate spirits, 72 hee which, from the poverty of our language, we are obliged to translate by the same word God? Let our author pro- duce them if he can. He will find the task difficult. Why ? There are no such terms. ‘There is no such poverty, either in our own or inthe Greek language. The Doctor’s asser- tion is groundless, and calculated to mislead the English reader. Fis next assertion is still more palpably erroneous. It is as inconsistent with fact as with grammar. ‘ Hence “* arises the use of the word, God, in different senses, and. ‘* the common opinion that this term always signifies the « Supreme Being.’’—What! Common opinion! There is no such common opinion. When the Deity tells Moses, that he made him a God unto Pharaoh; is it the common opinion that Moses was the Supreme Being ? When angels and magistrates are called gods, is it the common opinion . that angels and magistrates are the Supreme Being ? When the Devil is styled the god of this world, is it the common opinion that Satan is the Supreme Being? With all due deference to Dr. B. I would take the liberty of asserting, that on this subject, common opinion is as cor- rect as his own. - , That our blessed Redeemer is in Scripture called Gop, Dr. B. and other Anti-trinitarians readily admit. They cannot deny it. But they maintain that the word is used in an inferior sense, and that our Saviour isonly a delegated God.—They tel! us, that angels are called gods—that ma- gistrates are called gods—that idols are called gods—and that even the Devil is called a god.—I know, indeed, that angels are called gods, but I know, also, that they are all commanded to worship the Redeemer. (Psal. xcvii. 7,) “ Worship him, all ye gods.”,—(Heb. i. 6,) “ When he «< bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And — “let all the angels of God worship him.”’—Let Dr. B., if he be able, quote one single portion of Seripture, where any person is commanded to worship angels. He will find, on the contrary, the worshipping of angels condemned in that same word of God, which enjoins those spirits to wor- ship the Redeemer. (Col. ii. 18.) ) | I know, again, that magistrates are called gods ; but I know, also, that there is no temptation held out in the sacred volume to make them the objects of religious wor- ship, or to confound them with the living and true God.. I know, that in the very same portion of Scripture where they - > 73 are denominated gods, they are represented as weak and dying creatures. (Psal. 82. 6.) ‘« I have said ye are gods; “and all of you are children of the Most High ; but ye shall <¢ die like men, and fall like one of the princes.’’ In speak- ing of the Redeemer as God, the language of Scripture is very different. (Heb. i. 8.) «* Bui unto the Son he saith, “ thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.’ ‘thou art *¢ the same and thy years shall not fail.” Once more: | know well that idols are called gods, and that Satan is styled the god of this world—but I know also, thatin the very same Scripture, (Psal. xcvii. 7.) whereall the gods are commanded to worship the Redeemer, it is like- wise written, ‘* Confounded be all they that serve graven ‘images, that boast themselves of idols.” I know the Redeemer has bruised the serpent’s head, that he will bind ‘Satan, thrust him down into the bottomless pit, and set a seal upon him.—‘‘ I know that the idols he shall utterly ** abolish.” That Jesus Christ is an inferior God—a subordinate God —a delegated God—is a doctrine which our author may have received by tradition from his fathers, but it is not’ taught in the sacred oracles. The Scriptures teach the “very opposite doctrine: they teach us, that Jesus Christ is not an inferior God, but the Mieury Gop. (ls. ix. 6.) ‘¢ For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is-given; and _ “the government shall be upon his shoulders ; and _his “name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty ‘¢ God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.”’ The Scriptures teach us that Jesus Christ is not only the Mighty God, but the Armienty Gop. (Gen. xvii. 1.) «© The Lorp (JeHovan) appeared to Abraham, and said ‘*¢ unto him, I am the Atmienty Gop.” (Exod. vi. 2, 3,) *¢ And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am Jeno- «* van, and | appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto «* Jacob, by the name of Gop Atmicuty’’—(Gen. xviii. 3,) ‘“* And Jacob said unto Joseph, Gop AimicutTy appeared ‘* unto me at Luz, in the land of Canaan, and blessed me.”’ (Gen. xxxy. 9, 11,) ‘¢ And God appeared unto Jacob again, ‘when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him.—. ‘ And God said unto him, Iam Gop Aumienry.’’—Now, who was that Great Being who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob by the name of Gop Atmicuty ? Doctor Bruce will answer the question. He will tell us, that it _ Was our blessed Redeemer ; for God the Father, he candidly ony ; 7 ~ Ba He grants, never appeared—neyer became the object of human senses. Jesus Christ, therefore, Dr. B. himself being wit- ness, is Gop ALmianry.—He is so represented, not only in the Old. Testament, but also in the New. (Rey. i. '8,) «¢T am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, << saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is “ to come, Tun ALMIGHTY.” . Pe gee From pages 95, 97, 103, 104, 107, 110, 117, 134, 139, 144, 148, &c. it appears that ALmiaury is that very epi- thet, which our author has selected to mark the distinction between our Lord Jesus Christ and the Supreme Being ; and yet it does not mark that distinction ; for, as we have ~ geen above, not only God the Father, but Jesus Christ his Son, is in Scripture denominated Gop Aimieury. It is also remarkable, that, in page 95, the Doctor asserts, that the Atuiaury cannot become an object of human senses ; and yet we have seen that the Atmicury has become an object of human senses—his Arianism betrays our learned author into all these errors. In opposition to the plain declarations of Scripture and his own concessions, he takes it for granted that Jesus Christ is not rum ALMienTy. ~ The Scriptures teach us, that Jesus Christ is not a little Gop, an inferior deity, but the Great Gop, (Tit. ii. 13,) ‘¢ Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appear- ‘cing of the Great God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.” — Dr. Bruce cannot deny that our Saviour, in this text, is Tus Great. Gop. Tie cannot deny it on two accounts—Ist, He cannot deny it without a violation of Greek grammar. Ac- cording to Grenville Sharpe’s rule, had Great God and Saviour referred to different persons, the Greek article would have been repeated before the latter noun—2dly, He can- not deny it without denying what he formerly granted— that God the Father never appears, nor can appear. “The glorious appearing of the errar Gop, must therefore gnean, not the appearing of the Father—for he never ap- pears—but the appearing of our Lord Jesus: Christ. It follows, of course, even upon the Doctor’s own principles, that Jnsus Curist 1s tun Great Gop. Now if Jésus — ‘Christ is the Great God, as the Scriptures declare him to be, why should Doctor Bruce—why should Socinians, and Arians, persevere in their vain attempts to degrade him to the character of a creature—to the character of a inan— ° or to that of an angel? | Rice ee a 15 The Scriptures teach us, that Jesus Christ is not ‘only the great God, but the TRUE Gop, (1 John, v. 20.) « And “ we know that the Son of. God is come, and hath given us ‘Can understanding, that we may know him that it is true; “and we are in him that is true; even in his Son, Jesus — «Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” The Scriptures teach us, that our Lord Jesus Christ is not only the Mighty God, the Almighty God, the Great God, and the true God, but THE onty Wise Gop. (Jude, ~ Xxiv. 25,) ««Now unto him that is able to keep you from «¢ falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of “his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our * Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both “now and ever. Amen.’ . Who will present. believers before the throne of his glory? The Redeemer. (Ephes. v. 27,) He presents his church to himself, «a glorious “church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” (Col. i. 22,) He presents her ‘holy, unblameable, unre- **proveable.’? It is not God the Father, but Jesus Christ, that presents the church before the presence of his glory. Jesus Christ; therefore, ‘ts the only wise God our Saviour,” to whom belong “ glory and honour, dominion and power, **both now and ever. Amen.” Finally : The Scriptures teach us that Jesus Christ ‘Is ** Gop over aut.’’ (Rom. 1x. 5,)“* Whose are the Fathers, “and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who ‘tis over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” or “Angels and magistrates, in a very few instances, are called gods ; but what magistrate—what angel, except the Angel of the Covenant, is styled the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ?—the God of Israel—the God of Bethel —Jenovan Goo—Jrnovan Gop or Hosts*—tie Micury | Gop—rne Atmiantry Gop—rur Great Gop—rus Most “Hien Gopj|—rur Tres Gop—ruz onty Wisr Gop—God - *Tn Hosea, xii. 3, 4, 5, we learn that the Redeemer—the Man— the Angel who wrestled with Jacob, was God—Jehovah God of Hosts; and that Jehovah is his memorial.” _T That the epithet Most Hieq is ay mitted by Dr. B. himself. That beautiful passage (says he, p. 96,) in _ Deuteronomy, is also understood to relate to the Angel of the Lord at is, Jesus Christ, accoiding to his own acknowledgment,) “ When ‘the Most Hien divided the nations, their inheritance 3; &c.” In the (Old Testament, (Psal. 78, 56) the Israelites are said to have tempted lot) 35> ‘ A pplied to our Redeemer, is ad- > or ¢ 76 over all, blessed for ever? Where are such epithets—such names and titles applied to magistrates, to idols, or to angels? No wuerr. No ‘creature in heaven or in earth was ever honoured with such glorious appellations. Dr. B. (p. 103) censures Trinitarians and Socinians for appealing to verbal criticisms, various readings, and philolo- gical disquisitions. He pronounces the Arian scheme so consistent and rational, that it requires no such support. He declares that Arians are content to take the Scriptures as they find them in our translation ; and, finally, he ridi- cules the criticisms on Rom. ix. 5, and 1 Tim. ii. 16. Now really, in the name of all the Trinitarians in the world, I plead innocent. I solemnly declare, that we are perfectly content to take those texts as they stand in our translation. The latter text asserts, that God was manifest in the flesh, and the former assures us, that « Jesus Christ is over all, God blessed for ever. Let those texts be taken as they are, and the controversy is ended. ‘The Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, even by the acknowledgment of Antitrinita- rians themselves, is fully established. ‘‘If there were any evidence’’—says Mr. Yates, speaking of the last cited text _«« that this (the common) translation is correct, here «would be a case in point: the words of the Apostle would ‘« present a clear and valid argument for the Supreme Divi- «nity of Jesus Christ.”"—p. 180. I leave our learned author to his choice. He must either retract his vain boasting, and confess that his scheme can- not be supported without. the aid of verbal criticism ; or then he must abandon the Arian system, and acknowledge, © that the Supreme Deity of the Redeemer is clearly esta- _ blished. . Dr. B. ridicules the idea of contending, whether there should be in certain parts of a sentence, commas OF full stops. But who sees not, that if a man were at liberty to ~ substitute full stops for commas, the Bible might soon be metamorphosed into the most erroneous oF the most nonsen- sical book in the world! Ina parenthesis, he says ** (for there ‘are no stops, or division of words in the ancient MSS. «and neither party can produce the autograph of Paul’s Ee sick siilab ek ae ee ae Yea er Teg DEEN 7 the Most Hieu Gop. This, in the New Testament,.is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ. (al Cor, x. 9,) ** Neither let us tempt Crist, as soma « of them tempted.” cn Bes. ye tie . Z Scoala allie? amanuensis.)’’* This parenthesis has either no meaning, or it absurdly supposes, that though the ancient MSS. wanted stops and divisions, yet the most ancient of them all—the - autograph of Paul’s amanuensis, had them! (ih SECTION II. Attributes of the Deity ascribed to the Redeemer. In the preceding section, I have endeavoured to prove, ‘that Socinians and Arians must either maintain, in opposi- ‘tion to the plainest dictates of Scripture and reason, that the Supreme God has no peculiar name by which he may be distinguished from his creatures, or then they must. aban- don their system, and grant, ruat Jesus CurisT 1s THE SUPREME Gop. - In this Section I shall attempt to show, that Socinians and Arians must either give up their favourite schemes, and admit the doctrine of the Redeemer’s Divinity, or be obliged to maintain the monstrous position—that the Su- preme Being has no incommunicable Attribute. Task, then—Is omnipotence an incommunicable attribute of Deity ? Jesus Christ is omnipotent. He is the Al- mighty, as we have abundantly proved in the preceding sec- tion. I ask again—Is omniscience an incommunicable attribute of Deity? Jesus Christ is omniscient. (John, xvi. 30,) «‘ Now we are sure that thou knowest all things.” (John xxi. 17,) “ Lord, thou knowest all things; thou “« knowest that I love thee.’’ To know the thoughts and the hearts of men, is repre- sented in Scripture, as a peculiar and incommunicable attribute of Deity. (1 Kings, viii. 39), «For thou, even _ “ thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men’? —but Jesus Christ claims this attribute (Rev. ii. 23,) ** And ‘all the churches shall know, that 1am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and will give unto every one of you * according to your works.” Is eternity an attribute of the _ Supreme Being ?—Jesus Christ is «The Evernastine ,,._ Phe Doctor’s parenthesis appears, at first sight, vastly learned— MSS.t autograph! amanuensis ! How the illiterate will stare! When @ writer makes such a display of his learning, surely a little good sense and good grammar, would be a very useful accompaniment = % v Fis an! , ee x 7 "8 ~ ‘ Faruer,” (Isaiah, ix. 6,) or the father of eternity. He is the great I am, ‘‘ whose goings forth were of old, even «« from everlasting,” (Micah, v. 2)—‘‘ without beginning of “days or end of life,” (Heb. vii. 3)—the ‘* Alpha and Omega ; the beginning and the ending ; the first and the last ; . which is, and which was, and which is to come,”’ (Rev. 1. 8, 17)—*« He is the same and his years fail not,’’ (Heb. i. 12.) Is omniprescence an attribute of Deity? Jesus Christ is omnipresent. (Matt. xxviii. 20,) ‘Lo, Lam with ‘‘ you alway, even unto the end of the world.”” (Matt. xviii. 23,) ‘« For where two or three are gathered together in my “‘name, there am I in the midst of them.”? (John iil. 13), -« And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that “‘ came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is ‘“ ‘* Other expressions,”’ says our author, (p. 219,) ‘* are “borrowed from the Jewish sacrifices, on account of an ** apparent resemblance between the crucifixion and the *< death of a victim ; but this is only apparent, and there **is no more reason for taking these literally than the for- “ mer.’*? So then, it seems, that between the legal sacrifices and the death of Christ, there was not so much as a resem- blance. ‘The resemblance was only apparent, but not real ! ~Christ’s death, according to Doctor B., was not a real, but only a metaphorical sacrifice. Neither is the metaphor it- self real, but only apparent—a metaphor without any real resemblance !—a false metaphor! the shadow of a sha- dow !—Such an attack upon an inspired Apostle, requires no comment. ey Dr. B. asserts, that the paschal lamb was no sacrifice. P. 222, he writes thus: ‘*‘ But the paschal lamb was not ‘*« sacrificed : no sacrifice could be performed except in the ‘*‘ temple ; but the paschal lamb, to which our Saviour is ‘¢ compared, was killed in a private house, and dressed and “ eaten at a domestic entertainment, without any sacrificial *< ceremonies. If, therefore, Christ was literally sacrificed, « he could not be likened to the paschal lamb.’’—In this quotation, Dr. B. asserts, that the paschal Jamb was not a sacrifice, but the Spirit of God asserts that it was. (Ex. xii. 27}, ‘‘ Ye shall say, It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s ‘< passover,” (Ex. xxxiv. 25), ‘* Thou shalt not offer the «< blood of my sacrifice with leaven ; neither shall the sacri- “ fice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.” —Hearers of Dr. B., and readers of this Rerurarion ! whether it be right in the sight of God, to believe the Doc- tor rather than God, judge ye! It is true, indeed, that the Jews originally killed and eat the passover in private -houses : their circumstances forbade them to do otherwise : * Dr. B. brings forward the arguments of Socinians and Aria arguments, the sophistry of which Archbishop Magee has completely detected and exposed. Though he has read Magee on Atonement and Sacrifice, without paying the least attention to the reasenings of that justly celebrated author, he proceeds with the utmost confidence to ex- hibit once more the exploded doctrines of Taylor and Priestly. For such unaccountable conduct, he falls under the merited censure of Doctor Millar, of Armagh, who repeats some of the Archbishops arguments. : 2 ee 137 but it is no less true, that when they came into’the land of Canaan, the practice was changed : they were strictly en- joined to sacrifice the passover, only in the place which the Lord their God should choose. It was one of the great _ anniversary feasts celebrated at Jerusalem. After the tem- ple was built the paschal lamb was sacrificed only in the temple. Was Dr. B. ignorant of this fact ? Did he never read Deut. xvi. 2,6? The Apostle Pau! asserts, that Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. In this assertion, he likens the sacrifice of Christ to that of the paschal lamb ; but how could the sacrifice of Christ, whether literal or me- taphorical, be like that of the paschal lamb, if the paschal lamb was not sacrificed at all? To deny, therefore. that the paschal lamb was sacrificed, is an outrage upon lan- guage and common sense.—It is to charge an inspired - Apostle with likening one thing to another, when between the two objects there is no resemblance ! Speaking of the death of Christ, the Doctor says (p. 236). “ if it be a sa- crifice, it is not a passover ; and if a passover, no sacrifice.”’ —The preceding observations will show, that this bold dog- matic assertion is not true. The death of Christ is both a passover and a sacrifice. __ In opposing the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Dr. B. gravely tells us, what every one knows, that the scape- goat was not sacrificed, nor put to deathin any way. He declares, that the ceremony ‘“* was an elegant emblem of ‘« free pardon—a gratuitous pardon, without sacrifice, ran- “ som, imputation of sin, or vicarious punishment.’ The Doctor, however, forgets to tell us—that it required twe goats to complete the ceremony—that the first was sacri- ficed before the other was sent away as a scape goat into the wilderness. The sacrificed goat represented the atone- ment of Jesus ; and the scape goat, the efficacy of that atonement in removing guilt. Accordingly. all the sins of all the congregation were confessed over the head of the goat—That the sins of the children of Israel were typically transferred to the goat, is evident from this—that he is said to carry them away ; and the priest _ who confessed those sins over his head, and the person who conducted the goat to the wilderness, were both re- garded as unclean, and were both obliged to submit to a course of legal purification. The ceremony, there- fore, plainly exhibited those great and important doctrines ef imputed guilt, and vicarious punishment. To hide these 12% 138 doctrines from the eyes of his hearers, Dr. B. is obliged to’ conceal one half of the ceremony. He exhibits to view the scape goat; but carefully conceals the goat which was slain. He puts asunder what God has joined, and thus contrives to lay aside the most important doctrine of the» Gospel. The Doctor asserts, that if Jesus Christ was a sin offering, he could not be a peace offering ; and if he was a peace offering, he could not be a sin offermg—and that he was neither. This is one of those bold dogmatic assertions with which his sermons every where abound—as- sertions founded neither in Scripture nor i reason. That the Redeemer was both a sin offering and a peace offering, the Scriptures plainly teach. He was a sin offering ; for he ‘* put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.’” He was. also a peace offering ; for he ‘‘ made peace by the blood ‘: of his cross.’? With the same groundless confidence the Doctor asserts, that sin offerings were never vicarious.—It is evident, however, that all these offerings were vicarious. For what other purpose, than to point out their vicarious nature, and to denote a transfer of ceremonial guilt, did the offerer lay his hand on the head of the victim ?—If the sa- crifices of the patriarchal and legal dispensations were not. vicarious—if they were not typical of the vicarious sacri-. fice of Jesus Christ, what were they ’—for what purpose | were they instituted ?—Why were so many thousands and millions of victims slain ; and so many oceans of blood shed; if not to typify the atoning blood of Jesus Christ? For such an immense waste of blood, no rational account can be given by the enemies of the atonement. They have in- vented, it is true, a great variety of hypotheses; but they are all completely futile and unsatisfactory.* - The hypothe- sis of Dr. B. is quite as absurd and unreasonable as those _ ofhis predecessors. ‘‘ Sacrifices,” says the Doctor, ‘“‘ were <* a symbolical address to God, expressing the devotion, re- ‘© pentance, and other pious affections of the sufferer.”’— Devotion! What kind of devotion could be expressed by the daily embruing of hands in blood ?—Pious affections ! What pious affections could possibly be expressed, by the dying agonies, and expiring groans of suffering animals !—. Uaconnected with the atonement, such scenes of suffering * See those hypotheses refuted and exposed by Magee on the Atone- - mentand Sacrifice, 9 wide iat 139 and blood were calculated to eradicate and destroy, rather than to promote and excite, pious and devout affection. Such scenes were calculated, not to improve, but to blunt. the moral feelings—not to render the worshippers merciful and humane, but cruel and férocious!!—Socinians and Arians are constantly ringing changes on the mercy of God. . Mercy! What mercy ?—to butcher millions of animals, and shed oceans of blood, and even the blood of God’s own Son, without any necessity !—Not clemency and mercy, but cruelty and blood, characterise the Antitrinitarian Deity. 5 : The millions of sacrifices that were offered, were so many millions of proofs of the doctrine of the atonement. The language of every victim whose blood stained the altar, was, ‘‘ WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD THERE IS NO REMIS- “ston.” ‘ Brnotrp THe Lamp or Gop wuHo TAKETH *“ AWAY THE SIN OF THE wWorLD!”? __ _Almost all things were by the law purged with blood. The mercy-seat or the throne of God was sprinkled with blood—plainly showing, that before mercy is dispensed, justice must be satisfied—that justice and judgment are the habitation or the basis of the throne of God ; whilst mercy and truth move in glorious procession before him— Moses also sprinkled the book; and all the people. He sprinkled the book; thereby signifying, that it is by the _ peace-speaking blood of Jesus, that all the curses written in that book are cancelled; and that it is through the same atoning blood, that the people of God are entitled to all the blessings written in that book. He sprinkled the people.—As only those Israelites, on the upper lintels and doo t posts of whose houses the blood of the paschal lamb “48 sprinkled, escaped the destroying angel ; so none but those whose souls are sprinkled with the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, can possibly escape the wrath to come. Moses made atonement for the holy place; thus signify- ing, that it is through the blood of Jesus that we obtain, not only remission of sins, but an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. By this atoning blood we are not only freed from the wrath to come ; but have access to the en- joyment of Godin heaven. Jesus is entered into the holiest. of all, not with the blood of bulls ner of goats, but with hig own blood, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Ag the whole of the way by which the high priest passed into the most holy place was sprinkled with bload ; so we have 140 now a new and living way to the holiest of all—to the man- sions of eternal glory and bliss—consecrated by the blood of Jesus Christ !—Under the law, not only the tabernacle, but all the vessels of service were sprinkled with blood. Atonement was also made for the altar; because of the un- cleanness of the Children of Israel. Sin cleaves to our most solemn services. and requires the atoning blood of Jesus. Hes ? In misrepresenting the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, Dr. B. proceeds as follows :—(p. 235)—* But this unac- * countable proceeding is explained by another yet more *< unaccountable ; by imputed sin and imputed righteous- “ness: a doctrine to which the Apostles were entire * strangers. It implies, that man was rendered pure. and :¢ innocent by laying his sins upon Christ ; and by this ac« °¢ cumulation of imputed sin, Christ became hateful to his ‘‘ heavenly Father, that is, to himself, for they are said to be’ ‘one: and was exposed to his wrath, and to all the pains *“ and penalties incurred by the sins of the whole world. IT ‘have heard of a tyrannical master, who, when his son_ © committed 2 fault, would whip a slave in his stead, to «¢ show his displeasure, and to make his son good ; and a- ‘¢ partial parent will sometimes deter his favourite from | ¢* misbehaviour, by a similar experiment on another of his ‘children ; but these are universally condemned as instan- ‘ces of the grossest folly and injustice. In short, the *¢ whole scheme is full of injustice and inconsistence. If. ‘the guilt of our sins were literally laid on Christ, he could :¢ not be a lamb without spot and blameless :—If not, he 4 could not be justly punished for them.” In asserting that the Apostles were entire strangers to the doctrine of im- | puted sin and imputed righteousness, Dr. Bruce is entirely mistaken.—He will find it taught in the very chapter whence his text is taken. (Romans, v. 18, 19,) * Therefore as by ‘the offence of one judgment came upon all men to con- +. demnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free ‘¢ gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as: ‘* by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, SO- *« by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” He will find the Apostles teaching the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sin— but imputeth righteousness without works. He will find them teaching, That Jesus Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us, — that we might be made the righteousness ef God in him. 141 The same doctrine he will find taught in many other parts - of the sacred volume. But, mark the gross misrepresenta- tion of the doctrine. «‘* By this accumulation of imputed ** sin,” says the Doctor, ‘Christ became hateful to hig *‘ heavenly Father.’”? Nosuch thing. He was never more the object of the Father’s love, than when he was suffering on the cross. Ail that divines mean, when they say that he suffered the wrath of God, is, that he suffered the penalty of the broken covenant, which was a manifestation of the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. But the Doctor observes still farther, that if the guilt of our sins were literally laid on Christ, he could not be a lamb without spot and blameless. Were Dr. B. ac- quainted with the principles he opposes, he would know, that there is a distinction between the act of sin, the pollu- tion of sin, and the guilt of sin. He would know, that the act of sin is not imputed to Christ, so as to constitute hima sinner. The rash expressions of Luther, mentioned in the appendix, are, I believe, condemned by all Calvinists, as well as by Dr. B.—Calvinists abhor the idea, that Jesus Christ was a sinner; and much more that he was the great. est of all sinners. Neither was the stain or pollution of sin imputed to Jesus Christ. By pollution, I mean the depravity Or corruption of the human heart. This depravity or cor- ruption was not imputed to Jesus Christ. By imputation | - he was not constituted a depraved and corrupt being. Such ideas, though imputed to us by Dr. B., we spurn as blasphemous. Neither the act of sin was imputed to Christ, Hor the pollution of sin, the corruption of nature. What then was imputed? I answer, the curtr of sin, or the LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PUNISHMENT. ‘This is all that wag imputed to the Redeemer. By his own voluntary engage- ment he came under that legal obligation to punishment, - which we had incurred by violating the divine law. He voluntarily submitted to the stroke of divine justice—was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniqui- ties. All this he did without contracting the slightest stain of moral defilement. He still continued a lamb without y, spot and blameless. So far was the Redeemer from con- ’ tracting any stain of moral defilement, that, as man, he was sanctified, and made perfect through sufferings. _ Nor does the doctrine of imputed sin and imputed righte- © gusness imply, as the Doctor asserts, ‘‘ that man was render- ‘ed pure and innocent by laying his sins upon Christ”? 142 ; This assertion betrays a strange confusion of ideas. It con+ founds justification: with sanctification... The imputation of a@ man’s sins to Christ, changes his state, but not his nature: tt frees him from condemnation, and exempts him, from punishment ; but does not render him pure and holy. This is the work of the Spirit of God. This is done in nears tion. SECTION IV. Objections answered. OBJECTION Tf. That the innocent should suffer a the eg he is contrary to justice. } This is one of the most common, and ideech the most plausible, objections against the atonement. In urging it our author reasons thus: ‘‘!f penal justice must be satis- “ fied, it can only be by the punishment of the offender. It * can never be satisfied by one person’s dying for another. ‘ That would be the height of injustice, if required by the “¢ Jegislator ; and, if he hed accept of the voluntary death . “* of the innocent, this would be more inconsistent with ‘« justice, than simply to pardon the guilty. without any 64 compensation at all: for, in this case, justice would be- “ vidlated in two ways ; first, by remitting the punishment «< of the guilty ; and next, by inflicting it on the innocent.” Again: (p. 239) ** Some of our own species have taken ** delight in cruelty ; but they are universally considered as objects of detestation and abhorrence, Nero’s putting *¢ an innocent person to death, instead ofa criminal, would °¢ have had no effect in redeeming his character. But to Pes torment. and sacrifice an innocent and virtuous victim, “¢ from a notion, that a crime having been committed, some ‘¢ person must suffer ;,and the more dignified and meritori- ‘* ous, so much the better for answering the ends of justice ; ‘‘ or to punish his dear and dutiful son, because he was ex- ‘‘ asperated against his rebellious subjects, whom he par- ‘¢ doned; and all this, to satisfy his vengeance, and appease ‘* his wrath ; these are enormities, of which we could never ** suspect the most capricious tyrant.’ In reply to all such reasoning, or rather deeataGon IK would say—-The cases are not parallel. What would be 7 148 Unjust and cruel with regard to a meré man, was not so with regatd to the Redeemer. Here is. the fallacy. No mere man is master of his own life ; he has, therefore no right to lay it down when he pleases. His death might be a loss to himself—to his family—to his friends—to the church and to the commonwealth. ‘Vhe case was quite different with regard to. the Redeemer.—His life was his own, He had power to lay it down, and he had power to take it up again, His death was an injury to none. It was no injury to him- self ; for the laying down of his life was perfectly voluntary, and he resumed it again; which no nere mar could do— he resumed it with an immense increase ot happiness. His death was no loss to others; but infinite gain. Not to mention the redemption of souls by his blood, having resum- ed his life, he is employed in dispensing to the universe the ‘inestimable benefits of his infinitely wise and benevolent.ad- ministration. When, among men. the innocent suffers for the guilty, besides the loss sustained, a positive injury is -done—the criminal! is let loose on society to perpetrate new crimes. This, 1 grant, would be an act of injustice. The ase; however, is very different with regard to the atone- ment. No injury is done, either negative or positive. The ‘guilty person is not let loose to perpetrate new crimes. -On ‘the contrary, provision is made for his complete reforma- ‘tion:—Those who are redeemed by the blood, are Iso sanctified by the spirit, of the blessed Redeemer. (1.Cor. “vit 1D), «6 And such were some of you: but ye are washed ; “but ye are sanctified ; but ye are justified in the name of _ethe Lord Jesus. and by the spinit of our God.’ Jesus ‘Christ gave himself for us—not that we might perpetrate ‘new ‘crimes, but—< that he might redeem us from all in- “‘quity, and purify to himself a people zealous of good “works.” » Why then should Dr B. mistepresent and ca- dumniate the doctrine of the atonement ‘—-why should he -attempt to! bring an odium upon it by such foul aspersions ‘as the following ? (p: 234) «* His displeasure at sin, it seems, ‘¢ is best shown by forgiving the sinner without amendment “© or’ compensation from him.”~—Phe ad vocates of the atone- “Went ‘teach no ‘such doctrine. The: Scriptures of truth teach no such doctrine. The doctrine of the atonement “gives no encouragement to sin; but lays a foundation for universal holiness. It leads not to presumption, but inspires. “with reverence and godly fear. (Psal. exxx. 4), But “there is forgiveness (@ propitiation) with thee, that’ thou 144 << mayest be feared.” The person, who is justified freely by grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, exclaims with indignation, Shall I continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid! Between the atonement and _ regeneration there is an inseparable connexion. Those who receive the one are the subjects of the other. They are regenerated, not merely by water in baptism—the only regeneration which Dr. B. acknowledges—but by «* the re- ‘< newing of the Holy Ghost.” They are ‘+ new creatures, “¢ created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works.” From the above observations, it is abundantly evident, that the innocent suffering for the guilty among men—and Jesus Christ suffering, the just for the unjust, are cases not at all parallel. The innocent person among men who suf- — fers for the guilty, does an injury to himself—or to his fami- ly—or to the church—or to the state—or, perhaps, to all these. He also injures the community by encouraging Cri- ‘minals to perpetrate new crimes. But, as we have seen — above, the very reverse is the case with regard to the atone- ment. No injury is done ; but infinite good accrues. Let no person, therefore, presume to say, that the doctrine of the atonement is unreasonable. Let none presume to afhirm, that it is unjust or cruel. Let none deceive themselves, nor attempt to deceive others, by instituting comparisons which will not hold, and by confounding cases which are totally different. . Whilst Socinian and Arian writers inveigh with great ve- — hemence against the doctrine of the atonement, alleging, that the idea of the innocent suffering for the guilty involves in it the greatest injustice and cruelty ; they unfortunately forget, that all their invectives may be retorted—that they rebound upon themselves with accumulated force. They seem to forget that, according to their own views, as well as according to ours, the innocent suffered for the guilty. They grant that Jesus was innocent,* and that he suffered, — not for himself, but for the benefit of sinners. We must all grant, that in the death of Jesus we have an instance of the innocent suffering for the guilty. We differ, however, in this—They say, that the innocent suffered for the guilty * A few Unitarians—thank God, only a few--have arrived at such ~ a degree of impiety, as to call in question the innocence of our blessed Redeemer ! ’ 145 to obtain a smaller good, whilst we say, that the innocent suffered for the guilty to obtain a greater good. Socinians say, that he died to set us an example, and to confirm his doctrines. Arians say, that in addition to this, he obtained from the Father, as a reward of his sufferings, the power of forgiving sins to the penitent. We say, that in addition to all these things, he died in our room, as our substitute— that he suffered the penalty of the law, which we must have suffered, and thus redeemed us by his blood. Now, if there be any absurdity in supposing, that the innocent Jesus suffered for the guilty to obtain a good infinitely great ; it must be immensely more absurd to suppose that*he suffered to obtain a good comparatively small and inconsiderable. If, in the innocent suffering for the guilty, there be any in- justice or cruelty, the Socinian and Arian schemes must be most unjust and cruel.* “ OBJECTION IL. As it was only the human nature of the Redeemer that suffered, his atonement cannot be tnfinitely valuable.— “« Neither,”’ says the Doctor, could the sufferings of Christ ‘be infinite, Their duration was temporary, and many in- “dividuals may have been exposed to greater torments : “whereas the pains of hell, for which they were to serve “as an equivalent, are supposed to be eternal, and the suf-. ‘*ferers innumerable. Besides, his human nature, which ‘< alone is said to have suffered, was not infinite.” In this paragraph our author falls into his usual sophism, ‘* igno- rantia elenchi,’’ or a mistake of the question. He denies that the sufferings of Christ could be infinite, and proves that they could not. But why deny what nobody affirms, or why prove what nobody denies. Surely such trifling is quite beneath the dignity of the learned Doctor. We do not maintain, that the sufferings of the Redeemer were infinite ; but we maintain, that they were of infinite value— we maintain, they were in nitely meritorious—we maintain, that though these sufferings were only temporary, they were fully equivalent to the eternal torments of the whole human. family. This we maintain upon the principle, that ‘though the nature which suffered was finite, the person that suffer- * This argument is well managed by Wardlaw on the ‘Socinian controversy. : | 7 13 *, 146 ed was infinite—though the nature that suffered was human, the person was Divine. It was not Sir Isaac Newton’s soul that died; and yet it was his soul that rendered his death immensely more interesting than that of a peasant. Upon the same principle, it was not the divine nature of Jesus_ that suffered; but it was his divine nature that rendered his sufferings and death infinitely interesting and meritori- ous. is We do not maintain that the sufferings of Christ were in- finite ; but we maintain that they were immensely greater than can be accounted for, either on Socinian or Arian principles. . If our blessed Redeemer did not suffer as our substitute, why did he offer up strong cries with tears ?— why was he amazed and exceeding sorrowful ?—sorrowful even unto death ?—why was he in an agony, and his sweat as great drops of blood? If he was not at that time suffer- ing the wrath of God; or, in other words, the penalty of the broken covenant—if Jehovah was not then bruising - him, putting him to grief, and making his soul an offermg for sin, what account can be given of such circumstances ? they are utterly unaccountable—nay, such circumstances would have betrayed a timidity quite unworthy of the mean- est martyr. If we adopt the Socinian or Arian hypothesis, we must admit the blasphemous conclusion, that many @ martyr displayed more fortitude than our blessed Re- deemer. | OBJECTION III. Another objection to the doctrine of the Atonement is stated thus: (p. 233) * Lastly, to complete the climax of ‘absurdity, the sufferer, inthis case, is thought to be the ‘same in essence and substance, coessential and consub- ‘¢ stantial with the sovereign himself. If Jesus and the ‘Father be literally and identically one, ke sacrificed him- ‘sself to himself, and accepted of his own sufferings as an ‘catonement to himself; while the real criminals were ex- «cempted from punishment, relieved from guilt, and. re- «« warded with high privileges and blessings, without faith, ‘repentance, or reformation.” In reply to this objection, I would observe, that Jesus Christ did not make the atone- ment in the same character in which he received it. He made the atonement in the character of Mediator ; but ac- cepted it in the character of God. As a gracious sovercign he offered his human nature a vicarious sacrifice ; which 147 sacrifice, as a lawgiver and judge, he accepted in the room ‘of guilty sinners, The same person may, in the:character of a friend, pay a debt, and in the character of a judge, discharge the debtor. In this I see no absurdity at all, but a wonderful display of grace and condescension. The re- maining part of the objection, that the real criminals are exempted’ from punishment, relieved from guilt, and re- warded with high privileges and blessings, without faith, repentance, or reformation, deserves no reply. I shall not call it a calumny or a falsehood: I shall only rank it amongst the almost infinite number of mistakes and mis- statements which the Doctor has made, in consequence of his ignorance of the principles which he. opposes. I regret much, that Doctor Millar, of Armagh, in animadverting on the passage under consideration, has joined with Doctor B. in an unjust and ungenerous attempt, to roll upon the Calvinistic system the principal odium of the above foul Misrepresentation. ‘The Calvinist,’’ says he, ‘‘ does in- “deed teach, that the salvation of men is arbitrary, irre- ‘** spective, and unconditional ; and so he may be charged ** with holding, that faith, repentance, and reformation, are - “‘not conditions of salvation, however he may maintain, _‘that by the influence of the grace of God they always fol- ‘*“low election.”’~ I ask Doctor Millar—Does the Calvinist teach what Doctor B. has asserted:2—Does he teach, that the criminal is exempted from punishment without faith ? No. He teaches, that he who believes not shall be damned. Does the Calvinist teach that the criminal. is relieved from guilt without faith? No: he teaches the very reverse. He teaches, that we are justified by faith—that in order of nature faith precedes justification—that in order of nature, faith precedes relief from guilt—that the criminal can never be relieved from guilt till he has first believed—that he who believes not is condemned already. Does the Calvinist be- lieve in irrespective salvation, as Doctor Millar asserts. He believes in no such thing, He.knows of. no salvation irre- - spective of faith, repentance, and reformation. May the Calvinist ‘ be fairly charged with holding that faith, repent- “ance, and reformation, are not. conditions of salvation.’ _ Though Doctor B. has charged him, he cannot be fairly _ charged, with holding any such doctrine. He holds that faith, repentance and reformation are conditions of salya- fion—not ‘meritorious conditions Andeed ; but, conditions _ £tne qua non—indispensable conditions+conditions which ~ 148 he is able to perform, not by the self-determining power of his own will, but by the omnipotent influence of the blessed Spirit of all grace. He holds that none can be saved with- out repentance—that none can be saved without reforma- tion—a complete and entire reformation—a reformation which involves a new birth or regeneration—not a mere baptism regeneration ; but the renewing of the Holy Ghost, in which old things pass away, and all things become new. I say again, that I greatly regret to find a divine of the learning and talents of Doctor Millar, in a treatise expressly written against Arianism, joining issue with an Arian Doc- tor in misrepresenting Calvinism, though his own creed— as I shall afterwards show—is undoubtedly Calvinistic. ~ OBJECTION IY. Our author contends, that the doctrine of atonement is inconsistent with the freedom of pardon. The Apostle, however, is of a different opinion. He assures us, that we are ‘justified freely by grace, through the redemption ‘‘ which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to bea ‘* propitiation through faith in his blood.” It was the free grace of God that provided a Saviour, and though the par- — don ,of sin cost the Redeemer dear, it is dispensed to us freely, without money and without price. Our sins are not to be regarded as a pecuniary, but asacriminal debt. Our creditor was not obliged to accept of payment from the surety, but might have demanded it from the original debtors. To provide such a surety, and to accept of such payment, was an astonishing display of rich, free, and sove- SECTION VY. Of the moral tendency of the Atonement. Our author very properly observes, that we should prefer those views of religion, which are most conducive to good morals. On this ground, the doctrine of the atonement is " greatly preferable to the unscriptural views of Anti-trinita- rians. Anti-trinitarian views are hostile to morality in two respects. 1, In reference to the law. 2, In reference to sin. 1. Anti-trinitarianshave mean ideas ofthe moral law. They think that it may be violated with impunity—that, thotigh 149 God has attached a penalty to the violation of his law, he is not bound to inflict that penalty ; but may pardon sin with- — out a satisfaction. Such ideas of the law of God have a direct tendency towards vice and immorality. What doc- trine can be more favourable to vice ?—What doctrine can be more hostile to virtue, than the doctrine which teaches, that vice may- pass with impunity, and that sin may be pardoned without a satisfaction ? The enemies of the atone- ment are enemies of the moral law, and, therefore, enemies to morality. Though constantly. declaiming in favour of _ moral virtue, they sap the very foundations of morality, by bringing into contempt the moral law of God. It is the observation of an eminent English divine, that all errorg whatever may be resolved into opposition to the moral law. The doctrine of the atonement is a doctrine according to godliness, and is highly favourable to morality ; for it has its foundation—at least as taught by Calvinists—in the im- mutability of the divine law*—it goes upon the principle, that though the heavens and the earth may pass away, yet a jot or a tittle can in-no wise pass from the law till ail be fulfilled. 2. Anti-trinitarian views are hostile to “good morals,” not only as they lower the standard of morality, and degrade the moral law, but also, as they represent sin as an evil of a comparatively trifling nature. Dr. B. reasons thus: ‘« But grant, that Christ died to expiate the sins of the “‘ world, how can the death of one be an equivalent for ** pardoning the accumulated transgressions of millions, for ““a succession of ages? To obviate this objection, the ‘* advocates for satisfaction are driven to a greater excess ‘“‘ of extravagance. They say, it is true, that the offences ‘“* of mankind were infinite in number and degree ; and ** therefore it was necessary that the satisfaction should be ‘* infinite ; and accordingly a being of infinite merit and “excellence was sacrificed, in order to atone for them. ‘* But, in the first place, the sins of the world were not in- ‘< finite: for as man is a finite and limited being, so every ‘« thing pertaining to him is finite and limited ; his existence -** and his powers of doing good or evil: his virtues and his “vices. Guilt is, no doubt, aggravated by the relation in é . ’ -*On the moral tendency of the Atonement, Fuller on Systems, and Stevenson on the Atonement, may be perused with great advantage, 13* 150 ‘¢ which we stand to the authority offended, as of a son to ‘< his father ; but, on this principle, every offence against ‘¢ God would be chargeable with infinite atrocity, and ‘«* would require the expiation and atonement of an infinite ‘¢ being.”’ ‘ Arminians agree with Anti-trinitarians in denying the in- finite evil of sin. The preceding reasoning, therefore, is applicable not to the Arminian, but only to the Calvinistic — view of the atonement. Candour should have induced the — ; Doctor to distinguish. Archbishop Magee (Atonement, — vol. i. p. 171, writes thus: ‘* On this subject, Dr. Priestly © ‘thus represents the arguments of the Orthodox. Sin, *‘ being an offence against an infinite Being, requires an © ‘¢ infinite satisfaction, which can only be made by an in- — « finite person ; that is, one who is no less than God him- ~ “‘ self. Christ, therefore, in order to make this infinite — + _** satisfaction for the sins of men, must himself be God, : y. “4 ‘equal to God the Father. With what candour this has — ‘« been selected, as a specimen of the mode of reasoning, ‘‘ by which the doctrine of atonement, as connected with ‘‘ that of the divinity of Christ, is maintained by the Kstab- é< lished Church, it is needless to remark. That some few ‘‘ indeed have thus argued, is certainly to be admitted and ‘lamented. But how poorly such men have reasoned, it | ‘‘ needed not the acuteness of Dr. Priestly to discover. | «« On their own principles the reply is obvious—that sin — ‘«< being committed by a finite creature, requires only a ‘¢ finite satisfaction, for which purpose a finite person might - ‘‘ be an adequate victim.’”’ With great deference to the | Archbishop, I must confess myself one of those ‘* poor — ‘«< reasoners,’? who believe that sin is infinite and requires — an infinite satisfaction. Nor am I at all convinced of my © error, either by the reasoning of Doctor B., or that of the — celebrated author just now quoted. The former of these — “writers reasons thus: «‘ As man is a finite, and limited © «< being, every thing pertaining to him is finite and limited.” — This I deny. Is man’s duration finite and limited ? Surely e. not. His soul is immortal—Again, if man may be the © subject of infinite or eternal misery, may he not, on the same principle, be the subject of infinite guilt ? Though — man, therefore, is a finite and limited being, it is not true that every thing pertaining to him is finite and limited. I ask Doctor Bruce—Why may not the sin of a finite being — be infinite, as well’as his duration, his happiness, or his — a 4 151 misery? Sin is infinite; because committed against an infinite God—because it is the violation of an infinite obli- _ gation. Our author himself grants—that ‘* guilt is aggra- ‘‘ vated by the relation in which we stand to the authority *« offended, as of a son to his father.”’ Upon this principle, the more amiable the father, the greater our obligation to love him—the more worthy the father, the greater our obli- gation to esteem him—the greater the authority of the father, _ the greater our obligation to obey him. If the father is pos- _ sessed of one degree of amiableness, dignity, and authority, Wwe are under one degree of obligation to love, esteem, and obey him.—If he is possessed of a thousand degrees of _ amiableness, dignity and authority, we are under a thousand degrees of obligation to love, esteem and obey him.—If possessed of infinite amiableness, dignity, and authority, we are under infinite obligations to love, esteem, and obey him. It follows, of course, that if we violate these infinite obliga- tions, we incur infinite guilt. Who will deny, that we are under infinite obligations to love, esteem, and obey our _ heavenly Father, and that in violating these obligations our guilt is infinite ? | To this reasoning, I know, it has been objected, that if every sin is infinite, all sins must be equal ; for nothing can be greater than that which is infinite. But this conclusion does not follow; for one infinite may be greater than another. An infinite surface is greater than an infinite straight line, and an infinite solid than an infinite surface. Or, in other words ; an object infinitely long and broad, is greater than one only infinitely long ; and an object infinite- ly long, broad, and deep, is greater than one that is only in- finitely long and broad. _AIl objects infinitely long are equal in that dimension, length ; but they may differ widely in other dimensions : so all sins, though equal in this one ag- gravation of being committed against an infinite God, may nevertheless be very different in respect of other ageraya- “tions. «‘ Some sins, in themselves,” says our Westminster divines, ‘‘ and by reason of several aggravations, are more - * heinous in the sight of God than others.” And again: “« Every sin deserves God’s wrath and curse, both in this - life, and in-that which is to come,’’* | Can Dr. B. resist the force of the preceding reasoning ? _ EER SESE ISRO SS ROR EE Weare ek * These principles have been ably, I had almost said mathematically, ‘demonstrated by President Edwards. 152 He cannot. It is true, he considers it highly absurd; but it is no less true, that he fully admits it! In the very act of opposing it, he fully admits it! He admits the premises, that ‘* guilt is aggravated by the relation in which we stand ‘« to the authority offended ;’’ and he admits the conclusion, that ‘‘on this principle, every offence against God would ‘be chargeable with infinite atrocity, and would require * the expiation and atonement of an infinite being,” Now, this is all we contend for. The highest Calvinist can ask no more. Iam quite aware, indeed, that such an admission is a flat contradiction to what the Doctor is endeavouring to prove. He is endeavouring to prove, that sin is NoT in- finite ; and that it does not require an infinite satisfaction : and yet he fully admits the very reverse. How powerful is truth! How inconsistent and contradictory is error! Arch- bishop Magee grants, that from the Divinity of Christ we may infer ‘“ the great heinousness of human guilt, for the ‘¢ expiation of which it was deemed fit, that so great a Be- *‘ ing should suffer.’? But why not infer injinite guilt ?— Would God, who does nothing in vain, apply an infinite remedy toa finite disease ?—Would this be fit? Would this be proper? An infinite atonement to expiate finite guilt, in my humble apprehension— ‘6 Resembles ocean into tempest wrought, ‘© To waft a feather, or to drown a fly.” From the infinite value of the atonement we may surely in- fer the infinity of sin. Calvinists—I speak of them in general, for some individuals do not contend for the infinity of sin—Calvinists see more atrocity in one single sin, than Socinians, or Arians, or even Arminians, see in all the sins of all mankind! Sin, according to Socinian and Arian views, is comparatively nothing—an evil of a very trifling nature—a kind of cutaneous disease, that does not require any powerful remedy. According to Calvinistic views, sin is a disease of an inveterate, malignant, and alarming na- ture—a disease which no medicine can cure, but only the healing balm of the Redeemer’s blood. I appeal now to the candid reader—Which of the two systems is more favour- able to morality ? that which represents sin as a compara- tively trifling evil? or that which regards it as infinitely ma- lignant and atrocious? Surely no person possessed of the slightest degree of candour, can hesitate for a moment to pronounce that system most favourable to morality, whieh — 153 regards sin as the greatest evil. Still farther, we may ob- serve ; as the friends of the atonement conceive themselves ‘infinitely deeper in debt, than its enemies do ; so they con- ceive that God forgives them infinitely more ; will they not therefore love more? In proportion as Socinians and Ari- ans see little need of a Saviour, in the same proportion they will feel themselves under little obligation, of course. they will love but little ; and, as love is the fulfilling of the Taw, their obedience will be proportionally defective. It is, therefore, demonstratively evident, that the doctrine of ‘the atonement is a doctrine according to godliness; and that it is incomparably more favourable to good morals, - than the Socinian or Arian hypothesis. * SECTION VI. Extent of the Atonement. _ With Dr. Bruce, I fully agree in reprobating that illiberal- ity which confines the benefits of redemption to those who are baptised—or to those who belong to a particular church, sect, or party. In common with all Calvinists, I firmly be- lieve in the sufficiency of the atonement. I believe that the blood of my Redeemer is of infinite value, and sufficient to - gave the whole human family—But the question is, Was it 60 designed? Did God design to save all mankind by the death of his Son?—Did Jesus Christ design to save all tmankind by laying down his life? Arminians, as well as ‘Socinians and Arians, answer tuese questions in the affirmi- tive.— Calvinists answer them in the negative. 'To suppose, that God designed to save all mankind, and yet, that. all mankind will not be saved, appears to me absurd, I had al- most said, blasphemous. 'To me it appears self-evident, that God’s designs can never be frustrated—that his inten- tions can never be disappointed. If he designed that all should be saved, all would be saved; for, ‘‘ who hath re- «< sisted his will?’ Ifhe designed that all should be saved, and yet all are not saved, then the divine design is frustrated, and the Divine Being is unhappy! Every being must be _ unhappy in proportion as his designs are frustrated, and his intentions disappointed. In proportion to the greatness of the designer, and the grandeur of his designs, must be the greatness of his disappointment and mortification, if he fail in the accomplishment. Now, as God is an infinite 154 Being, and the design of saving souls is an infinite design, in the loss of every soul the Divine Being must feel infinite disappoiutment and mortification. In a word; he must be tnfinitely miserable!!! Such is the blasphemous but una- voidable consequence of maintaining, that God designed to save all mankind by Jesus Christ ; or that Christ shed his blood with an intention to save the whole human family.* The Arminian doctrine of a universal atonement is clog- ged with a variety of other absurdities. If it is absurd to sup- pose, that God sent his Sen to do that which he previously — knew would never be done; and. that Jesus Christ shed | his blood to accomplish that which he previously knew _ would never be accomplished. is it nat equally absurd to suppose, that the same debt should be twice exacted, first from the sinner and then from the surety ?—that Jesus Christ should suffer on the cross for the redemption of those who were at that very moment suffering the vengeance of — eternal fire! Is it not equally absurd to suppose, that Jesus Christ would shed his bloed for the whole human family, and yet would refuse to pray for them? (John xvii. 9,) «I “* pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for those “‘ whom thou has given me out of the world.””, The Serip-- tures teach no such absurdities. They teach, that Christ laid down his life for the sheep; but they no where assert, that he died for the goats. They teach, that he died to gather together in one. the children of God, which were scattered abroad ; and that he died for his chureh. (Eph. v. 25,} «* Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the * Church, and gave himself for it.” If the love of Jesus Christ in dying for his church was not peculiar and discri- minating, it would not be a proper object of imitation for _ © At a Missionary meeting, I once heard a very sensible Armin- tan addressing a large audience, on the propriety of prayer for. the conversion of the heathen. Reasoning from that beautiful promise made to the Redeemer, “ He shall see of the travail of his soul, and * shall be satisfied.” he said, with great earnestness and emphasis, & And he will not be satusfied: he will not be content, while there is “ one soul that tz not brought home to:himzelf.” Had not the impro- priety of disturbing the harmony of such a meeting prevented me, I would have immediately added; “ Then the Redeemer nerer will be satis- *< fied !—he never will be content !—he must be for ever miserable?” If the Redeemer will never be satisfied nor content, till every individual of the human family is saved; and if every individual will never be sa- ved ;—the conclusion is inevitable—that the Redeemer will never be salisfied nor content! Let any Arminian show, if he be able, that the : faa of universal atonement docs not lead to such blasphemous con- lysions. ? 155 husbands. The doctrine of a definite atonement, or parti- cular redemption, might be established by a multitude of other arguments, deduced both from Scripture and reason. To a mind unprejudiced, and capable of reasoning, the pre- ceding, I hope, will be found satisfactory. Tam perfectly aware, that a multitude of Scriptures seem to favour the opposite doctrine. I know it js written that Christ died for all—for the world—the whole world—and every man. Every attentive reader of the Bible must, however, be sensible, that such terms are frequently used in a limited sense. We read that all the world wondered after the beast, while, at the same time, there were with the lamb one hundred and forty-four thousand. John declared that the whole world was lying in wickedness, when thou- sands were converted to the faith of the Gospel. Our Sa- viour himself declared, that, from the days of John the Baptist, the kingdom of God was preached, and every man was pressing into it: when, in fact, the far greater part of the human family had never heard of the kingdom of God. Multitudes of similar instances might be adduced to show, that there is nothing more common in Scripture, than the words all, every, world, whole world, &c. taken ina limited acceptation. But it may be asked—If Christ died only for the elect, why were such universal terms employed in refer- ence to his death? I answer, to correct. the prejudices of the Jews, who foolishly confined salvation to themselves. ‘He is the propitiation for our Sins,” says the Apostle John, “ and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world’’—that is, He is the propitiation for the sins, not only of us Jews, but also of the Gentiles—of all his sheep through the whole world. That these universal terms are not to be taken in their most extensive signification, is evident, not only from the reasons mentioned above; but also from this, that though the most extensive terms are used in English, yet not in the original Greek. The word “sxadros, in Greek, signifies every individual ; and arvasg and duuros, signify all collectively ; but none of these most ex- tensive terms are ever applied to the death of Christ. Tt may however, be still further asked, If Christ did not die for all indiscriminately, why is salvation offered indiscrim}- nately to all? Why does God offer salvation to all, if he never designed that all should be saved? Is not this to tantalize the creature? Does it not argue insincerity in God? This objection is, at first sight, plausible; but it 156. may be retorted thus: If God foreknew from all eternity those who would reject salvation through Jesus Christ, why does he offer them salvation? Why does he invite those that he previously knew would reject the invitation? Does not this argue insincerity in God? Let the Arminian, the Socinian, or the Arian, show me, that it does not argue in- sincerity in God to offer salvation to the man that he pre- viously knew would reject it, and I will show him, that it does not argue insincerity in God to offer salvation to the man whom he never designed tosave. ‘Thus the objection might be retorted. The difficulty arising from apparent insincerity in God, is common to all systems of divinity. The Socinian, the Arian, the Arminian, and the Calvinist, are all equally concerned to solve it. My views of this difficult subject, I shall endeavour to explain by the follow- ing illustration. In the late French revolutionary war, the Sans Culotte, in an engagement with the English, was sunk. Her crew refused to accept of quarter. They went down with shouts of Vive la Republique! Supposing that the English admi- ral had picked up a certain number of the drowning french, and saved their lives. Supposing, moreover, that he had sent out a boat, and offered to save the rest, knowing, at the same time, that they would reject his generous offer— Could such an admiral be justly charged with insincerity ? His design in sending out the boat, it is true, was not to * gave them; for he knew they would not accept of salva- tion; but his design was to exhibit to all the clemency of the English, and, at the same time, the horrid infatuation and implacable enmity of the French. If the obstinacy of the French was so great, and their enmity against the En- glish so inveterate, that they would rather drown than be indebted to British clemency, would not every person say, that they deserved their fate—that their blood was upon their own heads ? In this case, those who were saved, were wholly indebted for their salvation to the gracious cle- mency of the British admiral ; and those who were drowned had no apology to plead ; the admiral offered his clemency, but they basely and ungratefully despised and rejected it. They deserved to die, for they chose death rather than life. Such is the situation of sinners drowning in a deluge of wrath. Life and salvation are offered to all indiscriminately ; and all are disposed to treat the offer with contempt. Such is the enmity of the human heart against God, and his law, 157 and his Son, that none would come to the Redeemer for life—all would despise and reject the life-boat of salvation: But God, in his infinite mercy and grace, destroys the en- mity of some, bends their stubborn wills by the influence of his Spirit, and makes them willing in the day of his power -—willing to accept of salvation freely, without money and without price. The rest perish, not because they are re- probates—not because Christ did not die for them : but be. cause they are sinners—because they are rebels—because they will not lay down their arms—they will not be recon- ciled to God—they will not come to his Son, that they may have life. When a drowning man is offered a boat, if, In- stead of embracing the offer, he should cavil and dispute about the design of the offerer, would he not be regarded as insane? Undoubtedly he would. How much greater the folly and madness of sinners, who, instead of accepting salvation through Jesus Christ, as it is freely offered to them in the Gospel, stand cavilling at the decrees of God, and the particularity of redemption—curiously prying into the secret counsels of the Almighty, and foolishly inquiring, whether God, by. sending his Sop, intended their salvation, or whether Jesus Christ shed his blood for them! Oh the stupidity and infatuation of men ! The ministers of Jesus should offer the Gospel indiscrimi- nately to all. They should address rebels in the language of the apostle ; (2 Cor. v. 20,) “We are ambassadors for ‘Christ, as though God did beseech you by us ; we pray *‘ you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.’ Whilst, in thoughts that breathe, and words that burn, they call, in- vite, and expostulate, they should at the same time fervently pray, that the Gospel may come, not in word only, but in power—that, by the blessed agency of the Divine Spirit, it may happily prove the power of God, and the wisdom ot God unto salvation. 4 158 CHAPTER VI. Original Sin. _ Tur Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, our author attacks in his tenth sermon. In entering on this important subject, - he abandons his “‘ sure guide,’’* and contradicts himself. He \ asserts (p. 45,) that if any doctrine is not plainly declared in every one of the four Evangelists, we may be assured, that ‘it ts not even an important truth.’ Inthe com- mencement of this sermon he assures us, that the doctrine — of original sin is not to be found in any of the Gospels, for our Saviour, he maitains, has not said one word about it: yet, strange to tell, he/nevertheless grants, that ‘it may be “¢ an important truth.”’ In the one page he asserts, that it is not even an important truth ; in the other he admits, that such a doctrine may be an important truth. Thisis Dr. B. versus Dr. B.! It is a trite observation, that ‘* sometimes “¢ second thoughts are best.’’ In this instance the proverb is verified. I am glad to find our author recanting—giving up a canon so unscriptural, so unreasonable, and at last candidly. admitting, that a doctrine, though not contained in all the Evangelists, may nevertheless be an important truth ; and particularly, that the doctrine of original sin may be an important truth. How glad should I be to find him admitting, not only that it may be, but that it actually is, an important truth. This instance, I am sorry to say, is not the only one calculated to show, that the Doctor passed too high a eulogium on his volume of sermons, when, in his preface, he pronounced it “* consistent with itself and ‘‘ the Gospel.”’ | | In the introduction to his sermon on original sin, the Doctor has not only contradicted himself, he has also con- tradicted matter of fact. He asserts, that ‘‘ the advocates ‘© of the popular notion of original sin do not pretend to ‘* appeal to any of our Lord’s discourses in favour of their * If Dr. B. has not sufficient faith to follow his own ‘sure guide,” how can he expect the first Presbyterian Congregation in Belfast to follow it? 159 “ opinion.”’: Now this assertion is the very reverse of the fact. ‘The fact is, that the advocates of the popular notion. of original sin do appeal to our Lord’s discourses, - They appeal to his discourse to Nicodemus, “ That which is born “* of the flesh, is flesh.”” The very first doctrines which our blessed Lord taught Nicodemus, were those which Dr. B. rejects—the doctrines of original sin and regeneration. Our Saviour taught that we are born, not only depraved, but totally depraved, not only fleshly, but flesh itself. He taught, that such is our natural state of depravity, that «« Ex- “* cept a man (sig any one, man, woman, or chil ) be born ‘« again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 3 To account for the origin of evil, is one of the most diffi- cult problems in divinity. No view of the subject, perfectly free from difficulties, has, as yet, been exhibited to the world. The account given in the sacred volume is brief : and from it have been formed a variety of opinions. These may be all reduced to three—1, That by Adam’s fall we are both depraved and guilty. 2, That by Adam’s fall we are only depraved, but not guilty. 3, That by Adam’s fall we are neither depraved nor guilty. The first of these opinions is that of the Calvinists,— That we are all guilty of Adam’s first sin, they prove from various texts of Scripture ; but particularly from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, from the twelfth to the nineteenth verse inclusive. In this portion of Scripture we are assured, that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, for that all (e9’ » in whom) all have sinned— that by the offence of “one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation—and that by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners. | The penalty attached to Adam’s disobedience was death : “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’’ This penalty was inflicted, not only on Adam, but on his posterity. Now Calvinists infer—-and I think justly—that if Adam’s posterity had not been involved in his guilt, they - would not have been involved in his punishment—in the penalty attached to his disobedience.—Doctor Bruce main- tains, that this penalty was only temporal death; but that itfincluded eternal death is evident from the words of the ~Apostle : “* The wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God “is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now, if that life which is the gift of God through Jesus Christ is — Be 160 eternal life, the antithesis shows, that that death which is the wages of sin must be eternal death.* If, therefore, we. believe the sacred oracles rather than Dr. B., we will believe, that, in consequence of Adam’s sin, his posterity are not only exposed to. temporal death, but death ezernal ; and that they are also spiritually dead—“alie- ‘‘ nated from the life of God—dead im trespasses and sins.” This spiritual death,-or depravity of nature, is every where taught in thesacred volume. ‘That God made man upright, is a dictate both of Scripture and reason. ‘The Scriptures assure us, that the Deity created Adam in his own image - and-after his own likeness. Having lost this moral image, che could not transmit it to his posterity. Accordingly we read, that Adam begat a son in his own image; and the Apostle assures us, that we have born the image of the — earthly Adam. ‘‘ What is man, that he should be clean ; ‘© and he that is born of a woman,-that he should be righte- ‘¢ ous? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? ‘‘ not one.’? David acquiesced in this doctrine when he exclaimed, ‘ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin ‘© did my mother conceive me!’’. That this depravity is uni- versal, is abundantly taught in the sacred volume, particu- larly in the Epistle to the Romans, third chapter, from the tenth verse: ‘“* There is none righteous, no not one; there «« ig none that understandeth: there is none that seeketh ‘‘ after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are ‘together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth | ‘“'good, no; not one.—Every mouth must be stopped, and — ‘ all the world be found guilty before God.”? Against such — descriptions Dr. B. cautions his hearers thus : ‘You are. - not to be deluded by general descriptions of the depravity — ‘© of the world; for those passages do not apply to every * Mr. M‘Affee says, that by quoting this text in my defence of creeds and confessions, I have made a grand mistake ; for the Apostle was uot speaking there of the penalty of the Adamic covenant, but of that annexed to the covenant of grace.—If Mr. M‘Affee be open to convic-. tion, he may at once be convinced, that the grand mistake is made, not — by we, but by himself.—he may be convinced of this by comparing the text in question with the last verse of the preceding chapter. “That @ 6ags sin hath reigned unto death; even so might grace reign through “ righteousness unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. This, text 1s exactiy parallel with the former, and the Apostle is undeniably : treating of the penalty of the Adamic covenant. Many a@ grand mis- — take is made by neglecting to compare Scripture with Scripture, s 161 ‘* individual, but to the general corruption of mankind.’’ The Apostle assures us, that the corruption is universal. The Doctor assures us, that it is not universal, The Apostle assures us, that there is not one solitary exception, none, none, none, none, no not one, no not one : but, in the face of all this, the Doctor assures us, that there are excep- tions, and that such ‘“ passages do not apply to every indi- ‘‘ vidual, but to the general corruption of- mankind.’’ Reader of this treatise! believest thou the Prophets ? Believest thou the Apostles? I know that thou believest. Learned divines may delude thee ; but the Deity never can! Such isthe Calvinistic doctrine relative to the fall of Adam, and the effects of that fall upon his posterity, and such ap- pears to be the scriptural account of that mournful, and all important event. Calvinists do not pretend to be able to assign all the reasons which influenced the divine mind in connecting so intimately the fate of Adam with that of his posterity. We see, however, something very similar in the connexion of one generation with another. The virtues and the vices, the happiness and miseries of men, we plainly see, are greatly influenced by previous connexions and relations —by ten thousand adventitious circumstances—circumstan- ces over which they themselves had no control. « Who would deny that such connexions, relations, and circumstances, have a powerful influence on human conduct ; and yet we all acknowledge—for our own consciousness proves it— that man is a free and an‘accountable agent. ‘The placing — of Adam at the head of our family, as our representative, was a constitution, which, viewed abstractly, appears char- acterised both by wisdom and goodness.—Adam was much better qualified to stand for us, as our representative, than we would have been to stand for ourselves. We come into the world children ; our appetites and passions get the start of our reason and consciences, and hurry us into vice be- fore these higher powers of our nature have acquired suffi- cient energy to keep them in check. On this single princi- ple alone, some have endeavoured to account for the uni- versality of human guilt. ‘This, however,was not the case with Adam. His appetites and passions did not get the start of his reason and conscience; for he was created not -achild, but a man. In this respect it cannot be denied, that Adam was much better qualified to stand representa- tive for his posterity, than each to stand personally for him- self. Besides; Adam saw himself at the head of a nume- 14* 162 rous family, whose happiness or misery was suspended .om his good or bad management... If this motive has a power- - ful influence on men now depraved, and sometimes even on the most depraved of men—if it sometimes proves effectual to reform the rake and reclaim’ the prodigal—how much more powerfully was it calculated to operate on the mind of innocent Adam in preserving him in a state of persever- ing obedience? In this respect again, federal representa- tion appears greatly preferable to personal responsibility.* _ Upon the whole ; our opponents may pour forth torrenta of declamation and invective against the federal representa- tion of Adam; but, onthe abstract question, Whether fed- eral representation or personal responsibility were, in its own nature, better calculated to secure the happiness of the human family—on this abstract question they have never yet met us, and, I presume never will. ‘A Having thus briefly stated the Calvinistic opinion relative to the fall and its effects, we come now to the _ Seconp Opinion, whichis that of the Arminians. They maintain, that, in conscquence of Adam’s fall, we are all depraved, but they deny that the guilt of his first sin is im- puted to his posterity. ‘To suppose that we are guilty of a sin, committed nearly six thousand years before we were born, involves, I confess, a great difficulty. To get rid of it the Arminians deny the fact.—They say we come into the world depraved, but not guilty. They deny that we come into the world guilty, but they admit that we come into the ~ world so depraved, that as soon as capable of moral agency we must become guilty. Now, how does this relieve the _ difficulty? How does this vindicate the justice of God? Whereis the difference whether I come into the world guilty, er with such an hereditary taint, that in a very short time I must become guilty? Besides: I am quite unable to dis-_ tinguish between a depraved being and a guilty bemg. A ‘depraved innocent being appears to me a contradiction in terms—as great a contradiction as an honest thief or a white ~ negro. Ina word; the Arminian removes the difficulty a lit- _ tle farther off; but affords no manner of relief—gives no solution. | : Tame THIRD Opinion is that of the Pelagians, Socinians, Arians, &c. They maintain that we come into the world neither guilty nor depraved, but as pure and holy as innocent * These topics are ably illustrated by President Edwards on original sin. — 163 Adam. This is the opinion of Dr. B. By thus denying both guilt and depravity, Socinians and Arians vainly ima- gine that they have completely solved the difficulty ; but they deceive themselves, and they deceive their followers, The difficulty is, indeed, removed a little farther out of view ; it is, however, nothing lessened, but rather aug menied. Dr. B, admits, that the whole human family sin as soon as they become moral agents. Now, the great question is, - Why do men universally run into sin as soon as capable of - it? The Doctor answers this question by asking another. «Can it be difficult,’ says he, «to account for the sinful- ‘* ness of men at present, surrounded as they are by necessi- ‘ ties and pleasures, temptations and discouragements ?”’ So then, we come into the world neither guilty nor depraved ; but, nevertheless, as soon as capable of acting, we-all be- come guilty, we all commit sin—we are surrounded with “such necessities and pleasures, temptations and discourage- ments, that we cannot avoid it.—The temptations with which we are surrounded are so powerful, that none have ever been able to resist them! The Calvinist tells me, that I came into the world guilty. This is a great difficulty ; but the Arminian kindly-comes forward to relieve me. He tells me that | was not born guilty, but that I am so depraved, that in the course of a few years I must become guilty. This I regard as very poor comfort indeed! The Arian, seeing me still in distress, makes a gencrous proposal of his kind offices. You come into the world, says he, neither guilty nor depraved ; but you come into a world so full of snares and temptations, that there is no hope of your es- cape—you must become guilty in a very short time! Cold comfort indeed !—May I not address the Arminian, the So- cinian, and the Arian, in the language of Job to his mistaken friends ; ‘+ Miserable comforters are yeall?” The Calvin- ist says, Your disease is coeval with your birth. The Ar- minian says, ‘The seeds of disease are in your constitution, and the disease itself must make its appearance at a very early age. ‘The Arian says, No; you are born in good © health, and of a good sound constitution ; but your benevo- lent Creator, at your very birth, has plunged you into a pest- house, where none have ever escaped the effects of conta- gion. Alas! then, say[—IfI am todie of a disease, what matter whether that disease be coeval with my birth, arise necessarily from a radical defect in my constitution, or be eaught by contagion which I cannot avoid? Thus we see, — 4 164 that the Arminian and the Arian completely fail in remov- | ing the difficulty. But this is not all; their hypotheses, so far from casting light on the subject, involve it in difficul- ties still more embarrassing and insuperable. In commen- ting on the fifth chapter of the Romans, Dr. B. explains the terms Justify and condemn thus: (p. 194) « As to justify, ‘* signifies to make just, to place in the situation of just men ‘*‘ by pardon ; so this expression to make sinners is equiva- ‘* lent to condemn. to place men in the situation of sinners. | p . ‘* Asa guilty person may be treated as an innocent one, by ‘* being pardoned and received into favour, so an innocent ** man may be treated as a criminal and condemned.—The ‘‘ one situation is expressed in Scripture by being justified ‘* or made righteous, and the other by being made a sinner.’ Having thus explained, he goes on tocomment thus ; aft Rat ‘as by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, ‘‘ or were treated as sinners, being subject to death, by the “ sentence of God,” é&c. From these quotations, it ap- pears, that Dr. B. agrees with the Calvinists in maintaining, that God treats the. posterity of Adam as if they were sin- ners; but he differs from them in this: The Calvinists say, that God treats us as sinners, because we are sinners, be- cause we have all stnned in our federal representative ; but the Doctor affirms, that God treats us as sinners, though we are perfectly innocent! ‘The Calvinists say, that God condemns the guiliy posterity of Adam; but the Doctor affirms, that God condemns Adam’s innocent posterity !— He condemns to death his own éanocent offspring !—He condemns them for a crime they never committed !—in which they had no concérn !—of which they were perfectly inno- cent!—Thus the learned Dr. B., in the heat of his zeal against Calvinism, is forced to charge his Maker with that abominable thing which his soul hates—(Prov. xvii. 15), ‘« He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth ‘« the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.’’— Say now, reader, what system is most reasonable ’—the system of the Calvinist, who says, God condemns the guilty ; or that of the Arminian or Arian, who says, God condemns the innocent ?* * In explaining the words justify, condemn; &c. the Dr. appears evidently to write without thinking. “In Hebrew,” says he, “ the ‘simple word, (what simple word?) means to be asinner. In another ‘ form of the verb, (what verb ) to make one a sinner. And it is so ~ 165 _ Dr. Bruce quotes and condemns the Westminster Divines’ description of original depravity. Dr. Millar, of Armagh, Seems to justify our author in rejecting that description. ‘Tt is not unnatural,’’ says he, “ that an exposition of this ‘* doctrine, so strongly and so harshly stated, should dispose ‘‘any man of mild dispositions to seek another. interpreta- _ ‘tion. Such a temperate statement of this doctrine might ‘have been found in the ninth article of our church.”’ Now, what is the mildness of the ninth article? Let us see. The ninth article states, that original sin is the fault or corruption of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam—and that in every person born into the world it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation! Where now is the mildness? Did ever the Westminster Divines, or did ever any Calvinist say, that original sin deserves more than God’s wrath and damnation? But, nevertheless, if we believe Doctor Millar, the doctrine is stated mildly by the Church of England. «+The article, moreover, ig concluded,” says he, ‘‘ with observing that the Apostle ‘‘doth confess, not rigorously denounce, that this same “6 concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin, ‘‘ even avoiding to declare that it is sin in a trueand proper ‘“‘acceptation of the term.” Now, with great respect, ‘permit me to ask the learned Doctor, How does it come to pass, that original sin is not sin in a true and proper accep- . tation of the term, when, at the same time, it is acknow- ledged to deserve God’s wrath and damnation? Let Dr. ‘Millar answer this question if he can. He may defend _Arminianism if he please ; but, in defending it, he should not quote the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England ; particularly, he should not quote the ninth article—an arti- cle so highly Calvinistic, > ‘© translated throughout the Old testament.” Strange! So translated ! It is not so translated. The very instances adduced by the Doctor to prove that it is so translated, prove that it is nof so translated. The Jirsl instance is, ‘* Whom the judges shall condemn.” It is not so trans- lated here. His second instance is, *¢ If I justify myself, my own mouth ** will condemn me.” It is not so translated here. His third is, * Wilt thou condemn hiim that is most just.’ It is not so translated here. It is not so translated in any one of the instances mentioned by the Doctor, In adi these instances the word is translated, not fo make @ sinner. as Our author affirms, but to condemn. They all prove, not what they were adduced to prove, but the very reverse—they prove not that the Doctor has wilfully violated matter of fact, but they prove that he does not always think when he writes, and that his book is not always consistent, either with itself or the Scriptures, ¥ 166 ? With regard to the ‘ strong’”’ and «+ harsh’? language of the Westminster Divines, I would only request the candid reader to compare that language with the Scriptures referred to, and then say if the language of Scripture be not fully as harsh as that of the Catechism. After quoting the Di- vines’ description of the sin and misery introduced by the fall, Doctor B. exclaims, «‘ Thus are children initiated into ‘* the glad tidings of salvation, and taught to love God and ‘honour all men.’? The Doctor, no doubt, regarded this sentence as a fine stroke of irony: but did he not know. that the disease is one thing, and the remedy another ? Did he not know, that the description of our sin and misery is one thing, and “ the glad tidings of salvation” are another ? —and that teaching ‘‘to love God and to honour all men,” is another still? Why does he confound things so different ? But though these things are so different, and should not be confounded, they are not opposite. A description of our sin and misery is no way inconsistent with the glad tidings of salvation: on the contrary, the one presupposes the other. Were we not previously convinced of our sin and misery, the good news of the Gospel would not be re- garded as glad tidings at all. The Westminster Divines are not like those unskilful physicians, censured by the Al- mighty—physicians who heal the wound of the daughter of his people slightly, saying, «‘ Peace, peace, when there is **no peace.’’? ‘The Westminster Divines, like skilful sur. geons, first probe the wounds of sin, and then apply to them the healing balm of the Redeemer’s blood. Doctor B., breaking through his irony, and blending literal with figura- tive language, alleges that the description of our original sin, depravity, and misery, given by the Westminster Divines, is calculated to counteract the affectionate invitation of their gracious Lord, «« Suffer little children to come unto ‘«me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of '* heaven.” Now, f confess myself utterly at a loss to know, how such a description can possibly counteract such an. invitation. The greater the depravity and guilt of children, the greater necessity, I should think, to bring them toJesus Christ the Saviour. On the contrary ; if they have no de- pravitynor guilt at all, what necessity to bring them at all ? A Socinian or Arian might reason thus: Jesus Christ came into the world to save. sinners: but my child is no sinner ; and therefore Jesus Christ did not come into the world to save it; consequently, I need not bring it to Jesus Christ! 167 3 ae Again: Jesus Christ came to seek and save that which was lost: but my child is not lost; therefore Jesus Christ did not come to save it ; consequently, I need not bring it to Jésus Christ.! ‘Once more = Jesus Christ came to save from the wrath to come: but my child is not a child of wrath ; therefore, Jesus Christ did not come to save it ; and consequently, I need not bring it to Jesus Christ! J will not suffer my little children to come to the Reedemer. 1 see no need. They are not sick ; and therefore have no need of Jesus as a physician! They are not sin- ners ; and therefore have no need of Jesus as a Sayi« our!’ They are not defiled: and therefore have no need of the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness ! - In a word ; the little children of Socinians and Arians wil] re quire a separate apartment in heaven; for they cannot join the general assembly in their song of praise—<«« Unto him ‘“that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own ‘ blood—to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. ‘* Amen.” | if Doctor B. asserts, that the little children brought to our Saviour, were the children of Pagans or Jews, neither ba tized nor converted. How does he know this? He does not know it at all. The probability is, that the facts were the very reverse of his Statement. It is quite improbable that the children were Pagans, for the Redeemer wag preaching the Gospel, not to Pagans, but to Jews in the coast of Judea beyond the Jordan. That the children were not baptized, is equally improbable. It is in the highes¢ degree probable, that the parents were believing Jews, Had they been unbelievers, they would not have brought their children to the Redeemer to receive a blessing. It ig also highly probable that the children were previously bap. tized. The very first ordinance to which believing parents would naturally bring their children, would be the initiating ordinance of baptism. That the children were not con-. verted, but vessels of wrath, is a gratuitous assumption, | still more improbable than the preceding. Notwithstandin all these improbabilities, the Doctor makes his assertiong with as much dogmatic assurance as if delivering oracles; Indeed, his general manner shows, that he calculates largely _ To render the doctrine Of original sin as shocking ns possible, Dr. B. exclaims thus: (p. 201) “ With what feel. ‘ing of horror and disgust, as well as pity, must & parent 168 ‘s who really believes this doctrine, behold his child, when ‘he presents him for baptism, and hears him denounced as ‘©a child of wrath, under the curse of God, and heir only ‘of hell fire!’? Answer. The believing parent, whilst presenting his child in the ordinance of baptism, is filled _ with feelings of love, and gratitude, and joy, whilst, after contemplating, with deep humility, his child's lost state by nature, the eyejof his faith is directed to the blood and water which issued from the pierced side of his crucified Re deemer—blood for justification, and water for sanctifica- tion. His eye affects his heart, whilst he contemplates that water which symbolically represents, not only pardon - through the Redeemer’s blood, but regeneration through his blessed spirit. With feelings of ineffable gratitude and joy, he draws water out of the wells.of salvation ; he pleads the promises of the Gospel in behalf of his infant offspring —that God would pour water upon the thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground—that he would pour his spirit upon his seed, and his blessing upon his offspring—that God would be his God, and the God of his seed. Whilst he thus pleads the promises, and anticipates the eternal felicity of himself and his offspring, so far from being filled with feelings of horror and disgust, he rejoices with joy unspeak- able and full of glory. if The Doctor proceeds: ‘‘ What respect or reverence can ‘ca child feel for a parent, who is a bondman of Satan, “utterly opposed to every thing that is spiritually good?” I answer, For such a parent he cannot feel so much rever- ence as for a pious parent, a child of God—and what then? Let such a parent flee from the wrath to come. Let him repent of his wickedness and pray God, if perhaps the thoughts of his heart may be forgiven him, that he may escape from the snare of the Devil, and be no longer led captive by him at his will. Becoming a child of God by f faith, and a favourite of heaven, he is entitled to more © respect, and will obtain more respect from his own chil 2 dren. : The Doctor goes on with his interrogatories thus:— — ‘«‘ With what distrust, aversion, and gloomy horror, must the *¢ parents themselves view each other during life, wholly «‘ inclined to all evil, and tainted in every action and senti+ ment with corruption—with what anguish and despair at ‘the hour of death?’ Answer.—Let such wicked pa rents forsake their ways, and such unrighteous parents their 169 thoughts, and let them return unto the Lord and he will have. mercy upon them, and to our God, who will abund-. antly pardon. Let them look unto the Redeemer and be saved. Their distrust will then be turned into confidence —their aversion into love—their gloomy horror into the as- surance of hope—and their anguish and despair into happi- ness and joy. The last two questions I might have answered more briefly by asking another, viz: What bearing have such questions on the doctrine of original sin? Answer.—Nonx AT ALL. ee | _ The Doctor goes on: ‘¢ What encouragement have pa- “‘rents to bring up their children in the nurture and admo- ‘‘mition of the Lord, if they. think them irreversibly doom- “ed to damnation?” Answer.—No parent in his right mind ever thought that his children were irreversibly doom- -ed to damnation. But what are we to think of that Divine who is capable of putting such a question. Shasnauacen The Doctor proceeds : «¢« How can young people remem- “‘ber their Creator without hatred and terror, who has ** brought them into existence only to be vessels of wrath ?”’ Answer.—Their Creator never brought any people into existence only to be vessels of wrath. Quere: Do such foul insinuations bear no resemblance. to calumny ? The Doctor persists: ‘‘'There was some consistency, at ** least, in those fanatics who renounced matrimony for fear ‘of such consequences.’ Answer.—There was no con- sistency—such consequences being only bugbears conjured up by the fertile imagination of Doctor B., and those fanatics to which he refers. All parents are encouraged to believe, and then the promise is to them and to. their seed. _ The Doctor again asks, (p. 202) «« Are not such doc- *‘ trines the source of those gloomy thoughts which distract **so many pious souls? Do they not deter many from cul- ‘‘tivating or crediting religion, and harden them in infide- lity and iniquity? May we not fear that they impel many _ ‘to hurry on their own fate, rather than endure the despon- _ “dence, agitation, and torment of mind with which they. “are doomed to await it?” Answer.—Such is not the na- _tive tendency of the doctrines. Though, in some instances, _ such doctrines may beso abused, that is no argument - against them. To argue against any thing from its abuse, - 18 not logic, but sophistry. If soothing men’s minds, calm- i 15 7 170 ing their fears, and lulling’ their consciences to sleep, be meritorious actions, Arian divines' deserve’ great’ praise. But what should we think ‘of that watchman, who, when the robber is wrenching the door, or the flames bursting from: the window, should dissipate all fear by the pleasing intel: ' ligence, ‘* All is well—a’ fine morning !”” How muchmore — faithful would we regard that watchman, who, without ceremony, and with a voice like thunder, should immedi-. ately vociferate—Fire! Fire! ‘The horrid sound might: injure some weak nerves. In a state of trepidation, one might break his arm, and another his leg. ‘These are unfor- tunate circumstances, it is true, and much to be deplored ; but’ not so deplorable as the fate of those, who, lulled to sleep by their treacherous watchman, fall a prey to the de- ‘vouring element, or perish by the hand of the midnight assassin. 3 The Doctor introduces a confused mass of heterogene- ous matter relative to the divine decrees. That God could not decree the fall without infringing the free agency’ of Adam, has never yet been proved, and, I am convinced, never will. Whenever our opponents reconcile the fall with divine foreknowledge, we will reconcile it with divine decrees. for farther remarks connected with this subject we refer our readers to a subsequent part of this treatise, when divine decrees will be more formally discussed, and the distinction between God’s will of command and will of decree explained and established. — , ‘It is agreed,” says the Doctor, “ that Adam’s trans- ‘¢ gression and guilt became ours only by. imputation.”’ Answer— There never was any such agreement. Weare really guilty before God imputes guilt ; for his judgment is always according to truth. Our author then asks, ‘+ Did this imputation find us sinners or make‘us so?’’* "This * Jn the theological discourses of the Rev. James Thompson, of. Quarrelwood, Scotland, a work ‘which contains an immense ‘fund of accurate’ information on the most important doctrines of religion—in a foot-note (Vol. i. p. 74) we find the following assertion :—‘It is not “then God’s imputing act that makes them guilty ; but that aet by “% which he constituted Adam their moral head.” ‘This sentence shows how difficult it is to form accurate ideas, or to express one’s self —— accurately on so abstruse a subject. I entirely dissent from ‘this acute’ “and. discriminating Divine., God’s actin making Adam our moral head could not possibly make us guilty. No act of God could make us suilty. atherwise God would be the author of sin. I believe all man- Bene pay question, and the former assertion, are inconsistent with each other, and mutually destroy each other ; for if by im- putation alone we become sinners, we were not sinners be- ‘fore,;-and therefore imputation could not find us sinners. The' question, therefore, being inconsistent with the previ- ous statement, is absurd, and shows great want of discri- ‘mination in the querist. If imputation found us sinners, ithe Doctor declares that imputation was unnecessary. ‘What! unnecessary! If so, it is unnecessary to impute ‘theft to a. man whom we have found stealing, or burglary to ‘@ man who is found guilty of housebreaking! But our author tells us, that if imputation found us sinners, imputa- tion was unnecessary. Why? «We might haye perished “*hby our own sins.?? But how we could have perished by “our own sins, if those sins had not been imputed to us, will require all the talents and ingenuity of Doctor B. to explain. _The Doctor proceeds: «If it found men innocent and ‘«made them sinners, then it was the cause of their sins, **and God was the author of them. Again—lIf it found “us free from sin, the imputation was false, charging those ** with sin whom it did not find sinners, and God condemned *‘men on account of his own false imputation. Pardon ‘« the expression ; for it is impossible to treat of these mon- *“strous positions without contradiction and blasphemy.” “Monstrous positions indeed '—and sufficiently interlarded with contradiction and blasphemy! but they are his own positions—the contradiction his own—the blasphemy his own—we disclaim them in toto. I am glad, however, to find him on his knees begging pardon. He would do well to beg pardon, not only of his hearers, and his readers, but of his God, whose majesty he has insulted by such contra- dictory and blasphemous statements. Imputation neither finds men innocent, nor makes them sinners. Dr. B. should have studied imputation before he opposed it. Dr. Bruce proceeds to ask, (p. 206) + But why should “we be answerable for only one transgression? If our IRE NESS OTR i Te Nace memes cacsesmcr ne kind are guilty of Adam’s first sin, and TI believe the guilt of that sin is imputed to them. I believe these facts, but IT cannot explain them. I believe these facts, because the Scripture states them, and because it would involve the greatest absurdity to deny them. If they had not - been guilty of Adam’s first sin, God would not have condemned the whole human family to death for it, God never condemns the in- nocent, ‘ + 172 ‘© guilt arises from the guilt of Adam, it must be aggravated «< by all his offences ; and if we suffer the consequent cor- ‘¢ ruption of his nature, the penalty of his transgressions, ‘« should we not also enjoy the benefit of his repentance and ‘* subsequent obedience ? If we sinned in our federal head, ‘* we must have repented also.”’ x Answer—After Adam committed his first sin, he ceased to be our representative ; and therefore it is, that we can - neither be charged with his subsequent. sins, nor enjoy the benefit of his subsequent repentance. By Adam’s first sin the covenant of works was broken, and Adam ceased to be our representative. A new covenant, the covenant of grace, was immediately proclaimed, in which covenant our blessed _ Redeemer represents all his spiritual seed. To all these (not the repentance of Adam, but)—the obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed for righteousness. Dr. B. exclaims, «‘ How strange and paradoxical is it, ‘“< that while God is forgiving our own sins, he should con- ‘¢ demn us for the offences of another !’’—Answer—How- ever strange and paradoxical it may seem, it is a fact.* Still stranger, it is a fact admitted by Dr. B. himself. He has fully admitted that the whole human family are con- demned to death for the sin of Adam—and what is still more strange and paradoxical, that they are all condemned to die for acrime of which they are perfectly innocent! Surely this is strange and paradoxical indeed! There are no such ~ paradoxes in the Calvinistic scheme. i Doctor B. is generally careful to exhibit, in as frightful a form as possible, the difficulties of the system he opposes, whilst he studiously conceals those of his own. We fre- quently find him proposing, but seldom answering, objec- tions. In this he shows a. good deal of generalship. After proposing an immense number of objections to the Calvin- istic doctrine of original sin, at the close of his sermon-he proposes to answer one, and states it thus: ‘‘ But_it has ‘« been asked, is not the doctrine of original sin necessary ‘< to account for the existence of sin? How else came it ‘¢ into the world? I answer by another question, How did ‘< original sin take place? Was it by the corruption of * When I say, It is a fact, I mean, It isa fact, that we are condemn- ed (not for the offences, as the Doctor erroneously states, but) for the offence of another. Neither Scripture nor Calvinism represents us ag condemned for any offence of Adam but one. ° ney 173 ‘s Adam’s nature? This will not be pretended,”’ &c. ‘This objection is erroneously stated, and as weakly answered. We do not ask, “ Is not the doctrine of original sin necessary ** to account for the ewistence of sin.’? This would be an absurd question. But we ask, Is not the doctrine of origi- nal'sin necessary to account for the universal prevalence of sin and corruption? We do not ask, ‘‘ How else came it ‘—Their will and affections are carnal, and filled with enmity. (Rom. viii. 7,) “ The ‘carnal mind is enmity against God : it is not subject to ‘« his law, neither indeed can be.”—-Men in their natural state are ‘* haters of God, and live hateful, and hating one “‘ another.”” ‘* Madness is in their heart.” It is.“ deceit- * ful above all things, and desperately wicked.” ‘ Ever “ imagination is only evil continually.’? The state of fallen man involves in it two things, guilt and depravity. Guilt is removed by the atoning blood of Jesus, as we have - already seen ; and depravity is removed by the renovating and sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost. Dr. B. main- 196 tains, that baptism is regeneration.* T’o expect any sub- sequent regeneration, he stigmatises as rank enthusiasm. He is not the-first master in Israel who knew not these things,’and needed to be taught the first principles of the joracles of God. Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, was also gnorant of this great important doctrine. Our Saviour as- sures him, that he needed not only baptism by water, but regeneration bv the power of the Holy Ghost. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Baptism with water was the sign ; but regeneration, or the new birth, was the thing signified. Water is the great regenerating agent in the natural world ; the holy spirit in the moral world. The one is a fit emblem of the other. The vege- table world during the winter is in a state of decay. By the ‘vernal showers it is regenerated, and the decayed face of the earth renewed.—In like manner, by the blessed spirit of all grace the souls of men are renewed, and the moral world regenerated. (Is. xliv. 3, 4,) «* For I will pour water upon ‘** him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I ‘¢ will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon » ‘* thine offspring : And they shall spring up as among the ‘¢ grass, as willows by the water courses.’’—Old and New Testaments unite in teaching the same blessed doctrine. (Titus, iii. 5,) “« Not by works of righteousness which we ** have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by ‘¢ the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy ‘* Ghost.’? We may as well expect the renovating of the vegetable world without water, as the regeneration of the moral without the all-powerful influence of the Divine Spirit. The same divine influence which created the world and ‘raised the dead, is necessary to the restoration of our fallen nature, and regeneration of our perverted faculties. To illuminate our darkened understanding, requires the influ- ence of that omnipotent agent, who said, ‘« Let there be - ‘light, and there was light.” It is the same Almighty Being that commanded the light to shine out of darkness, ~ * Dr. Mant, now Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, in his Bampton Lectures, and the Bishop of Lincoln, in his Refutation of Calvinism, advocate the same dangerous and uncharitable doctrine. For a refu-. tation of it, the reader may consult the work of an eminent Divine of the Church of England,—Scot?’s Remarks on the Refutation of Calvin- G8» ; 197 ee who shines in our hearts to give us the light of the know- ledge of the glory of God, in the face of his son Jesus ‘Christ. Some imagine, that as light expels darkness, so all that is necessary to expel the darkness of our minds is the light of the divine word. This, however, is a gross fallacy. Light, indeed, introduced into a dark room will banish the darkness ; but it will not give light to a man born blind. With regard to such a man, it is not only necessary that he should be introduced to the light, but, in order that he may profit by it, the cataract must be couched ; his eyes must be opened. Just so with the natural man.—He requires not only an external revelation, but an internal illumination. Hence the judicious prayer of David, «Open thou mine “* eyes, that [may behold wonderful things out of thy law.” Were Dr. B. to offer the same prayer, it might not be un- profitable.—By divine illumination he might be brought to see in the sacred volume many wonderful things which he has never yet seen ; particularly the necessity of the new birth—the necessity of a regeneration quite different from water baptism. lh - The omnipotent power of the blessed spirit is not only necessary to open the darkened understanding, but also to bend the stubborn will. We have already seen, that men are naturally unwilling to come to the Redeemer that they may have life ; and that the carnal mind is enmity against God: but God sends forth the rod of his strength out of Zion, and makes his people willing in the day of his power. (Psal. cx. 3.)—By the powerful energy of the blessed spirit, he destroys the enmity of the carnal mind, and sheds abroad divine love in the heart-—In a word ; man by nature is spi- ritually dead—dead in trespasses and sins. "To raise him from his spiritual-death, and enable him to walk with Jesus in newness of life, requires an exertion of divine power , equal to that which raises the dead. To enable an unre- generated man to believe, requires not only the power of God, but the exceeding greatness of his power. (Eph. i. 19,) “ And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to “us-ward who believe, according to the working of his _ “mighty power, which he wrought in Christ when he raised * him from the dead.” °The same’ Apostle prays for the Thessalonians, “ That God would fulfil all the good plea- “-sure.of his will, and the work of faith with power.” Itis- the powerful agency of that same spirit which entered into _ Ezekiel’s dried bones, that quickens dead sinnerseethat HY de 2 198 begins the good work of grace, and carries it on to perfec- tion till the day of Christ Jesus. It is the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus that makes us free from the law of sin and death. By his blessed agency, sinners are created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works—they are renewed in the spirit of their minds—old things pass away, and all things become new. My readers are now left to judge, what kind of a system that must be, which does not embrace, but rather excludes, the regenerating and sanctifying influ- ences of the Holy Ghost. , ' Should any person ask, Is it the duty of fallen man to re- generate himseif? I answer, It is. Many, I know, will be astonished at this answer. They will be ready to ex- claim; What! The duty of fallen man to regenerate him- self! What monstrous absurdity! Might he not, with as much reason, be required to create himself? or to raise himself from the dead ?’—By no means: though the im- possibility in the one case is as great as that in the other, it is of a quite different nature ; and therefore the greatness of the impossibility does not affect the obligation of the duty, nor render the requirement of it unreasonable. ‘That it is the duty of fallen man to regenerate himself, cannot reason- ably be doubted by any who believe the Bible to be the word of God. In the sacred volume, we are expressly en- joined to regenerate ourselves. (Ezekiel, xviii. 31,) <‘ Make _* you a new heart, and a new spirit.”” Now, if regenera- tion, or the making of a new heart and a new spirit, were not a duty, it would not be enjoined. The righteous gov- ernor of the universe cannot possibly issue any command, which it is not our duty to obey. His commandments are not grievous: they are all holy, just, and good. Would it be unjust or cruel ina husband to address his unfaithful spouse thus: Break off your adulterous connexions, and become a new woman. Be a faithful, loving, and obedient wife. Beno longer ‘for another man, and so will I also be for thee.’’—Would such an address be unreasonable or cruel 2? Surely not. Such an abandoned female might in- deed find it as great an impossibility to become a new woman —to become a faithful, loving, and obedient wife—as to — create herself out of nothing, or to raise herself from the _ dead. But surely every person must see, that such impos- sibility, arising from dissipation and depravity, could not possibly be any excuse—it could not possibly relax her ob- ligations to duty and obedience.) ©) 00 Roms 199 Task again: Would it be unjust or cruel in a father to address his prodigal son thus: Leave off your courses of dissipation and prodigality. Become a new man. Behave as a dutiful and obedient son, and you shall be heir of all my possessions ?—Would such requisitions be unjust or cruel? Surely not. And yet the son might be such an abandoned and dissipated character, that he could no more * obey his father’s injunctions, than he could. raise the dead or create a new world. Why then may not God, our hea- venly Father, address us, his prodigal and rebellious off- spring in similar language ? Why may he not say unto us, “Repent and turn yourselves from your transgressions ; so “iniquity shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all *“ your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed ; and ‘make you a new heart, and a new spirit ; for why will ye ‘die?’ When enjoined to make a new heart and new spirit, all that is required is, to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, strength and mind, and our neighbour as ourselves. Is it unreasonable, I ask, for God to require of us to love himself, and to love one another? Surely no- thing can be more reasonable. It is true, I acknowledge, that in our present depraved state we can no more comply with those reasonable requisitions, than we could create ourselves out of nothing, or raise the dead. But such in- ability proves what ?—It fully proves, that we are mon- STROUSLY -DEPRAVED, DESPERATELY WICKED, AND QUITE INEXCUSABLE. , ; With regard to the unfaithful wife and prodigal son men- tioned above, would any one say, that the husband, after making the gracious proposals previously stated, was oblig- ed, moreover, to change his wife’s depraved and dissipated mind ?—that he was obliged to change her hatred and dis- affection into love ?—or that the father was obliged to era- dicate his son’s vicious habits and corrupt propensities, and to infuse into his mind filial piety and virtuous affections ? Surely this would be:highly unreasonable. But perhaps it may be said, the cases are not parallel. The husband was not able to change the dispositions of his wife, nor the” father of his son, but God is able to change the dispositions of all his children. I grant it. But because he is able, ig he therefore bound to do it? Surely not. He is able ina Moment to eradicate: every vestige of wickedness out of the minds both of men and devils, but he is not therefore bound to do it. He is neither bound to prevent men from sinning, * ~ 200 nor, after they have sinned, is he under the smallest obliga- tion to eradicate their depravity, and restore them again to a state of holiness and bliss.. If he were bound to do these things, the operation, as I stated before, would not be grace, but debt. oan bh The learned professor of Divinity in Trinity College, and Arminians in general, maintain, that God has conditionally bound himself to give a new heart, faith, repentance, and other graces. They allege, that he has engaged to give these things to all who sincerely seek them. He has pro- ee they tell us, to give his holy spirit to them that ask im. | é In all this there is a complete fallacy. Arminians here are altogether mistaken. In the whole sacred.volume there is not a single promise made to the prayers or endeavours of unregenerate men. In the prayers and endeavours of unregenerate men there is nothing of the nature of true virtue—nothing that is well pleasing in the sight of God. Their prayers and other endeavours cannot be acceptable, because they do not proceed from faith; for without faith it is impossible to please God—they cannot be acceptable, because they do not proceed from dove. Nothing can be acceptable that proceeds from a mind filled with enmity. If we give all our goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, (love) it will profit usnothing. Finally, unregene- rate men have no regard to the divine glory, and therefore their prayers and other endeavours are altogether unaccept- able. Whether we eat, or drink, or whatever we do, all should be done to the glory of God. | Arminians talk ab- surdly when they talk of the sincere prayers and endea- vours of unregenerate men. In an unrenewed heart—in a heart filled with pride, enmity, and unbelief, there can be. no true sincerity—no godly sincerity. There may be a sincere desire to avoid misery, or a sincere desire to be happy. ‘The Devil himself has this sincerity. But there is no.sincere love to God—ano sincere love to his law—no sincere love to holiness. In aword; an unregenerate man has no sincerity which is truly virtuous, and, on this ac- count, well pleasing in the sight of God. God has not promised his spirit,.as Arminians suppose, in answer to the prayers of unregenerate men. ‘It is true he has promised his holy spirit to them that ask him: but how must they ask? ods it not in faith? And:does:notfaith presuppose 201 regeneration ?—and does not regeneration presuppose a previous influence of the Holy Ghost ? . As we love God because he first loved us, so we choose him because he first chose us.— (Psal. Ixv. 4) ‘‘ Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, ‘¢ and causest to approach unto thee.” 2, That election is founded on foreseen faith and good works, is contrary, not only to Scripture, but also to rea- son. On Arminian principles, it involves a contradiction. Arminians allege, that it depends on the free will of the ereature whether any believe or do good works. Accord- ing to them, it is possible that all may remain unbelievers and wicked. Now, if the Deity foresee that some will be- lieve and do good works, and yet those persons may never believe nor do good works—it follows, that what God fore- sees as future may nevertheless not be future—and what he foresees will come to pass may nevertheless not come to ass—it follows, that God may be mistaken and disappoint- ed!—-that he foresees and does not foresee at the same time! I conclude therefore—and I think I do it on the in- controvertible principles of mathematical demonstration— I conclude, that election could not possibly be founded on foreseen faith and good works, because faith and good works, on Arminian principles, could not possibly be fore- seen. . 3, As the doctrine of election founded on foreseen faith and good works is both unscriptural and unreasonable, so it has no foundation in the Articles and Homilies of the Church of England. Bishop Mant, and Doctors Millar and Graves, wish us to believe, that the Thirty-nine Arti- cles are Arminian—and that the clergy of the Church of England were Arminian at the time the Articles were framed: but they labour in vain.—The following extracts from the letters of Dr. Millar, of New-York, abundantly prove the vanity of the attempt, “‘ Calvin was not only re- ‘« spectfully consulted by the English Reformers ; but he ‘¢ had also much influence among them. That great defe- “rence was paid to his judgment, will appeér from this “ fact, that on the first appearance of the English Liturgy, 211 ** it prescribed praying for the dead, chrism, extreme une-, ** tion, and other Popish superstitions. These Calvin, ina “* letter to the Protector, very frankly and decidedly blamed.. ‘* ‘The consequence of which was, that all these offensive «¢ things were left out, agreeably to his advice. Dr. Hey- ** lin himself declares, that these alterations were made in “‘ compliance with Calyin’s wishes.—“« The first Liturgy,” says he, ‘‘ was discontinued, and the second superinduced “upon it, to give satisfaction unto Calvin’s cavils, the cu- ** riosities of some, and the mistakes of others, his friends ‘* and followers.’? And Dr. Nichols gives us the same in- formation. ‘+ Four years afterwards,” says he, ‘‘ the book ‘* of Common Praner underwent another review ; wherein ‘“ some ceremonies and usages were laid aside, and some “* new prayers added, at the instance of Mr. Calvin of Ge- ‘* neva, and Bucer, a foreign Divine who was invited to be “a Professor at Cambridge.’ Nor was the authority of ** Calvin without its influence in drawing up the Articles of “the Church of England. It is commonly said by our ‘* Episcopal brethren, that those Articles are anti-Calvinis- ‘¢ tic, and that especially on the doctrine of Predestination, *< as exhibited in the seventeenth Article, the Reformers ‘* hold, and meant to express, a different opinion from those *< of Calvin. Now, it happens, that this Article itself bears ‘the most unquestionable internal evidence of the contra- ‘‘ ry.—The qualifying clause toward the end of it, which ‘* has been quoted as decisive proof that the framers reject- “ed Calvinism, is nearly quoted from Calvin’s Institutes ; ‘‘ and the latter part of it is a literal translation of that Re- _ “former’s caution against the abuse of this doctrine. For ‘‘ evidence of the former, see his Institutes Gi. 2, 4, 5) ‘< compared with the article.—For proof of the latter, read ‘* the following—* Proinde in rebus agendis, ea est nobis ** perspicienda Dei voluntas quam verbo suo declarat.”? Tn- “¢ stit. 1. 17, 5.—Furthermore, in our doings, that will of ‘* God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared ** to us in the word of God.” Art. 17th.—The Thirty- ‘“‘ nine Articles of the Church of England are undoubtedly “* Calvinistie. This is proved, not only by the bare inspec- ‘‘ tion of the articles themselves, but also by the known *“ sentiments of those who framed them ; and by the deci- ‘‘ sive interpretation of some of the ablest Bishops and -* other Divines that ever adorned that Church. The same “ convocation which drew up the Thirty-nine Articles, re- Ce S¢ 66 €é 212 viewed, corrected, formally approved, and ordered to be © published, as it now stands, the celebrated Catechism of Dr. Newel.—This Catechism is acknowledged, by the worst enemies of Calvin, to be decidedly Calvinistic. It is acknowledged to be so by Bishop Cleaver, who, a few years ago, gave a new edition of it. And yet the Con- vocation, which embraced al} the principal Dignitaries of ‘the Church, publicly recommended it, ‘‘as a standing ‘summary of the doctrines professed in that Church ;” and, many years after, it was held in such high esteem by Archbishops Whitgift and Parker, and other contem- ‘porary Prelates, that even Ministers were enjoined to stu- dy it, that they might learn true divinity from it.* The illustrious reformer, and martyr, Bradford, a short time ‘before he suffered, wrote and published a decidedly Cal- vinistic work on election and predestination, which he sent to Archbishop Cranmer, and to Bishops Ridley and Latimer, who all gave it their approbation ; after which ‘ it received the approbation of the rest of the eminent Mi- nisters in and about London.’’t — «© The famous Lambeth Articles, formed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, are acknowledged by all who ever read them, to be among the most strongly Calvinistical com- positions that ever were penned. Yet these Articles were drawn up and signed by Archbishop Whitgift, that very Prelate of whose character and principles Dr, Hobart frequently speaks in the most exalted terms, and whom he holds up to view as one of the most illustrious Divines and fathers of the Church of England. The Archbishop was assisted in this service by the Bishops of London and Bangor, and by some others.. After receiv- ing the public approbation of these Dignitaries, the Arti- cles were sent to the Archbishop of York’ and the Bishop of Rochester, who also subscribed them. Thus ratified, Archbishop Whitgift sent them to the Unisersity of Cam- bridge, with a letter, in which he ‘declared, ‘« That these articles were not to be considered as laws and decrees, but as propositions, which he and his brethren were per- suaded were true, and corresponding with the doctrine * Strype’s Annals, 312—316.—Life of Parker, 122, 301. . + Strype’s Memorials of Cranmer, p. 350. The editors of the Chris- tian Observer attest that they have seen Bradford’s Treatise, and that it is unquestionably Calvinistic. 243 ‘+ professed in the Church of England, and established by. «© the laws of the land.* Nor is this. all: It having been, *« suggested by some, that the Archbishop agreed to these. ** Articles, rather for the sake of peace, than because. he. ‘« believed them ; Strype, his episcopal biographer, repels ‘‘ the charge with indignation ; declaring that. such an in- “* sinuation is as false as it is mean and disparaging to the. ‘* Primate.} We have seen also in a foregoing part of this, '* letter, by the confession of Heylin himself, an implacable. ‘enemy of Calvin, that the great body of the Bishops and. ‘* other clergy of the Church of England, were doctrinal, “« Calvinists, for more than half a century after the: articles. ““ were formed. And we.have found a modern Episcopal, ‘* clergyman asserting, on. undeniable evidence, that.‘ Cal-. *« vin’s Institutions were read and studied.in both.the Uni- “* versities by every student in divinity, for. a. considerable ‘“ portion of a century ; nay, that by a Convocation held at: - ‘* Oxford, that book was recommended .to the general study: ‘‘ of the nation.”” All the Delegates from. the Church of ‘“ England to the Synod of Dort, among whom were. Bi-. ; ‘* shop: Carleton, Bishop. Hall, and Bishop Devenant, for- ‘* mally subscribed to the five Calvinistic Articles drawn up ** and adopted by that venerable Synod. On. their return, “¢ home, they were attacked: by a, certain writer, and charg- ‘* ed with having departed from. the. public standard of their. ** own Church.—A gainst this attack they thought proper to ‘‘-defend themselves, and accordingly wrote a Joint Attest- ‘* ation, which contains the following passage : ‘‘ Whatso- ‘ever there was assented unto and. subscribed by us, cone. . ‘* cerning the Five Articles, either in the joint synodical, ‘¢ judgment, or in our particular collegiate suffrage, is not _ “ only warrantable by the Holy Scriptures, but also con- ‘* formable to. the received doctrine of our said venerable ‘« mother; which we are ready to maintain and justify. ‘« against all gainsayers.{ Again, Bishop, Hall, in a work: ‘< of his own, addressing some who had charged him, and. ** other Bishops of his day, with entertaining Arminian sen- ** timents, as to the doctrine of election, thus, indignantly ‘‘ replies to the charge—‘ You add, Election upon. faith. _ * Strype’s Life of Whitgift, p. 461—363, -€ Ibid. p. 462. picitiee. ~# See their Joint Attestation, ~ 214 ‘‘ foreseen.’ ‘* What! nothing’ but gross untruths? fs ‘« this the doctrine of the Bishops of England? Have they “not strongly confuted it, in Papists and *Arminians ? «¢ Have they not cried it down to the lowest pit of Hell ?”’ Such are the arguments by which Dr. Millar, of New- York, has proved, that the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England are Calvinistic, and that the great body of the clergy were Calvinists at the time those articles were framed. ‘Uhat the evidence is decisive, | humbly presume, no candid reader will venture to deny. Divines of the Es- tablishment may preach, if they please, the doctrine of election founded on foreseen faith; love, and good works ; but let them not charge with that doctrine, either the ‘Thir- ty-nine Articles, or their reforming forefathers. ‘That very doctrine which these modern Divines are now crying up to the starry heavens, the English Divines, the fathers of the Reformation—if we believe Bishop Hail—‘ cried down to ‘* the lowest pit of hell!” = Need EA ao Sey, Having endeavoured to prove, and I hope with success, that the doctrine of election, founded on foréseen faith and good works, has its foundation, neither in Scripture, reason, nor the Thirty-nine Articles, I would now proceed to ob- serve—that when our opponents characterise election as irrespective, if all they mean is, that election was not found- ed on any foreseen virtuous qualification of its object, we have no objection to the application of the epithet. We believe, however, that in the decree of election men were chosen, not only to eternal hfe, but also to faith, holiness, and all those means which lead to that end. If, in any sense inconsistent with this, our opponents denominate elec- tion irrespective, we spurn the epithet as inapplicable and The great popular outcry against predestination is—that it supersedes the use of means, and/is quite inimical to ho- liness and good works. _I regret to find learned Divines reiterating this stale objection, after it has been answered a thousand times. Dr. B. (p. 172) writes thus : _ It (predestination) contradicts every exhortation to ho- ‘¢ liness and faith, every dissuasive from sin and infidelity, «< every conditional promise of everlasting life, and every “¢ warning against endless perdition, that we find in his ‘‘ (Christ’s) discourses. In fact, if it were true, the me- ‘< diation, mission, death, and intercession of Christ, would ‘ be absolutely nugatory and ineffectual; since they could 215 ‘* neither improve the condition or prospects of the elect “few, nor redeem the reprobate from that fate to which «< they are destined by the eternal and irreversible decree of rethie Almiohtyse™ (9 710 at Powerful reasoning indeed! The purport of it is this : ‘* God decreed to bring the elect to the enjoyment of eternal *« life, by means of exhortations, warnings, and promises ; ‘* and therefore, these exhortations, warnings, and promises, “are absolutely nugatory and ineffectual ! God determined “to save the elect by the mediation, mission, death, and - ** resurrection of Christ; and therefore the mediation, mis- ' sion, death, and resurrection of Christ, are absolutely ““nugatory and ineffectual! God determined to punish the “* reprobate for their sin and infidelity; and therefore every ‘« dissuasive from sin and infidelity, and every warning ‘against endless perdition, are absolutely nugatory and in- ‘« effectual!” Admirable logic !—Bishop Mant, in his - Bampton Lectures (p. 146), urges the same objection— quoting Bishop Sherlock, he writes thus : _ “If Tbe elected, no sins can possibly bereave me of the “kingdom of heaven: if reprobated, no good deeds can ““ advance me to it.”” Such was the language of a German “ potentate in former times, when his friends admonished “him of his vicious conversation and dangerous state. ** An objection,” remarks Heylin, «« not more old than com- “mon: but such, I must confess, to which I never found a “satisfactory answer from the pen of Supralapsarian, or ‘¢ Sublapsarian, within the small compass of my reading.”’ _ So, it appears, that this old and common objection is, in the estimation of these learned writers, unanswerable. At least, they have never met with any satisfactory answer. Now, I do not promise to give a satisfactory answer; for some minds are not easily satisfied ; but with great ease, I can give an answer which ought to satisfy. It is this. The objection separates what God has joined. Election and ho- _liness are inseparably connected in the same decree. We are ““ chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spi- “rit and belief of the truth.” But the Arminian objection Tuns thus: “If I be chosen to salvation through sanctifica- “* tion of the Spirit, I shall be saved whether I be sanctified *‘ or not—if I be chosen to salvation through belief of the “truth, I shall be saved whether I believe or not—if God ‘¢ from all eternity decreed to save me from my sins, I shall ‘be saved whether I continue in my sins or not!”’—Such is the logic of Arminians, by which they hope to overturn / 216 the Calvinistic doctrine of election! Dr. Bruce, and the learned Bishops Sherlock and Mant, might have carried their objection farther, and reasoned thus: ‘“ If God deter- ‘‘ mined to save the Apostle Paul by means of a ship, there «¢ wasno need of a ship! If God determined to save the ‘«‘ Apostle by the instrumentality of sailors, there was no «‘ need of sailors!”—When the Apostle Paul declared, «¢ Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved,’ had Dr. B. and the learned Bishops been present, they would have immediately exclaimed, «‘ What! not saved! [f God «< has determined to save you, ye shall be saved whether the «© sailors abide in the ship or not! God has determined to << save you by the medium of a ship, and by the instrumen- “tality of sailors, and therefore the ship and the sailors are “ guite nugatory and ineffectual !”? So much for that old and ‘common objection, which Dr. B. relies on with so much confidence, and which the learned and talented Bishops, Sherlock and Mant, consider as altogether unanswerable. In the divine decrees, means and ends, like links in a chain, are inseparably connected. Now, is it not evident, that the closer the connexion between means and ends, the greater the encouragement to use means. The links of a chain being inseparably connected, when we pull one link, we are quite confident the whole chain will follow. Were | the links detached, we would not have the same confidence orencouragement. Such a connexion between means and ends encourages Calvinists to activity and diligence—to avoid all sinand to practise every virtue. They are encourag- ed to ‘‘ abound in the work of the Lord, for as much as they ‘¢ know, that their labour shall not be in vain in the Lord.”’ —The Apostle Paul, in spiritual as well as in temporal matters, acted on those consistent principles. He had made his calling and election sure. He was assured that God would preserve him to his heavenly kingdom. But this assurance did not supersede the use of means. He kept under his body, and brought it into subjection, lest, whilst he preached the Gospel to others, he himself should _ be a castaway. From this and similar texts, Dr. Graves and other Arminians infer, that believers may possibly fall — from a state of grace. The inference, however, is com- pletely illegitimate. With equal propriety they might infer from the declaration of the Apostle, ‘‘ Except these abide <¢ in the ship, ye cannot be saved,” that it was possible for Paul never to reach Rome, notwithstanding the divine assu- 217 rance to the contrary. Such propositions show the con- nexion between means and ends, but do not at all prove the possibility, that either the means should not be employed, or the ends not accomplished. Our Saviour says, speaking of the Father, ‘ f know him ; and if I should say I know ‘‘ him not, I would be a liar’ like unto you.”? Would any Arminian, from this hypothetical proposition, infer, that it was possible for Jesus Christ, either to deny the Father, or to bea lar? Why then do they infer, from similar propo- sitions, that it is possible for believers to fall away from a state of grace, or the divine decrees to fail of accomplish- ment ? Having endeavoured to show in what sense election is irrespective ; and having endeavoured to prove, that it is not unfavourable to good works, nor inconsistent with the means of grace and salvation; I now proceed to animad- vert on the epithets, arbitrary and irrespective, as applied to reprobation. In what sense our Opponents apply these epithets, will be best understood by a quotation or two. Dr. Graves, (Predestination, p. 116), writes thus: « So ‘* unboundedly merciful, so unspeakably encouraging, is the “ genuine doctrine of the Gospel of Peace: how totally ‘“ repugnant to a scheme which represents, that all who are ‘* not in the number of the elect are passed over, rejected, “* or reprobated by God, who has by an eternal unalterable ‘« decree, preordained them, before they were born, to cer- ‘* tain and everlasting death ; for which God himself pre- “‘ pares them, to which they are devoted, not because he ‘« foresees their unworthiness, but solely because he wills it, ‘* and which from the very hour of their birth he hath fore- ‘‘ ordained them not to escape, and hath precluded them ‘* from the means of escaping.” Bad as this quotation is, it is not so bad as that portion of the Bampton Lectures from which it is extracted. The Bishop’s representation of Calvinism was too terrific for the learned Professor. Shuddering at the picture, he broke off the quotation be- fore he came to the end of the description. It runs thus: (Bampton Lectures, p. 129) ‘It is the Calvinistic doctrine, *€ that all those, who are not in the number of the elect, ‘< are passed over, rejected, or reprobated by God; who _** has by an eternal unalterable decree preordained, predes- *< tined and doomed them, before they were born, to certain | -“ and everlasting death, ruin, perdition and damnation ; for ““ which he himself fits and prepares them, to. which they 19 ae 18 ‘¢ are devoted, not because he foresees their unworthiness, ‘ but solely because he wills it; and which from the very ‘‘ hour of their birth, he hath made it impossible for them ‘* to escape, and hath precluded and repels them from the ‘means of escaping.”? Another sample of his Lordship’s © mode of representing Calvinism we find in p. 252: ** The ‘*¢ Calvinist-teaches, that God elected a few individuals to ‘‘ salvation, and that Christ died to make atonement ,for ‘* their sins alone, to the exclusion of the great mass of «mankind; thatthe salvation of these elect depends solely ‘‘ upon certain absolute and irrespective decrees of God, ‘‘ and is effected solely by the grace of God, so that no ‘* conditions are required to be fulfilled, no co-operation to _ “be given on their parts, but’ that, however great and ‘‘numerous may be their sins, they are eternally sure of ‘salvation: and that the great bulk of mankind are eter- ‘nally doomed to perdition, no reference whatever being ‘‘made to any faults of theirs ; no possibility whatever be- ‘ing allowed them of escaping their doom; the sole cause ‘of which is the pleasure, and the sole object of it the ‘¢ glory of God.” . As an appendix to such a description, why did not his Lordship add, ‘‘ From such Calvinism—such horrible Cal- ‘“¢ yinism—such monstrous Calvinism—Good Lord deliver ‘us.’ Had the good Bishop added this prayer, I am per- fectly convinced, that not only all the Socinians, Arminians, and Arians in the world, but that all the Calvinists on the face of the globe, would have echoed in one universal re- sponse—Amen! Amen! . | I can assure the learned Bishop, that Calvinists regard with unutterable. contempt, and unqualified detestation, the doctrine contained in the preceding quotations. «They be- lieve in no such doctrines ; they teach no such doctrines ; - they abhor all such doctrines. J regret much; that talents so respectable as those of his Lordship, should be exhaust- ed in beating the air—in refuting doctrines which nobody | holds—in charging upon Calvinists doctrines the very reverse © of those which they believe—doctrines which they hold in— the utmost contempt and abhorrence. What then do'Cal- vinists believe? I answer negatively, hey do not hold themselves bound to believe every thing that Calvin taught, that Austin taught, that Zanchy taught, or that any one of our reformers taught.’ Much less do they hold themselves bound to believe every foolish thing said by Calvinists for 219° three hundred years past! ‘To collect those foolish sayings —to add some things which they never said—to- combine all these into a system—and to call that system Calvinism —is neither candid, generous, nor just. It is an insult offered to the Calvinistic system. For such disingenuous conduct there is no apology. Even the mitre of a Bishop should not screen him from censure. Every person knows, or at least might know, what Calvininism is. It is the doe- trines contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith ‘and Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England—doc- irines as different from Bishop Mant’s Calvinism, as light is from darkness. Were any writer to proféss to give an ac- count of the doctrines of the Church of England, and in- stead of exhibiting those doctrines as they are stated in the Thirty-nine articles, should rake together the most foolish things written by the members of that Church for 300 years past—adding some things which they never wrote-——and then denominate such a compound of folly and nonsense, _ “* The doctrines of the Church of England’?—in what point - of light would such a writer be viewed by Bishop Mant and his learned coadjutors. What terms could be found in the English language sufficiently strong to characterise such a work? ‘To the learned Bishop, and his Arminian col- _ leagues, I would only say, ‘« Whatsoever ye would that Cal. - “ vinists should do unto you, do ye even the same unto ‘‘ them ; for this is the law and the prophets. _ What Calvinist ever taught, that God elected to salva- tion only a “ few individuals?” No Calvinist ever taught so. All Calvinists believe, that the elect are so far from _ being only a few individuals, that they are ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands—that they are “‘a number which no man can number.” It is no tenet of Calvinism—though Bishop Mant, Dr. Graves, Dr. Mil- lar, and Dr. Bruce, are constantly representing it as a Cal- _ Vinistic tenet. It is no tenet of Calvinism, that the num- _ ber of the elect is smaller than that of the reprobate. _ Many Calvinists believe the very reverse. Our Westmin- ster Divines wisely abstain from giving any opinion on the _ subject. With regard to the number or proportion, of those who will be finally saved, we have no controversy with any, except with those who maintain a universal res- toration. From the very nature of the case, all rational Controversy is excluded. <« Secret things belong to the “Lord our God.” —Socinians, Arminians, Arians, and ~220 Calvinists are equally ignorant, and must remain so, till the judgment of the great day. Our opponents may therefore save themselves the trouble of any reference to the number of the elect, for on this subject we profess ourselves totally ignorant. Should any ask me, ‘‘ Are there few that be «saved ?”’ I can only answer, in the words of our Savi- our, “‘ Strive to enter in at the strait gate; for many, I ‘© say unto you, will seek to enter in, but shall not be *¢ able.”’ , Is the Bishop’s statement true, that, on Calvinistic prin- ciples, the elect do not co-operate with God in the work of their own salvation? Jé ts not. Calvinists believe, that the elect, though passive in regeneration,* are active in sanctification : they are ‘‘ workers together with God,” ‘and work out their salvation with fear and trembling.” They ask, they seek, they knock—they run, they strive, they fight—they give all diligence to make their calling and election sure—they ‘ press into the kingdom of God,’’ and take ‘‘ the kingdom of heaven by force.” : Is the Bishop’s representation true—that the elect, on _Calvinistic principles, however great and numerous their sins, are eternally sure of their salvation ?—J¢ ts not.—The elect can have no assurance of their salvation till after their conversion.—And after conversion, many of them have no assurance during life. And even in those who enjoy that privilege, it is often by sin interrupted and lost. Such is the doctrine of the Westminster Confession (Chap. 18, sect. 3, 4)—such is the doctrine of the Larger Catechism (Quest. 81)—such is the doctrine of Calvinists in general —a doctrine very different, indeed, from that with which they are unjustly accused by his Lordship. , Is the statement of Bishop Mant true—that, upon Calvi- — nistic principles, God has preordained, predestinated {and doomed the reprobate to everlasting death, ruin, perdition, and damnation, without any reference to their fault ’—It ts not.—It is as far remote from truth as light is from dark- . ness. This will appear by comparing it, or rather contrasé-— * Calvinists maintain, that, even before regeneration, it is the duty of all to attend all the ordinances of divine institution, and to use all the means of grace which God has appointed—and that it is to those who attend such ordinances, and use such means, that he usually coms municates his saving grace. Bh Hews) 1 224° ing it with the genuine Calvinistic doctrine, as it is dis- tinctly stated by the Westminster Divines. In their Con- fession (Chap. ili. sec. 7) they affirm—that God has or- dained the reprobate to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious sustice. dn their Larger Catechism (Quest. 13) they assert—that God has passed by the reprobate, and ‘‘ foreordained them to dishonour ‘‘ and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted to the praise of ‘the glory of his susticu.’’ The blasphemous doctrine charged upon the Calvinists by Bishop Mant, is—that the willand pleasure of God, and not men’s sins, are the cause of their damnation. Their own doctrine is the very reverse, that no decrees of God, but men’s own sins, are the sole. cause of their condemnation. God’s treatment of the re- probate is entirely judicial—it proceeds upon principles of strict gustice. Upon what ground will he pronounce the doom of the wicked at the judgment of the great day ? Upon the very same ground did he determine from all eter- nity soto doomthem. If there will be no injustice or cru- ~ elty in dooming the wicked to eternal misery for their sins, there could not possibly be any injustice or cruelty in decree- ing so to doom them. Doctor Graves argues against pre- destination. from the justice and mercy of God; but if God is not unjust or unmerciful in consigning men to eter- nal separation from his presence, he was not unjust nor unmerciful in decreeing thus to consign them. If there is no cruelty nor injustice in doing a thing, there can be no cruelty nor injustice in decreeing to do it. Whatever God does, he decrees or determines to do: and, as there are no new determinations in the divine mind, he decrees nothing in tame, which he did not decree from all eternity. These _ are the dictates of common sense, as well as of divine re- _ velation. Let not, therefore, Dr. Millar, nor Dr. Graves, _ hor Dr. Bruce, nor the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor ‘—let no Arminian, Socinian, nor Arian, stigmatize the decree of reprobation as irrespective. It was no more ir- respective, than the condemnation of the wicked will be at _ the judgment of the great day. The one is the exact coun- terpart of the other. Bishop Mant represents Calvinists as maintaining that no _ possibility whatever is allowed the reprobate of escaping theirdoom. Is this representation true ?—J¢t is not.—No natural impossibility stands in the way of the salvation of the reprobate. No impossibility stands in their way, but 19* . wae ? ; that which aggravates their guilt ; I mean that moral im- possibility, which arises from their own hatred and enmity. None will ever be able to say, «I was willing to accept of ‘« Jesus as a Saviour, and to walk in his commandments ‘‘ and ordinances blameless, but the decree of reprobation ‘* prevented me.” is The heaviest part of the charge of Dr. Graves and Bi- ~shop Mant is—that, according to the Calvinistic system, God prepares the reprobate for damnation. Is this charge just ’—J¢ is not.—Calvinists. maintain that God prepares the elect for happiness’; but, that the reprobate, by their sins, prepare themselves for misery. (Rom. ix. 22, 23,) “« What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his ‘** power known, endured with much long-suffering the ves- ‘* sels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might ‘¢ make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of ‘¢ mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.’? In this remarkable passage it is asserted, that God prepares the vessels of mercy for glory ; but it is not said, that God fits or prepares the vessels of wrath for destruction. It is said, indeed, that they are fitted; but it is not said that God fits them. They are fitted not by God; but by their own sins.* | | es It may be objected, however, that these very sins were foreordained, and could not be avoided.—Answer. The origin of evil is the most abstruse and difficult subject to ~ which the human mind has ever been directed. That God * In’a long continued strain of invective the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor pours contempt on the Calvinistic system, by representing it as inconsistent with mildness and clemency. For this purpose he plunges into politics, and charges the Scotch Covenanters with selling their king, andthe English Calvinists with beheading him. Now, were his Lordship able to prove that the Scotch Covenanters sold king Charles I—which I am convinced he will never be able to do—and that he was afterwards beheaded by the English Calvinists—which we do not deny—what follows ? Does it follow, that the Calvinists of that age were more ferocious, than Arminians under the subsequent reigns of Charles If and James VII? Does his Lordship mean to tell us now, in the nineteenth century, that there was more cruelty in be- heading an arbitrary tyrannical despot, who, in violation of the Bri- tish constitution, was trampling under his feet the liberties, of his sub- jects, than in deluging with the best blood of her citizens a wholenation for twenty-eight years 2? Surely his Lordship’s prudence had com- pletely forsaken him, when he adverted at all to the transactions of ‘those times. WOR Te pay LVTCIERE GsIG 223° is not the author of sin, Calvinists as well as Arminians and others strenuously maintain.—The contrary imputation they repel with abhorrence.—They maintain that all good comes from God, and that all evil comes from the creature. This, however, they do not consider inconsistent. with the doc- trine—<‘ That God has foreordained whateverlcomes to pass”’ —sinful actions not excepted. The decree that sin should, by divine permission, have a place among the works of God, does not make God the author of sin ; for sin’s introduc- tion is not to be ascribed to any positive influence of the - Deity. That God permits sin, all must acknowledge ; for if he did not permit it, it could not exist. Now, if he permits it, he must wil/ to permit it ; he must decree to per- mit it. God can do nothing without a previous act of hig own will, or, in other words, without a previous decree. That God decreed to permit sin, is a position which admits of no rational contradiction. It is also demonstrably evi- dent, that if God’s permitting sin does not make him the author of sin, neither is he made the author of sin by de- creeing to permit it. If there be no harm in doing a thing, there can be no harm in decreeing to do it. ‘That God: from all eternity decreed, that sin, by divine permission, should have a place among his works, I prove by the following arguments :— 1. My first argument is drawn from the appointment of Jesus as a Saviour. That God determined tosend his Son into the world to save sinners, none will deny : and, as there are no new determinations in the divine mind, he must have so determined from all eternity. Now, if God from all eternity determined or decreed to send his Son into the world to save his people from their sins, he must have de- creed from all eternity, that those sins, by divine permis- sion, should have a place among his works—it must have been from all eternity certain that they would have sucha place: for if it were possible that those sins might never ___ be committed, then it was possible that God might decree to send his Son in vain! ae _ 2, My second argument is drawn from the appointment _ of a general judgment, (Acts, xvii. 31,) «* Because he ~ “hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world *¢ in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained.”? Now if God on this day will condemn the wicked, he must will or determine to condemn them ; for he can do nothing without previously willing or determining to do it: and as 224 there can be no new purposes or determinations in the di- vine mind, God must have determined or decreed from all eternity to condemn the wicked. And, still farther ; if God decreed from all eternity to condemn the wicked for their sins, it must have been certain from all eternity that those sins would be committed. If it were possible* that the persons whom God from all eternity decreed to con- demn and punish might never sin ; thenit was possible that God might condemn and punish the innocent. It. is there- fore, demonstrably evident, from the divine procedure at the general judgment, that God from all eternity decreed that sin, through divine permission, should have a place among his works. Should any allege, that neither the de- cree that Jesus Christ should come into the world to save sinners, nor the decree that at the judgment of the great day he should condemn and punish sintiers—should any al- lege that neither of these decrees proves that the futurition of sin was decreed, but only that the futurition of sin was certain, I shall answer their objection in 3. My THIRD ARGUMENT, whichis drawn from the fore- knowledge of God.—The foreknowledge of God proves his decrees. It proves, that God foreordained whatever comes to pass, sinful actions not excepted.—If God from all eter- nity foresaw all events, it was from all eternity certain that those events would occur. For example; if God from all eternity foreknew that Dr. B. would write a book against the plenary inspiration of his word, the Divinity and Atone- ment of his Son, the Supreme Deity of his Spirit, de. then it was certain from all eternity that Dr. B. would write that book. If it was possible that Dr. B. might never write that book, though God foreknew that he would write it, then it was possible for the Deity to be mistaken and disap- pointed! Every person must see, that it is impossible for the Deity to know that a thing exists, if it does not really and certainly exist. Equally impossible is it to foreknow that a thing will exist, if its future existence is not certain. As knowledge presupposes the certain present existence of things known, so foreknowledge presupposes the certamm future existence of things foreknown. If God, therefore, oo * The reader will still bear in mind, that I do not speak of an abso- lute or natural possibility or impossibility.—I mention this to prevent all misunderstanding or cavilling. | Boe kim from all eternity foresaw whatever comes to pass, the future existence of every thing that comes to pass was from all eternity certain. To say that, God foresaw any thing as future which yet never come to pass, is an evident contradiction. It is to say that God foresaw it, and yet did not foresee it: for that which never comes to pass could never be the object either of sight, or foresight—of knowledge, or foreknowledge. Arminians sometimes labour hard to prove, that foreknow- ledge could have no influence on future actions ; but they labour in vain: they labour to prove what we do not deny. We do not say, that foreknowledge renders future events certain ; but we contend, that it pre-supposes their cer- tainty. Foreknowledge does not constitute, but it proves the certainty of future events. This is what we assert.* Now, if all things that come to pass were from all eter- nity certain, what rendered them certain? To bring things out of a state of mere possibility of existence into a state _of certain futurition, is an effect; and every effect must have a cause. In this case, what was the cause? The cause miust have either been the things themselves, or the decree of the Deity. It could not be the things themselves that rendered their own future existence certain ; for nothing can produce an effect before it exists: it follows then, by _‘-mecessary consequence, that it was the will or decree of the _ Deity.—Thus, the doctrine of divine decrees, notwithstand- _. ing the contempt with which it is loaded, appears to me _ eapable of the strictest demonstration. ‘The steps are ex- _ tremely simple, God from all eternity foreknew all things that come to pass ; therefore, all those things were from all eternity certain. Again: What rendered the future exis- _ tence of those things certain? Was it the will of God—or _ was it the things themselves ?—It must have been either ; the one or the other of these causes. It could not be the nS ae = eth. * Dr. Dwight (Theol. p. 199) says, ‘ Foreknowledge renders the fu- *¢ ture existence of that which is forekuown certain; ‘therefore the ac= . tions of the agent supposed are all rendered cerlwin and will of courss % exist.” And again (p. 200), ** God’s foreknowledge of voluntary ac- tions does in no respect Jessen or affect their freedom, although it *¢ renders their future existence absolutely certain.” Aliquando dor= “ mitat bonus Homerus.’”—The Doctor here has expressed himself quite inadvertently and inconsistently with what he has elsewhere maintain= ed. He elsewhere maintains, that foreknowledge can have no influence whatever on the nature of actions. 296 things themselves ; for no cause can produce an effect be- fore it exists. It must therefore have been the will of the Deity—or, in other words—the divine decree.—( See Ed- wards’ Remarks, ra) Cia Doctor Adam Clarke maintains that there is, strictly speaking, no foreknowledge nor afterknowledge with the Deity—that his knowledge is all present knowledge—that, past, present, and future, are with the Deity one eternal now. To this opinion Archbishop Tillotson, one of the ablest de- fenders of the Arminian system, was quite opposed. He poured upon it the utmost contempt. To me, the opinion appears quite rational.—I agree with the Doctor, rather than with the Archbishop. I am is one of the names of the Deity ; and our Saviour says, not before Abraham was, I was, but, Before Abraham was, I am. It appears to me, that past, present, and future, are all equally present with the Deity. With him, past knowledge, and present know- ledge, and future knowledge, are all the same. I therefore perfectly agree with Dr, Clarke, Mr. Drew and others, in this view of the knowledge of God.—It is in my mind both more scriptural and more philosophical than that of the learned Prelate. At the same time, i perfectly agree with the Archbishop, in wondering that men should “ call this ‘explaining things.’’ It gives no explanation at all of the Arminian difficulty. On the contrary, it exibits the diffi- culty in a more striking point of light. It renders the con- tradiction of foreseeing contingencies more apparent. Does not God’s knowledge of past events prove the certainty. of those events ?—does not his knowledge of present events prove the certainty of those events ?—On the same princi- ple, does not his knowledge of future events prove the cer- tainty of those events? If, with the Deity, foreknowledge, present knowledge, and after knowledge, are all the same, then they all equally presuppose and prove the certainty of their object.— As nothing can be otherwise than God sees it to be; so nothing can be otherwise than he foresees it. If, with the Deity, foreknowledge and present knowledge are the same, then what is true of present knowledge is also true of foreknowledge ; but present knowledge presupposes andj proves the certainty of the thing known; and, there- fore foreknowledge must also presuppose and prove the certainty of the. thing foreknown. No Arminian in the world can possibly refute this reasoning, nor evade the force + Naa x of it, withont trampling under his feet the very first princi- ples of argumentation. | __Divines of the first-rate learning and talents are ‘sensible of this: they decline the controversy, and resolve the whole into faith.—Socinians, finding that they must either give up the contingency of future events or the foreknowledge of God, adopted the desperate\alternative of making a sacri- fice of this divine attribute.—Dr. A. Clarke, following their steps, has chosen to give up the omniscience of Deity rather than his Arminian tenets. Dr. Millar and Doctor Graves, with a modesty more becoming Christian Divines, confess the weakness of their own faculties, and, finding demon- stration against them, endeavour to make their escape by taking refuge in faith. Arminian writers of an inferior class, with less reason but more effrontery, pertinaciously adhere to their principles, not only in the face of demonstration, but in contempt and defiance of those self-evident truths— those axioms on which demonstration is founded.* i sae San 9mm ar rg erate ee ee ee PT SOT Ore TU OETA ed PRS * From my Defence of Creeds and Confessions, Mr. M‘Afee quotes the following words: * Every person inust see, that it is impossible for the ‘* Deity to know that a thing exists, if it does not really and certainly ‘Sexist. Equally impossible is it to forekuow that a thing will exist, if ‘its future existence is not certain.” On this quotation he makes the following remark : *“‘ The first proposition in this quotation is evidently *$ true 3 but the latter appears to me, not only to be erroneous, but con- “trary to that timidity and modesty which should accompany all our ‘* disquisitions concerning the unsearchable God.”—Now, if the know- ledge and foreknowledge of the Deity are the same, is it not a self-evi- dent truth—is it not an axiom—that what is true of the knowledge of God, must be also true of his Soreknowledge? Yet the timid and modest Mr. M‘Afee, in defiance of this axiom, modestly affirms of the divine knowledge, what he denies of the foreknowledge of Deity !—Such is that champion of Arminianism whom Mr. Drew, editor of the Imperial Magazine, dignifies with the epithet of an “ able antagonist.” If con-— tinuitig to reason after one is defeated—if continuing to argue in the face, not only of demonstration, but of axioms—if this constitutes an. adle antagonist, Mr. M‘Afee has certainly strong claims to that title. “In reasoning, too, the parson owned his skill; ‘For, even though vanquished, he could argue still.” > But will the reader believe that this same “able antagonist,” who, - even in the face of self-evident truths, reasons against the certainty of future events, has, in the very sanie pamphlet, fully admitted that cer- tainty 2?“ The espousers of liberty are well aware of an objection “urged against their scheme by the advocates for necessity and “Calvinism. Why (it is triumphantly asked,) is there so much “stress laid upon the freedom of the will? Are not the good and evil * actions the same, in point of certainty, as if they had been all de- “creed? and will not the number of the saved and lost be as definite Bi. 4, With regard to whatever comes to pass, God must either be willing that it should come to pass, or unwilling. If he is unwilling that it should come to pass, and yet it does come to pass, then his will is crossed, and he is unhappy. ‘6 at the last, according to the doctrine of liberty, as according to that “ of necessity? Granting the certainty of the actions and the definite- ‘¢ ness of the numbers spoken of, we only say that things are just as they “‘ really are.—Again—The number is definite by that certainty which % always accompanies contingent actions.” He afterwards admits, that the number of the saved would be actually as great, and finally certain, as if Deity had passed Calvinistic decrees concerning them. Thus, it appears, that this able antagonist gives up the whole contro- versy, and surrenders to the Calvinists at discretion. If the certainty of an event does not destroy liberty,how could that liberty be destroyed by the decree of God, which rendered the event certain? If appren- ticeship does not forfeit the freedom of a corporation town, no man can forfeit that freedom by being bound an apprentice. If the apprentice- ship itself cannot deprive him of his freedom, the binding him an ap- prentice—or that act by which he was bownd—cannot deprive him of it: so, in like manner, if certainty cannot destroy liberty, the decree of God constituting that certainty cannot destroy it. By admitting cer- tainty of event, Mr. M‘Afee has given up the Arminian cause. All the necessity we plead for is.a necessity consisting in certainty of event. A natural necessity, a universal necessity, a necessity of compulsion, coaction, or constraint, is unjustly and injuriously charged on the Cal- vinistic system by its ignorant or prejudiced opponents. Mr. M‘Aiee quotes President Edwards, strongly disclaiming, and decidedly con- demning the doctrine of a universal necessity: aud yet this “ able “ antagonist,” with his characteristic timidity and regard for truth, modestly charges Edwards, and Calvinists in general, with holding that same universal necessity ! Absurdly confounding the laws of mind with those of matter, he even attempts by a diagram to demonstrate the absurdity of the Calvinistic system! Had I considered Mr. M‘Afee’s pamphlet worthy of an answer, my motto would have been, “ Thou *« shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” , Mr. M‘Afee admits that the number of the saved and the lost * is ‘ definite by that certainty which always accompanies contingent 6 events—that is to say—the certainty which accompanies uncertain events! Who can doubt that such a writer is an ‘* able antagonist ??” Again—Mr. M‘Afee declares (p. 24,) that, as a compensation for - that death incurred by the fall, a decree is passed, which determines | the resurrection of every man; and that God immutably purposed to raise all men from the dead. He also admits, that the number of the ‘saved and the lost is as definite as if fixed by a Calvinistic decree. Take these doctrines in connexion, and the ainount of them is, That God has passed a decree, and. immutably purposed, to raise to the re- surrection of damnation a definite number of the human family—and all this as a compensation for that death which they incurred by the fall! By such mild and sensible doctrine, our ** able antagonist” pro- poses to mend Calvinistic decrees! How appropriate the modest title of his pamphlet, ‘ 4 Rational and Scriptural Investigation !” ; Ke ® » Sie. 229 , No man can rationally maintain that God is unwilling that sin should have a place in his works. If he maintains this, he must run into the gross absurdity of maintaining, that 2 77RD I FAL SSB oe eS cee AN SUNN Mr. M‘Afee, in his preface, informs us—not that his design was to answer the arguments of his opponent ; no, this might be troublesome; but he informs us—that his plan was “ to advance a system as forcibly “and argumentatively as possible, which, if true, necessarily proves “that of the Rev. Gentleman he Opposes to be false.’—Now, one would suppose that this “ able antagonist” would grant his opponent the same privilege. One would think, that, according to the law laid down by Mr. M‘Afee, the Calvinist, by proving his own system true, at the same time proves Mr. M‘Afee’s to be false. But—no such thing. This ‘* able antagonist” explains the laws of war quite differently. Page 30,he states them thus: ¢ Before it can be proved, Sir, that we sinned in Adam as a federal head, from the words now in question, ‘* the absurdity of the above conclusions must be clearly shown, and the * various arguments advanced throughout. these epistles fairly and “ rationally answered.” So then, Arminians arenot bound to answer the arguments of Calvinists ; but Calvinists are tndispensably obliged to auswer all the arguments of Arminians ! The Arminian has only to prove his own system true, in order to prove Calvinism false but the Calvinist must prove Arminianism false before he can prove his Own system drue / ‘ Such is the logic of Mr. M‘Afee; and the editor of the Imperial Magazine assures us, that Mr. M‘Afee is *“* an able antagonist.” In this miscellaneous note, I should have taken some notice of the efforts of Mr. Drew, editor of the Imperial Magazine, to reconcile con- ‘tingency with foreknowledge. Of metaphysics, when used on the Ar- minian side of the controversy, he appears very fond—and is himself no contemptible metaphysician—but when used by Calvinists, he does not seem to like them at all. He discovers a particular dislike to the metaphysical ‘‘ fastnesses,” from which President Edwards and some of his successors cannot easily be dislodged. Could Mr. Drew raise as many Arminian troops as would storm those fastnesses, I am convinced he would do an essential! service to the Arminian cause. For his own part, he uses every effort in his power; but, in my humble Opinion, without success. In attempting to reconcile the contingency of human ~ actions with divine foreknowledge, he soars so high in the regions of metaphysics, that, to my feeble sight, he becomes quite invisible. I find it impossible, and, lam happy to say, unnecessary to follow him in his flight—I see him when he rises, and recognise him when he de- scends. He represents the Deity—I write from recollection—as pene- trating duration, and looking back, as it were, at contingent events, looking at them as if they were past.—He seems, however, strangely to forget, that his seeing those events. proves their certainty—no matter whether he looks backward at them, or forward at them: If he sees them af all, their existence must be certain, and Arminian contingency must be overthrown! An Arminian writer in the Imperial Magazine—a writer of very respectable talents, Mr. Tucker, of Belfast, has aban- doned the absurd doctrine of contingency. I am decidedly of the Opinion, that Dr. Clarke, Mr. Drew, and all Arminians whatever, would discover their wisdom by imitating his example. 230 sin has forced its way into the works of God in opposition to the divine will—in defiance of the Divine Being! He must maintain, that the will of the Deity is crossed in mil- lions of millions of instances, and that the ever-blessed God, © instead of being the most happy, is, in reality, the most miserable being in the universe. Now, if God be not un- willing that sin should have a place among his works, he must be willing ; and if he is willing, then he decrees it ; for with God, to will and to decree are the same thing. Dr. Bruce, in common with all Socinians, Arminains, and Arians, ridicules the distinction between the secret and revealed will of God, or his will of decree and hig will of command. He writes thus: (p. 174) ‘« Nor do the most ‘© learned advocates for this doctrine shrink from these ab- “¢ surd and blasphemous consequences : for thus they write : «< The Lord sometimes orders a thing to be done by a man ; «< and yet by his secret will does not wish that it should be ‘* done by him :” for God has a secret and revealed will. «< It does not follow because he commands all men to be-, _ & lieve in Christ, that he wills them to do so. But though ‘‘ we cannot understand how God can be unwilling that ‘« his commands should be executed, yet we ought not to ‘«< deny it. ‘Though God calls the wicked to repentance, «¢ he does not wish them to besaved. Though he declares, «¢ that he wishes the wicked or reprobate to believe, he « does not actually wish it. God does not always mean ‘< what he says that he means; and yet is not guilty of hy- ‘¢ pocrisy.’” So that, according to these Divines, God prac- ‘© tiges mental reservation, when he wills that ‘‘ all men .« should be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth.” «© It is to be feared, that some mercenary or fanatical de- ‘© claimers even labour to aggravate these horrible repre- ‘* sentations. : Thus Dr. B., in his usual manner, endeavours to bring Calvinism into contempt, by charging upon it the most foolish things said by its advocates. I must therefore again remind my readers, that the foolish and absurd things said by Calvinists are not Calvinism.—The nonsensical, contra- dictory, and blasphemous expression of Piscator—if ever he uttered them, which I very much doubt—Calvinists hold in sovereign contempt. Nor do I believe the most merce- nary or fanatical declaimer living would approve, much less agorayate, such horrible representations. — A little more of that charity which thinketh no evil would have a great ten- \ 231 , dency to allay the Doctor’s fears on such subjects.—Dr. B. and other writers may pour contempt on the distinction \ between God’s will of decree and his will of command ; but, they will never be able to prove it groundless. They cannot deny, as I have already shown, that it is the will of God, that sin should have a place among his works. The existence of sin is not contrary to his decretive or providen- tial will, otherwise there could be no sin at all; and yet all will grant, that itis contrary to his preceptive will—his will of command. The distinction, therefore, between the se- cret and revealed will of God—or rather between his will of decree and his will of command, is capable not only of proof, but of demonstration. The distinction is not only founded in reason, but is taught with the clearest evidence in the sacred volume. ‘Though we cannot understand’’—sgays ‘Trigland as cited by the Doctor—< Though we cannot ‘* understand, how God can be unwilling that his commands ‘« should be executed ; yet we ought not:to deny it.”? Dr. B. denies it ; but if he does, he must also deny the word of God. Godcommanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and yet he was: unwilling his command should be executed. —Will the Doctor deny this? God decreed that Isaac should not be sacrificed ; and yet he commanded that he should be sacrificed. Will the Dr. deny this ?—Let Dr. B. say—let all the opponents of Calvinism say—Is not this a decisive instance of the distinction between God’s will of decree and will of command? his providential and precep- ~ tive will? Again—God commanded Pharaoh to let Israel go, and yet hardened his heart so that he should not let _ them go. Here, again, the distinction between God’s will _ of command and his will of decree is as clear as noon day. Another striking instance of this important distinction is recorded in 2 Sam. xii. 11, 12, “Thus sayeth the Lord, eer behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own’ ‘‘ house, and I will take thy. wives before thine eyes, and *« give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall tie with thy ‘* wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly : * but I will do this before all Israel, and before the sun.” Will any person deny, that it was the decretive or providen- tial will of God, that David’s adultery and murder should be punished by the subsequent incest of his unnatural son Absalom? And will any person deny, that Absalom’s in- cest was contrary to God's preceptive will? Surely not. Once more: The selling of Joseph into Egypt was sin- s 232 f ful. It was contrary to the preceptive will of God; and yet it was quite agreeable to his providential will, or his will of decree. ‘It was not you that sent me hither,”’ says Joseph, ‘‘ but God. Ye thought evil against me; but God meant “it unto good.’’—In like manner, the crucifixion of the Redeemer, though contrary to the revealed will of God, and highly criminal, was nevertheless agreeable to his will of decree. It was bythe ‘+ determinate counsel and foreknow- “* ledge of God that he was taken, and by wicked hands cru- « cified and slain.”? All the indignities and cruelties of the Jews were nothing more than God’s “‘ hand and counsel *¢ determined before to be done.’’. ‘* Those things, which God «« before had showed by the mouth of his prophets that Christ «¢ should suffer, he so fulfilled.” edy (ees _ The last instance I shall quote—for the instances are al- most innumerable—is Rev. xvii. 17, ‘‘ For God hath put in ‘* their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree and give their ’*¢ kingdom unto the beasts, until the word of Ged shall be ‘« fulfilled.”? Will Dr. B. deny—will any opponent of Cal- vinism deny, that for the ten kings to give their kingdom to the beasts was contrary to the revealed will of God ? or, will any deny that it was agreeable to his will of decree ? They fulfilled his will.— What will ? not his preceptive will surely. It must have been his will of decree or purpose. If my learned antagonists, or any other opponents of the Calvinistic system, think they can explain the above-cited ‘passages, without admitting a distinction between God’s will of decree and his will of command; let them try it. Let them show, if they can, that the arguments drawn, first from reason and then from Scripiure, are inconclusive :. but let them not think to run down the distinction by the quota- tion of a few nonsensical sayings—sayings which all Cal- vinists, as well as Socinians, Arminians, and Arians con- demn. | | Our opponents allege, that this distinction which we make between God’s will of command and will of decree, represents the Deity as possessed of two contradictory wills. In answer to this objection, I would observe, that if the distinction is a matter of fact—as | have proved it to be—my. opponents are as much bound to reconcile any apparent contradiction as J am. My object, however, be- ing, not so much to silence an adversary, as to mvestigate truth, I would observe—That God’s will of command and will of decree are not to be regarded as two different and 233 x a ; - aa opposite wills ; i bait as the same will operating differently 3 on different objects. —An apothecary permits poison to en- ter his shop—not as poison—not for the purpose of destroy- ing his fellow-men—but he permits its entrance, that, being compounded with other ingredients, it may eventually be- come a powerful medicine. If an apothecary, without any contradiction, may prohibit poison as poison, and yet pre- scribe it as a medicine ; may not the Deity, without any contradiction, prohibit sin as sin, and yet. permit it, and decree that through his permission it shall have a place in his works, for the greater manifestation of his own glory, and the greater happiness of the universe at large ?— <¢ There is no inconsistency or contrariety,’’ says President «Edwards, ‘‘ between the preceptive and decretive will of ‘God. It is very consistent to suppose that God may ‘« hate the thing itself, and yet will that it should come to “pass. Yea, Ido not fear to assert that the thing itself *“‘“ may be contrary to God’s will, and yet that it may be. ** agreeable to his will that it should come to pass ; because ** his will in the one case has not the same object with his “‘ will in the other case. ‘To suppose God to have con- *‘ trary wills towards the same object is a contradiction ; *‘ but it is not so to suppose him to have contrary wills * about different objects. The thing itself—and that the «« thing should come to pass—are different, as is evident ; be- *¢ cause it is possible that the one may be good and the other ‘‘may be evil. The thing itself may be evil, and yet it *¢ may be a good thing that it should come to pass. It may pew good. thing that an evil thing should come to pass : “« and oftentimes it most certainly and undeniably is so, and ‘* proves so.’? Agreeably to these remarks, we may ob- serve, that the crucifixion of Christ was, in itself, an evil thing—one of the worst things that ever oceurred ; and yet the occurrence of that event was the greatest blessing ever conferred on our apostate family. That ‘‘ every sin ‘«-has in it something of the good work of God,’ is one of those foolish sayings brought forward by our author to blacken Calvinism—a saying which all Calvinists abhor. _ I would nevertheless say, without the fear of rational centra- diction, That not one sin was ever permitted to enter the works of God, but will ultimately be overruled to the promo- tion of universal good. (Psal. Ixxvi. 10) « Surely the * wrath of man shall praise thee ; the remainder of wrath “ shalt thou restrain.” (Rom. viii. 28) “ And we know 20* 234 ** that all things work together for good to them that love ‘« God.” Had sin never entered, God’s love in sending his son—the love of Jesus in dying for sinners—or the love of the Holy Ghost in applying the work of redemption, could never have been displayed. The grace of God in pardoning the guilty, and his mercy in saving the miserable, could never have been manifested.. Meckness, patience, forgiveness of injuries, and other Christian virtues, could never have been exercised. Men would never have been exalted to so high a state of dignity and glory, nor angels to such a state of felicity. Though sin, therefore, as sin, be contrary to the will of God, it 1s not contrary to the will of his decree, to permit so much sin to enter his works, as under his infinitely wise providence shall ultimately termi-. nate in the more illustrious display of all his perfections, and the greater felicity of the universe at large.* Nor do we make God the author of sin by maintaining that he de- creed to permit sin, and that by such permission sin should have a place among his works. ‘The influence of the Deity with regard to sin, is very different from that which he em- ploys in the production of holiness. The production of holiness requires the positive influence of the Deity, and therefore he is properly the auwthor-of holiness ; but the in- troduction of sin requires no such influence, and therefore the Deity is not the author of sin. 'To produce light re- quires positive influence; but no such influence is neces- sary to the production of darkness. The sun, by the pour- ing forth of his rays, has a positive influence in the produc- tion of light ; but all that is necessary to the production of darkness (if I may use the expression, ) is the withdrawing of those rays. When the sun withdraws his rays, darkness ensues; but shall we therefore say, that the sun is the au- thor of darkness? Surely not. Equally absurd would it be to charge God with being the author of sin, because, on withholding that divine influence which would have pre- * “If any man,” says Bishop Davenant, “ shall go about to set “ men’s will at liberty, and to tie up short the decreeing and determin- ‘Sing will of God, as if this had not the determining stroke amongst - ‘all possible evil actions and events which shall ivfallibly be, and ‘¢ which shall,infallibly not be, he may avoid the suspicion of Stoicism *© or Manicheism, but he can hardly avoid .the suspicion of Atheism. “‘ For the greater number of men’s actions being wicked and evil, if “6 these come into act without God’s determinate counsel and decree, “¢ human affairs are more over-ruled by man’s will than by God’s.” Se Pee eee ee rie 8 ws age 235 vented it, sin enters the works of God. Again: The sun thaws snow and ice by the influence of his heat ; but the production of snow or ice requires no such positive influ- ence. When the sun withdraws his rays, snow and ice en- sue; but would any one say that the sun is the author of snow or ice? Surely not. In like manner, when God is said to harden mens’ hearts, no positive influence is in- tended. All that is necessary to produce the effect is— to give men up to the hardness of their own hearts, by withholding that grace which would otherwise mollify them. (Psal. Ixxxi. 12,) “So J gave them up unto ‘‘ their own hearts’ lusts, and they walked in their own ‘* counsels.”’ The most formidable objection brought against Calvi- nistic decrees is, that they are inconsistent with liberty or free agency. In reply to this objection, I would observe, that there is no greater difficulty in reconciling the decrees of God with the free agency of man, than there is in re- _conciling the foreknowledge of God with the same free agency. Whenever the Arminian or the Arian solves the latter difficulty, we will solve the former. Archbishop Tillotson, Doctor Millar, Doctor Graves, and all the ablest Opponents of Calvinism, confess themselves unable to re-. concile the foreknowledge of God with the freedom of humam actions, and plead, as an apology, the weakness of their faculties. ; Now, if our opponents, Arminians, Socinians, and Arians, are unable to reconcile the foreknowledge of God with the free agency of man—Why do they call upon us to recon- cile the decrees of God with the same free agency? If the doctrine of the divine decrees is clearly taught in the sacred volume, and can be demonstrated even by reason—and if the free agency of man is also taught both by experience | and Scripture—may we not safely conclude, that those doc- trines are not inconsistent, though, from the limited nature of our faculties, we should he unable to reconcile them ?— This is surely as good a solution of the difficulty in our case, as the Arminians have given in theirs. Nay, I main- tain that thesolution is infinitely better. For no solution:can €ver reconcile a contradiction. We can demonstrate, and We have demonstrated, that it implies a contradiction to Maintain, that God can foresee future contingent actions or vents. In vain, therefore, do Arminian and Arian divines plead the weakness of their faculties. The faculties of an 236 angel could not reconcile a contradiction. If Arminian and Arian Doctors he permitted, in the face of reason and demonstration, to resolve into faith the doctrine of the Divine foreknowledge of contingent events, why may not the Doctors of the fchurch of Rome be also permitted to resolve into faith the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation? No doc- trine can possibly be true which contradicts either our senses, or our reason. I grant, indeed, that doctrines may be above our reason, and then we may resolve them into faith ; but if they are really self-contradictory ; and if the contradiction can be demonstrated; they cannot be the doctrines of Divine Revelation. Our opponents, indeed, consider Calvinistic decrees as unreasonable—as inconsis- tent with the free agency of man; but have they ever been able to demonstrate a contradiction? They have not. The great question between Calvinists and their opponents is this—Can God create free agents, and govern free agenis, and have all his ends, designs, and purposes respecting the final destination of these agents accomplished without in- fringing their liberty or free agency? We say he can, and our opponents say he can not. I believe that my Maker created me a free and accountable agent—I believe that he had a particular design to accomplish by me—and I firmly believe, that he can and will accomplish that design, with- out doing me the slightest injustice, or infringing in the least my liberty or free agency. Let the opponents of Calvi-— nism demonstrate, if they can, that this creed involves a con- tradiction. This is a task they have never yet been able to ac- complish, and I am convinced they never will. I now say again, that if we can demonstrate by reason, and prove from Scripture, the doctrine of divine decrees, and also the doctrine of the free agency of mar, we may safely con- . clude, that those doctrines are perfectly consistent, though, from the weakness of our faculties, we may feel unable to reconcile them. On this ground we might safely take our stand ; but if we could proceed a little farther in this diffi- _ cult subject ; and if we could actually reconcile those doc- trines; an object of great magnitude would be obtained. T'o accomplish this object has long been a problem in divi- nity. If I am not much mistaken, Doctor Dwight, of America, has ultimately succeeded. I shall give the solu- tion in his own words: (p. 199.) ‘1 will suppose once more a voluntary agent, either self-existent or existing * casually, possessing powers of understanding similar in Fa > eon) ke eee, er are PR ge eat ne Sa ial, ea “eae ¥. REN i Sa rr 237 ‘‘ their extent to those of angels or of men; and, at the « same time, free, in the highest sense annexed to that term. ‘«¢ Let him be also supposed to be known and comprehend- ‘© ed by God in the same perfect manner in which any - angel or man is known by him ; so that God can foresee ‘¢ with an omniscient survey and absolute certainty, all his’ ‘: future actions. At the same time let it be supposed, that ‘* God exercises over him no government or influence what- “ever. This being will undoubtedly be acknowledged to ‘* be free, even by those who make this objection ; because ‘* he was neither brought into existence by the will of God, ‘‘ nor is controlled nor influenced in any manner whatever ** by any will beside his own. Let me further suppose, ‘‘ what, as it must be granted, cannot lessen or affect his ** freedom, that, all his actions, thus foreseen, are agree- ‘* able to the divine pleasure. Now, let me ask, whether ‘‘ the divine omniscience could not contrive, and the divine “power create, a being exactly resembling this which I “‘ have here supposed, in every respect; except that he ““ was not self-existent, nor casually existent; and so per- “fect a copy, that he would differ from this supposed being “numerically only ; would possess the same attributes; be ‘Sin the same circumstances; and perform both in sub- ““* stance and mode exactly the same actions. Were this ** supposed being, for example, to be placed by God in his “ kingdom, in certain circumstances, and acting a certain ‘ part in the system; which was exactly agreeable to the *« divine pleasure; would not the created being who was ‘* his perfect counterpart, if substituted in his place, perform ‘+ precisely the same actions, with the same faculties» and *‘ the same freedom? The only difference between them ‘‘ would be, that he who was casually existent, would per- ‘‘ form these actions in consequence of possessing such ‘* and such attributes, without having been created for this *‘ purpose ; while the other would perform them in conse- “‘ quence of having been thus created with the very same ‘‘ attributes,’’ Such is Dr. Dwight’s solution of the diffi- culty—a solution which, to me at least, appears completely satisfactory. _ ; i _ Our opponents cannot deny that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of election, but they either maintain, that it is founded on foreseen faith and good works, or they contend that it is not particular or personal. They maintain that the Scriptural election is only a national election, or an 238 election to the enjoyment of the external privileges of the — Christian church. Against a personal or particular elec- tion, they not only put into a state of requisition all the forces of logic and criticism, but they display an evident and deep-rooted prejudice. Out of many instances I shall mention only one or two. Jacob, by the Calvinists, is re- garded as one of the elect, and Esau as one of the repro- baie. For this reason Anti-Calvinists discover a strong _ partiality in favour of Esau, and a deep-rooted prejudice against Jacob. Doctor B. writes thus: “ In the lives of * the patriarchs he finds an inexhaustible source of iistruc- . « tion, religious, moral, and prudential, whether he re- ** flects on the faith or resignation of Abraham, the piety «and mildness of Isaac, the art and duplicity of Jacob, *‘ or the liberal. affectionate and forgiving character of «« Esau.” Dr. Adam Clarke maintains, that Esau with his four hun- dred men had no hostile intention against Jacob ; but only meant to honour him! When he runs to meet Jacob, the learned Doctor rapturously exclaims, “‘ How sincere and * genuine is this conduct of Esau, and at the same time ** how magnanimous! He had buried all his resentment, “« forgiven all his injuries, and receives his brother with the * strongest demonstrations, not only of forgiveness, but of *< fraternal affection,’’—Again, he asks, ‘If the blessings * had referred to their eternal states, had not Esau as faira “ prospect for endless glory as his deceitful and unfeeling «“ brother? Justice and mercy both say—Yes.’’ That it is not justice nor mercy, but deep-rooted prejudice against Calvinism, that says—Yes—I appeal to the Doctor’s own | words : they run thus: “ It appears that Jacob was on the. ‘« whole a man of more religion, and believed the divine | *« promises more, than Esau.’ Now, I ask, has a man-of less religion as fair a prospect for endless glory as one of more religion ?—justice, mercy. scripture, and common sense, say—No. The truth is, that no man whose mind was not deeply imbued with prejudice, would ever think of comparing the characters of Jacob and Esau with respect toreligion. Religion! Where was the religion of Esau? The Scriptures do not represent him as a man of religion at all, but as a profane. irreligious character. They set him up as a beacon on a mountain, that others, being shocked by the grossness of his profanity, may avoid the rock on which he made shipwreck. ‘‘ Looking diligently,”’ says _ 239 the Apostle, “ lest, there be any fornicator or profane person «as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” On the contrary, in the whole word of God, there is not a character more celebrated nor more honoured for his piety than Jacob. John, the beloved Disciple, leaned on the bosom of the Redeemer: Moses conversed with him as a_ man with his friend: but Jacob wrestled with him. He said, «¢ Twill not let thee go except thou bless me.”’ Like a prince, he had power with God and man, and prevailed. in a va- riety of respects he was honoured above all the men that ever lived. The Old Testament church was called by his name; and New Testament believers are also styled ‘* the . © Israel of God.” One calls himself by the name of Jacob, and another subscribes with his hand unto the Lord, and sir- names himself by the name of Israel. Nay, the Deity him- self appears to delight in such epithets as these; ‘ The ** God of Jacob’’—‘‘ the mighty God of Jacob’’—* the God ‘* of Israel.’’—In the 24th Psalm, he seems to assume the very name Jacob. <‘'This is the generation of them that *« seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob! He even swears “© by the eaxcellency of Jacob.” In a word, the spirit of God does not compare, but contrasts, the characters of Ja- cob and Esau. He declares again and again, that he loved - Jacob and hated Esau. He holds up Jacob as a pattern of piety, and Esau asan example of profanity. Heloads Jacob with honours, and brands Esau with disgrace. ‘Between the manner in which God treats the characters of Jacob and Esau, and the manner in which Dr. B. and Dr. A. Clarke treat those characters, there is a very striking contrast. God treats Jacob with the greatest respect ; but these Doctors treat him with the greatest disrespect ! God exhibits in a striking point of light all the virtues and per- fections of Jacob; but these learned Divines throw those virtues and perfections into the shade! Dr. B. does not mention one of them.—His jaundiced eye sees nothing in that patriarch but ‘‘ art and duplicity!” God brands with infamy the character of Esau ; whilst those learned Doctors are careful to emblason it—to exhibit it in the most amiable. and interesting point of light! To his servant Jacob God does not say one reproachful word ; whilst those Rev. Dé vines load him ‘with the most opprobrious epithets! On the contrary, God never applies one epithet of respect to the character of Esau: whilst Dr. B. and Dr. A. Clarke : endeavour to embalm it by such honourable appellations ag 240 liberal, affectionate, forgiving, and magnanimous! In the name of every thing sacred, | ask, why do these Divines fly in the face of their Maker? Why do they pour contempt on that character which God delights to honour, and load with honours that character which God has branded with infamy? ‘The most charitable account that can possibly be given of conduct so extraordinary, I had almost said im- pious is—a deep-rooted prejudice against the Calvinistic doctrine of election and reprobation.—On the same princi- ple we can account for Dr. Clarke’s extraordinary exertions to prove, that Judas will be saved. The Deity assures us, that it would have been good for Judas had he never been born—that he was the son of perdition—and went to his own place. Alrnost the whole of the one hundred and ninth Psalm is employed in denouncing vengeance on the head of the traitor. We are there particularly assured (if we trans- late into the future tense instead of the imperative mood), that when judged he shall be condemned; and that his very prayer should become sin.—But Dr. Clarke endeavours to prove that Judas was a true penitent, and shall finally be acquitted and saved! We do not deny, that the Scrip- tures teach a national election, or an election to the enjoy- ment of church privileges; but we maintain that the Scrip- tures also teach a personal election, or an electign of particular persons, not only to external privileges, but to eternal life. Their number is as definite as if their names. were written in a book. Of Clement and others it is said, ee iv. 3.) that their names are written in the book oflife. n various other Scriptures the heirs of glory are so repre-_ sented. ‘The Apostle John addressed his second epistle to the elect lady and her children, and mentions also her elect sister. ‘‘ When the children of Jacob are styled God’s ‘¢ chosen ones,’”’ Dr. B. assures us, that it is not meant that ‘< every one of the Israelites was chosen, but that they were ‘‘ members of the chosen nation.’ Supposing that this sentence did not contradict the axiom, that ‘“‘ The whole ts — “< equal to its parts.” Supposing the assertion true— — still it would not follow, that the election of which we are treating is not particular or personal—for Clement is an ine dividual—the elect lady is an individual—and her elect sis- ter is an individual. Particular persons are elected, and particular persons have their names written in heaven. (Luke, x. 20,)—Romans, eighth, from the twenty-eighth to the thirtieth verse inclusive, is an irréefragable proof of ~— 4 241 particular election. «And we know that all things work *« together for good to them that love God, to them who “are the called according to his purpose. For whom he “¢ did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed “to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn ‘“* among many brethren. - Moreover whom he did predes- *¢ tinate,-them he also called: and whom he called, them | _ ‘the also justified: and whom he justified, them he also _. * glorified.” __ Dr. B. alleges, that in this beautiful passage the Apostle “Speaks of the Christian church at large.” Let us try the application. Are all the members of the church at large conformed to the image of God’s Son? Are all the members of the church at large justified? Will they all be glorified? Surely not. The Doctor understands the _ Clause “‘ whom he called,” as equivalent to—whom he ‘ in- ‘‘ vited into the Christian. church.” Now, I ask, Did all things work together for good to such? By no means. Many were called and invited into the Christian church, who made light of. the invitation, who said, ¢ We will not have ‘* this man to reign over us; this is the heir, come let us_ «kill him.”” Did all things work together for their good ? . Quite the reverse. « The King of Heaven sent forth his “armies and destroyed these murderers, and burned up _ ‘their city.” Again, I would ask, Do all things work to- _ gether for good to those who are not only invited’ into the Christian church, but who accept of the Invitation, and be- come church members? are all ‘such justified ? will all such be glorified? Surely not. It is therefore abundantly — _ evident that the Apostle is not speaking of the ** Chris. _ “tian church at large,” as the Doctor affirms, but only eof a particular select number, or, in other words, éhe elect. . : ee . Dr. B. declares, that «if we cannot explain this passage -** conformably to our Saviour’s doctrine, we should rather. _ “ abandon it as unintelligible, than prefer the lower autho. _ ‘rity to the higher.”? Plain language indeed! T'o apply | _ the epithets higher and lower authority to the Holy Scrip- tures, which were all given by inspiration of God; and to” express a readiness to abandon any portion of those sacred — oracles, savours more of Deism than of Christianity. To — _ do the Doctor justice, however, he must abandon the pas- _ Sage in question. He must either abandon it, or abandon _ his own favourite hypothesis. He must either abandon #2, 21° 242 or admit the doctrine of predestination against which he. preaches so long asermon. The Calvinist 1s determined neither to abandon this, nor any other passage of the sa- cred volume. ‘T'o the Arian it may appear unintelligible, and must appear so, whilst he denies predestination ; not so to the Calvinist. To him it appears a glorious chain of special privileges extending from eternity to eternity. His view of it is this—That those of the fallen human family, who were the objects of God’s foreknowledge, or of his eternal distinguishing love,* he predestinated or fore- ordained to be conformed to Jesus Christ his Son, not only in suffering, but in holiness and happiness. Those same persons whom he thus predestinated, he in due time calls, not only eaternally by his word, but internally and effica- ciously, by his Spirit. He calls them from darkness to light —from death to life—from Satan to God. ‘He persuades ‘¢ and enables them to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered ‘< to them in the Gospel.” The persons thus effectually called he also justifies. «‘‘ He freely pardons all their sins, «‘ and accepteth them as righteous in his sight, only for the ‘‘ righteousness of Christ imputed to them, and received ‘< by faith alone.’? Those same persons whom he thus justifies, he finally glorifies. He makes them ‘ perfectly ** blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity.” After ten thousand attempts to torture the passage, this appears to be its plain and unsophisticated meaning. Nor is the doctrine of particular election, thus plainly taught by the Apostle, at all inconsistent with the doctrine taught by our Saviour. Doctor B. may boldly insinuate that they salt “ * Jt is generally acknowledged by Diyines—those who oppose as — well as those who adyocate the doctrine of predestination—that fore-.- kvowledge inthe text implies love or favour. Knowledge is frequently “put for love in Scripture. ‘ You only have I known of all the families of the earth.” Other families of the earth, as well as the Jews, were — the objects of God’s simple knowledge; but the Jews alone were the _ objects of his distinguishing love, (Deut. vii. 6,7, 8) *¢ The Lord thy © © God hath chosen thee to be.a special people unto himself, above all : “ péople that are. upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set “his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number ‘¢ than any people’; for ye were the fewest of all people. But because “the Lord loved you’—It is to this distinguishing, unmerited love _and gracious election that God refers when he says ‘* You only have i “known of all the families of the earth.” On the same principle, it is to the distinguishing and electing love of God that the apostle refers: when he says; “ Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate” 243 areinconsistent ; but the insinuation is as groundless asit istmpious. It appears to me that the doctrine of election and reprobation is taught by our Saviour in language nearly, if not altogether, as explicit as that of the Apostle. ‘I ‘* have othér sheep,”’ says he, “that are not of this fold, ‘them also must I bring,’’? &c.—*‘ All that the Father ‘‘ hath given to me shall come unto me.~—Thou hast given ‘him power over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to **-as many as thou hast given him.—I thank thee, O Father, ‘s Lord of heaven and earth, that 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.—-Rejoice, because, your names are written in *‘ heaven.—But ye believe not because ye are not of my ‘* sheep.”’ ans As Doctor Bruce’s commentary on the eighth of the Romazis leads into this gross absurdity—that the whole vi- sible church will be saved : to avoid this consequence, Dr. A. Clarke adopts an ingenious expedient. As Rehoboam substituted shields of brass, instead of the golden shields which Shishack, King of Egypt carried away, so Doctor C. takes away the golden link of eternal glory, and sub- Stitutes the brazen one of temporal privileges! 'The clause, ‘sThem he also glorified,’”’ he explains thus: ‘‘ He has *«« honoured and dignified the Gentiles with the highest pri- ‘* vileges. He has rendered them illustrious by innumer- “* able gifts, graces, and privileges, in the same manner as «she had done to the Israelites of old.”? Thus, to get rid of Calvinistic decrees, this learned commentator “ shrivels “<< into meagreness’’ the most beautiful passage in the whole book of God. That the word glorified refers not to tem- poral privileges, as the Doctor imagines, but to eternal felicity, is evident from the antecedent context, (verses 17, 18,) ‘« And if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint *¢ heirs with Christ ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that - ‘the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be _ © compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” | The various unsuccessful and contradictory attempts made by the enemies of Calvinism, to explain the passage in question, are a strong presumptive argument, that the Cal- __-yinistic interpretation is the true one. == sis; : _ Were the word election, in Scripture, applicable only to ~ Mations, but not to individuals, what would our opponents gain? It will be said, no doubt, that this election to ex- 244 ternal privileges was very different from a particular elec- tion to eternal life. ‘To show, however, that the difference is not so great as is generally imagined, I would ask, were not thousands saved in consequence of this national elec- tion, that would not have been saved had they not been elected? This question, I presume, will be universally answered in the affirmative. No person will venture to maintain, that as small a number of Jews obtained eternal | _ life, as of the surrounding heathen nations of equal extent. Even Doctor A. Clarke, who affirms, that Esau had as fair a prospect for immortal glory as Jacob, will not be bold enough to assert, that the Edomites had as fair a prospect for glory as the Israelites. He will not venture to assert, that as many of the one nation were saved, as of the other. «‘ Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, O peo- ‘s ple saved by the Lord?’’ Salvation was of the Jews. Now, if thousands of Jews were saved, that would not have been saved had their nation not been elected, all those thousands, whatever be their number, owe their salvation, their eternal salvation, to election—to a gratuitous election —an election, not of works, but of grace. The same may be said of those nations elected to the enjoyment of Chris- tian privileges. _Are not thousands saved in Britain and Ireland, that would mot have been saved had they been left ina state of Heathenism? ‘T'o what do all these owe their salvation? TO THEIR ELECTION—to the free sovereign and electing love of God, who purposed from all eternity to sepa» rate them from the rest of the world, and elected them to the enjoyment of those external privileges, by the means of which they are finally saved. Where now is all the noisy declamation agathst the doctrine of particular elec- tion ? Does it not recoil on the opponents of the doctrine ? Where is now the loud cry of favouritism and partiality ? Was there no favouritism or partiality in electing a whole nation, whilst all the rest of the world was rejected ? whilst all other nations were permitted to walkin their own ways ? Has the Deity shown no favouritism or. partiality in elect- ing the various nations of Christendom to the enjoyment of the privileges of the Christian Church, whilst all the other nations of the earth, enveloped in darkness worse than Egyptian, are left ‘‘ without God and hope in the ‘** world.’ Did the Almighty discover no favouritism or partiality by so loving the world as to send his only begot- .ten Son; that whosoever believeth on him should not pe- 245 Fish but have everlasting life ; whilst a more noble order ‘of beings, who kept not their first state, ‘* were cast down __. “to hell, and reserved in chains of darkness till the judg- ,» ment of the great day ”’ Let our opponents show, that __ . the Deity has discovered no favouritism or partiality in these _, things, and we will show, that he has discovered none in _—s- particular election. The charge of partiality so long and loudly vociferated, goes upon the false principle, that sinners of our family have claims on divine grace and bounty. But, even Dr, B. himself being witness, we have no such claims. ‘: Few,” — says the Doctor, ‘‘ very few indeed, are the legal claims __ ** which we have upon the divine justice, and we have none _ “upon his bounty ; and yet infinite are the gifts he has to “bestow.”? Why then, [ask, should any venture to charge the Deity with favouritism and partiality, because he dis- penses his own unmerited bounty as he pleases? To every such objector the Almighty may justly reply, “Is it not ** lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thy ** eye evil because [ am good ?”’ _ The Arminian objection of partiality leads into Deism. A principal objection against revelation is drawn from its partiality. Deists argue that the Scriptures cannot be the _. word of God, because they are not communicated to all ; hs and this, they allege, would make God partial. —The very same objection would lead to Atheism: For, in the works of creation and providence, God does not. confer the same favours upon all. His sovereignty shines in all his works, . and in allhis dispensations. . | i” Another objection—an objection.on which our opponents seem principally to rely, and which Dr. B. chiefly urges— is, that particular election supersedes the necessity of prayer _ and other means of grace. Why need we pray ? why need We strive? say our opponents. If we are elected, we shall ~ besaved; but if not, we shall be condemned. Had not the absurdity of this objection been already pointed out we might retort it thus: If nations are elected to the enjoy- ment of Gospel privileges, why need we pray that the Gospel — may be sent to the heathen? Why need we form. mis- _ Sionary societies, for the purpose of sending through the world the giad tidings of great joy? The nations that God has elected to enjoy such privileges shall enjoy them ; _ therefore our prayers and missionary exertions are altogether ~ useless ! 21% Ye ) 5 246 CHAPTER VIII. The Perseverance of the Saints. _ Iw the general attack made by Dr. B. on almost all the fundamental truths of Christianity, we could not expect the doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance to escape. He has assailed it, not only incidentally, in his Sermons, but ens deavoured to hold it up to detestation and contempt in’ his Appendix. With the abominable Antinomian quotations which he has given, we have no manner of concern. Dr. 5. himself does not hold those quotations in greater abhor- rence than we do. However foolishly, impiously, or blas- phemously, Antinomians may talk or write on the subject ; no doctrine contained in the sacred volume is capable of a more triumphant defence. Out of an immense mass of evidence, I shall lay before my readers a few of those reasons which induce me to believe the doctrine. | 1, To me it appears, that a multitude of texts of Scrip- ture must be false, if the doctrine of perseverance is not true. I shall mention a few.—Our Saviour asserts, “‘ He “¢ that believeth shall be saved,”? but Dr. Bruce asserts, and all Anti-Calvinists assert, that believers may fall from a state of grace and be condemned !—Our Saviour asserts, that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish, and that his sheep shall never perish, nor be plucked out of his hand :* but Dr. B. and all Anti-Calvinists assert, that believers may perish, and that Christ’s sheep may be plucked out of his hand! Our Saviour assures us with a double verily, that the believer “ shall not come into condemnation, but is “< passed from death unto life;’’ but Dr. Bruce, and all Anti-Calvinists, assure us, that he may come into condem- nation, and never see life! Our Saviour will say to the wicked at that great day, ‘‘ Depart from me, I never knew ‘“‘ you.”’ Had any of those addressed fallen away from a state of grace, the Redeemer’s declaration would not be true !—it would not be true that he had never known them ! a * If they do not assert in so many words, that Christ’s sheep may be plucked out of his hands, they assert what is fully equivalent. 247 From these counter-declarations I ask two questions: 1, Whether should we believe our blessed Redeemer, or Dr. B. and other opponents of the Saints’ perseverance ?—2, Does _ the Doctor’s volume of Sermons deserve that high charac- ter which he himself has given it? is it «consistent with ** the Gospel ?” , Agreeable to the above-cited declarations of the Redeem- er are those of the Apostles. The Apostle John declares, “ That he that doth evil hath not seen God,”’ and that ** Whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.” —Now, if the doctrine of perseverance is not true, these texts are false. If any fall away’ from a state of grace, commit sin, and do evil, it is not true, that they have not seen God, neither known him. Dr. B., and other opponents of the Saints’ perseverance, maintain, that a man may have seen God and also known him, and after all he may fall away, ** commit sin, do evil,’’ and finally perish. Between this doctrine and that of the Apostle, is there not a flat contra- diction? Surely there is. TM SAS | 2. The doctrine of the Saints’ perseverance rests on the, solid basis of the divine perfections. The foreknowledge of God proves the doctrine. «God. hath not cast off his ** people whom he foreknew.”” <* Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate, and whom he did predestinate *‘ them he also called, and whom he called them he also *« justified, and whom he justified them he also glorified.’? Unless this golden chain can be broken, the Saints’ perse- Verance cannot be denied. ‘The Apostle’s chain is what logicians denominate a sorites. The conclusion is not ex-, pressed, it is this: therefore whom he did. foreknow them he - also glorified. If this conclusion be denied, then the Apos- tle’s chain is not a sorites, but a sophism! Ifit be admit- ie _ ted, the doctrine of the Saints’ perseverance is fully estab- lished. Some Divines, with a boldness bordering on ime piety, attempt to break the Apostle’s chain. Were they to succeed, they would prove—What ?—that the Apostle is an inconclusive and sophistical reasoner ! The omnipotent power of God secures the final perseve- rance of the Saints. They are « kept by the power of God _ “ through faith unto salvation.>— The love of God and the Redeemer secure the Saints’ perseverance. Whom the Redeemer loves “ he loves unto the end.”” God loved be- lievers with an everlasting love—draws them with loving kindness—declares that his loving kindness shall not depart 248 from them—and, accordingly, the Apostle exclaims, (Rom. Vill. 35) « Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? ‘‘ shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, “ or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For “ thy sake we: are killed all the day long ; we are account- “ed as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things ‘‘ we are more than conquerors through him that loved *¢ us.—For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor ** angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, ** nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other ‘“ creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of * God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ 3, [believe the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints, because they are “ members of his body, of his flesh, and of ~ *< his bones.’’ Could any of those members be torn off, the mystical body of the Redeemer would be a maimed and mutilated body! It would not be perfect and glorious, but unsightly and deformed! 4. I believe that none of the Saints shall ever fail of ob- taining the heavenly inheritance, because their character to that inheritance is the very same with that of the Redeemer 5 i ES n hero a, ee eee rT 4 himself. They are “heirs of God and joint heirs with — «« Christ.”’ If the Redeemer’s charter be good, so is theirs. If his charter cannot be broken, neither can theirs. Their lives are hid with Christ t im God. Because he lives, they ee live also. . L believe that the Saints cannot totally and finally fall hen from a state of grace, or fail of obtaining the heavenly - inheritance ; because they have the first Sruits and, earnest ofthatinheritance. Ifan earnest gives security among men much more so with God. Men may refuse to make good that bargain which they have confirmed by giving earnest ; but God will not tantalize his creatures by first giving them the Holy Spirit as the earnest of their inheritance, and after- wards excluding them from the full possession. _ 6. I believe that the Saints cannot finally fall away from _ a state ofgrace ; because “ they are sealed by the holy spirit “« of promise—sealed to the day of redemption.” ‘They cannot fall away and be lost, except the broad seal of! ae ven can be broken ! 7. I believe in the perseverance of the Saints, because I ; pa believe that “he who begins the good work of grace will — ‘* carry it on to perfection.’’ I believe that the Deity is not like the foolish man, who began to build and was not able "249 * to finish. When God threatened to destroy the. Israelites for their rebellion, Moses intercedes thus: (Deut. ix. 26, 27, 28, 29,) «*O Lord God, destroy not thy people and ‘ ¢¢ thine inheritance which thou hast redeemed through thy *¢ greatness, which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt ** with a mighty hand. Remember thy servant Abraham, ‘** Isaac and Jacob ; look not unto the stubbornness of this ** people, nor to their wickedness, nor to their sin: Lest * the land whence thou broughtest us out say, Because the ** Lord was not able to bring them into the land which he ** promised them, and because he hated them, he hath _“ brought them out to slay them in the wilderness. Yet *‘ they are thy people and thine inheritance, which thou *« broughtest out by thy mighty power and by thy stretched ** out arm.’’—On similar principles, Joshua intercedes: (Josh. vii. 7, 8,9) ‘‘ Alas, O Lord God,“wherefore hast ** thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us ** into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to ** God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side ** Jordan! O Lord, what shall I say, when Israel turneth ** their backs before their enemies! For the Canaanites ** and all the inhabitants of the land shall hear of it, and ** shall environ us round, and cut off our name from the ‘* earth: and what wilt thou do unto thy great name ?”— If it would have reflected dishonour on the great name of God, to redeem the Israelites out of Egypt, and then to de- stroy them in the Wilderness ; still more inconsistent with the divine perfections would _it be, to suffer those to fall ae finally perish, whom God has redeemed from sin and atan. . 8. Finally ;* if the Saints might totally and finally fall from grace, their state now under the covenant.of grace would be worse than’ it was under the covenant of works. Under the covenant of works the happiness of man was sus- pended on the free will of an innocent being ; but, accor- ' ding to the doctrine of those who deny the Saints’ perseve- rance, it is suspended on the free will of a weak, corrupt, and depraved being !—Men may fall away from an external profession of religion, but not from true faith. «From him “ that hath not,”’ says our Saviour, ‘shall be taken away cs I might have argued the doctrine from the death of Christ—his uretyship—his intercession—and a variety of other topics. 250 ‘that which he hath ;” or,'as itis explained, « that which ‘« he'seemeth to have.’ «They went out fromius,”’ ,says the Apostle John, “but they were not of us; for if they ‘had been of'us, they would have no doubt continued with “us; hut they went out, that they might be made manifest - that they were not all of us.” | ~ sae Se Ca Wek ts Oreeds and Confessions Defended, AND > ATTACKS MADE ON COVENANTERS, SECEDERS, &c. REPELLED, a A SERIES OF LETTERS Addressed to the anonymous auther of «THE BATTLE OF THE TWO DIALOGUES,” x Doth our law judge any man, before it hear iim, and know what he doth? Paul, thou art 4 permite to speak for thyself \ ADVERTISEMENT. Atracks, from various quarters, having lately been made on the principles which the writer of the following letters has espoused, and on the denomination to which he has the honour to belong—for some time past he has waited with anxiety, expecting every moment to see them repelled by some abler antagonist. In this expectation he has been hitherto disappointed. Those gentlemen, who, by talents, learning, and other accomplishments, seemed best qualified for entering the lists, appear to have regarded such attacks as despicable : they have therefore treated them with silent ‘contempt. On this subject the author entertains a different opinion. i Though a pamphlet jn itself may be really insignificant ; and though, in the estimation of men of learning and talents, it may be truly contemptible ; yet, if, falling in with- the tide of popular prejudice, it be written in a bold declama- tory style, its effects may be pernicious. By treating such pamphlets with silent contempt, sufficient deference is not paid to the opinion of the world. Silence may be construed into conscious imbecility, and contempt into cowardice. With fresh increments of audacity, attacks may be reiterated, till the press at last teem with the crude eructations of every “assuming pedagogue.’’ By such considerations the author feels himself impelled to stand forward as the feeble » advocate of a cause which has long been despised—as the apologist of a society obscure and inconsiderable. The various and important ends and uses of creeds and confessions have been accurately exhibited, and ably de- fended, by divines of great eminence.. Dunlop on Confes- sions may be consulted with advantage. The writer of the following letters has confined himself to one single view of the subject ; and the chain of reasoning, which he has em- ployed, has at least one recommendation—it is, so far as he knows, new. : 7 7 ‘ Some may blame the author, because on all occasions he has not been careful to preserve his gravity: whilst others again, considering the spirit of the pamphlet on which he animadverts, may think that he is only too grave and serious. Whether he is actually guilty of running into ezther of these ‘ \ Vg 253 extremes, is not his province to determine. All he can say is, that attention to the golden medium has been his object. The principle upon which he proceeds, is—that reasoning ought to be refuted by argument ; but that satire is the only weapon with-which folly and impertinence can be success- fully assailed. The author hopes, that the candour of the reader will prevent him from identifying the Rev. Presby- terian with the Synod of Ulster, or imputing to that learned body the blunders, absurdities, and contradictions of one of its members. N othing can be more unfair, though nothing is more common, than to impute the errors of an individual to a whole community, With regard to the continuance of the controversy, the author has only to say, that he neither feels disposed to pro- voke, nor to deprecate discussion, He holds no principle which he has not previously examined in private, and which he is not willing to submit to a public examination. If the tenets of any other denomination can be clearly shown to ~be more agreeable to the word of God, he can have no in- terest in refusing to adopt them. As truth excels error, as far as light excels darkness—go, when she is exhibited hold- ing not only in her right hand spiritual blessings, but in her left riches and honour, surely they must be worse than fools who would refuse to embrace her, Should the Rey, Presbyterian, or any other gentleman, think proper to renew the attack, the author hopes that he will not, like Joab, carry his dagger under a cloak, for the purpose of stabbing in secret the characters of his superiors: wrapping himself up in ignominious obscurity, he will not attempt to screen himself from public chastisement, 22 LETTER 1. epltaiaivc TO THE REV. PRESBYTERIAN. ©” sir,” Tuat, both among the advocates and. opponents. of ereeds and confessions, men of great talents, learning and piety might be found, isa fact which I flattered myself none would dispute. In this it appears I have been mistaken. The advocates of creeds and confessions, in your Battle of Dialogues, you represent as a truly despicable race of mor; tals, you contemptuously style them creed-makers and ereed-mongers, whocoin formulas to measure men’s consci- ences, and you gravely inform us that ‘‘ ninety-nine out of a hundred who contend for creeds never think what, they are ; and ‘the few who do read them neyer think of the meaning of language.’’ What contemptible miscreants are these same advocates of creeds and confessions! Nine- ty-nine out of a hundred, though they subscribe them, and though they.contend for them, yet never read them! How implicit their faith! How blind their zeal!, ‘« And the few who do read them, never think of the meaning of language.” Still worse; a still lower degree of degradation} Hide your diminished heads, ye contemptible advocates of creeds and confessions. Never lift your pens—never'open your mouths—be for ever silent ; for ye never think of the mean- ing of language! With infinite contempt, Rev. Sir, you look down on the “ pitiable creatures who know not between — y i-h-e and t-h-e-y ;”’ and with proud disdain, mingled with pa- thetic lamentation, you stigmatize that ‘‘ most ungrammati- cal talking, which is frequently palmed on the people for preaching.” Surely, said I, (whilst meditating on these things) surely, said I, the writer of this dialogue is an admi- rable Scholar—an accurate grammarian—a profound philo- logist. In this; however, I confess, I found myselfa little dis- appointed. ‘The perusal of your pamphlet, I candidly ac- knowledge, did not altogether answer the expectations you — ae had raised. Glancing at your pages in a critical point of view, to my great astonishment I found them replete. with » grammatical blunders. For my own entertainment, I mark- | ed a number of them on the margin: and for your gratifi- | cation, I shall exhibit a specimen. * ee _ Page 6, line 6 from the bottom, the pronoun they is in the plural number, whilst Seceder, the noun for which it stands, is singular. On the contrary, page 19, line 12, the pronoun z is singular, whilst instructions, the noun for which it stands, is plural. Same page, line 7 from the bot- tom, the verb, must subscribe, has two nominatives, negro and he: on the contrary, page 9, line 4 from the bottom, the verb hope has no nominative at all ; for when two verbs of different moods or tenses are coupled together by a con- junction, the nominative of the former must be repeated be- fore the latter. Additional violations of this rule will be Seen, page 21, line 19, and page 30, line 10. In page 22, line 16 from the bottom; and page 45, line 2, examples will be seen of the verb disagreeing with its nominative case. A variety of other grammatical blunders might be pointed out ; but these may suflice at present. _ Let us attend a little to the style of your dialogue. Of your talents for composition you appear by no means diffi- dent. Whilst you reprobate the advocates of creeds and confessions, as ignoramuses who never think of the meaning of language, you speak, with apparent self-complacency, of the well ordered words you have used in a former dialogue. Of that dialogue, having never seen it,t I can only say, I hope its words are much better ordered than those of the one now under review. : Li HAAN US Epc ales se ART RO RTE SR * Omitting this letter, at least the grammatical part of it, the unlearn- ed reader uray pass on to Letter I. : ¥ Since writing the: above, the original Dialogue has fallen into my hands. For a specimen of the philological talents of its author, we have only to consult the bottom of the title page.—‘ Belfast, printed this present year, 1817.” Lest any persou should imagine that 1817 was not present when it was present; or lest any person should ima- gine that it was not printed 1817, A.D. but 1817, A.M.; or in other _ words, that it was printed in the days of Noah, a little after the univer- sal deluge—to prevent all misconceptions of this kind, the author * in _ words few and well ordered,” not only informs. us, that the pamphlet me was printed 1817 ; but gravely assures us that that year was then pre- sent. After such a specimen of accuracy in the title page, who can doubt that the Dialogue itself is admirably composed ? 256 In your Battle of Dialogues, page 14, we read thus; «« But there were many exceptions to the Talmud amongst the Jews? and we have every reason to believe, that Timo- thy andhis forefathers were of the number.”” Were Timothy and his forefathers exceptions to the Talmud? Are these words well ordered? are they sense? Same page, near the bottom, we are informed, that ‘‘ the birth of Jesus Christ, his person, &c. were handed down by the Holy Ghost through the instrumentality of the apostles.’’ Pray, sir, how was the person of Christ (as distinct from his preach- ing and doctrines, which are tautologically mentioned in — the same sentence,) how was the person of Christ handed down by the Holy Ghost, through the instrumentality of the apostles? Had you been a Rev. Catholic, instead of a Rev. Presbyterian, I would have at once recognised the doctrine of transubstantiation. ! In page 16, we are informed that “the Israelites had disagreed to walk according to God’s commandments.”’— To agree to walk according to the commandments of God, is perfectly intelligible ; but to disagree to walk according to these commandments, is neither English nor sense. Page 19, weare told, that «‘ though the Spirit was given to Jesus without measure, yet the apostles got it as it were step by step.”—-To get a gift, as it were step by step, is not English. Page 20, we read thus : “‘ you have now passed over the whole of his arguments.’’—The words passed over convey the erroneous idea, that he had not adverted to those argu- » ments at all.—Same page, at the bottom, you propose to put Layman in possession of a standard, which will answer in all engagements, and against all enemies. Now, what is this standard? It is the girdle of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the shoes of gospel preparation, &c. A very remarkable standard, indeed! One would expect, that the hero who fought the Battle of Dialogues would under- stand military terms better, than to confound a girdle, a breastplate, or a pair of shoes, with a standard ! Page 22, we read thus: Charity, or at least prudence, might have constrained your colleague from making such an attack, and from warping into it the motives, é&c. Not to mention constrained for restrained, which may possibly be only a typographical error—what a jumble of metaphors ! Warping motives into an attack! A very extraordinary = web, no doubt ! 257 Page 26, the Presbyterians of Scotland, and the protes- tants of England are styled the most learned assemblies in _ the world.—We know, that the Presbyterians of Scotland are under the inspection of a very learned assembly ; but are the Presbyterians themselves an assembly? Are the Protestants of England an assembly! Well ordered words indeed! iy. Page 13, we read thus: “On being asked, «Do you think that either the divine Jesus or his apostles, made use of any other standard of faith besides the scriptures ?’ he says, ‘1 am quite certain that they did.’ After such boldness, a person of plain sense would expect a quotation or two from that of which he isso certain.’’—Now, that of which he is so certain, is, ‘‘that the divine Jesus, and his apostles, made use of another standard besides the bible.” It is the truth of this proposition, of which he is so certain. To ex- pect a quotation or two from the truth of a proposition, is surely ludicrous enough! So absurd an expectation, ‘] am quite certain,’’ was never entertained by any person of plain sense. ‘Page 35, you express yourself thus : “ The ground of my loyalty is not founded on the countenance of govern- ment.’’ This sentence. when analysed, will read as fol- lows :—The foundation of my loyalty is not built on the foundation of the countenance of government. Well order- ed words indeed! | Campbell, in his Philosophy of Rhetoric, has a chapter on ‘‘ What is the cause that nonsense so often escapes be- ing detected, both by the writer and by the reader?” A careful perusal of this chapter I would earnestly recommend to all who read the Battle of Dialogues. The various kinds of nonsense enumerated by Campbell, are, The puerile, the ( learned, the profound, and the marvellous. With great sub- mission, I conceive the enumeration is incomplete: he ought to have added the pedantic. Inthe preceding pages, I have exhibited a few of the blunders, in grammar and in style, with which the Battle of Dialogues abounds, I say, a few; for, to exhibit them all, would swell this letter to a size much larger, than that ofthe Dialogueitself. ‘6 _ My Reverend and dear Presbyterian, I am extremely Sorry for your calamity. — Before you attacked the adyo- cates of creeds and confessions, you were doubtless an excellent scholar, an accurate grammarian; an acute philo- 258 - logist: but now, alas! your learning is fled—your talents are blasted. Asan atonement for your sin, by which you have brought upon yourself so awful a judgment, I shall take the liberty of prescribing for you a course of penance. It is this: that, at the first meeting of Synod, you come forth from your lurking place, with tears in your eyes, and the Battle of Dialogues in your hands, confessing yourself — to be the author of that performance. - Qdly;. That in open Synod you fall on your bended . knees, humbly begging the pardon of all the advocates of creeds and confessions, professing, at the same time, the deepest sorrow for the scurrilous manner in which you have treatedthem. | 3dly. That you bring forward a motion to the following effect :—That no member of the Synod of Ulster shall, on pain of public censure, presume to aitack the Westminster Divines, or any of the advocates of Creeds and Confessions, till, having previously studied Murray’s grammar, he is able to write a couple of pages without committing any material blunder. The utility of this motion you will easily perceive. In the first place, it may be the means of averting future judg- ments. In the second place, it will preserve the respecta- bility of the Synod. It will prevent that venerable and learned body from being disgraced by the incoherent effusions of every contemptible scribbler. In the third place, (for 1 love to be methodical) it will have an admirable effect upon pulpit exhibitions. It will prevent “‘’‘The most ungram- matical talking from being palmed on the people for preach- ing.”’- Those, you know, who write ungrammatically, will, of course, talk no better. And, indeed, either to write or talk ungrammatically, in this learned age, is quite intolera- ble, I had almost said unpardonable. With great propriety, therefore, you drop the tear of lamentation, whilst you express yourself thus: ‘‘ Alas! sir, you are well aware, that the most ungrammatical talking is frequently palmed on the people for preaching.’”’ It is true, indeed, that a bigoted Seceder or Covenanter would have probably said, alas! sir, you know that the most erroneous and heretical talking is frequently palmed on the people for preaching. Alas! sir, you know that ‘there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condem- nation ; ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the Lord God, and our Lord | Ba) iy ‘ “Saal ms 259 Jesus Christ.’’—Alas! sir, you know, that, for a long time past, ‘< false teachers have been privily bringing in damna~- ble heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing upon themselves swift destruction””—Alas ! sir, you know, that ‘many follow their pernicious ways, by reason af which the way of truth is evil spoken of.” Alas! sir, you know, “that, through covetousness,’? these false teachers, ‘‘ with feigned words, make merchandize of”’ their hearers.—Alas! sir, you know, that their « judg- ment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation | slumbereth not.’’ Alas! sir, you know, that because men ‘receive not the love of the truth, that they may be saved, for this cause God sends them strong delusion, that they may believe a lie; that they all may be damned who believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness. ’? Such, my dear sir, was current language seventeen or eigh- teen hundred years ago: nay, so rude are some of the old advocates of creeds and confessions, that they retain it even in the present day. You assure us, however, that the term heretic is used only as a bug-bear to frighten children ; and that the utmost we can expect of men is, ‘‘to act on _ their opinions.” We have no just reason, therefore, to a lament, that errors aad heresies are frequently palmed on the people for preaching. We have no reason to blame the propagators of these errors, heresies, and doctrines of devils. The utmost we can expect of them is, to act on their opinions. With regard to ungrammatical talkers, the case is quite different. For these there is no apology. The remedy ig obvious. Let them return and spend a few additional months at the grammar school—for the same purpose, let them peruse this letter, which I design for their edification. [ am, Sir, your sincere friend, And fellow-labourer in grammar, JOHN PAUL. SS he ee MTA Df aot CS ‘ MPG Lo. ovicinoh or-ottupel 260 LETTER IL. My dear Sir, | A The Rev. Covenanter, with whom you contend in your Battle of Dialogues, appears to be a very puny an- tagonist ; the simplest and_best-natured creature in the world. During the whole of the conflict he never strikes a single blow ; but when smote on the one cheek, with the greatest meekness and good humour, turns to you the other. ‘T'o be candid, sir, | am afraid you have mistaken your man : Tam afraid your antagonist is a Quaker, and not a Covenanter. Covenanters, I can assure you, are not quite so tame as represented in your dialogue. A mistake, not altogether unlike the one just mentioned, [am sure you have made, when you assert that the dialogue which occa- sioned yours was written by a teacher, and not by a layman. Of this mistake, should you call in question the authenticity of my information, you can be convicted in the most satis- factory manner. Equally groundless is your ungenerous suspicion that the Rev. Covenanter was a member of a mixed club, who often assembled to drill Layman. In vain, sir, has that gentleman employed almost the whole of his life, (including seven years at Glasgow college)—in vain, T say, has he employed almost the whole of his life in culti- vating talents of a superior order; if, after all, afraid of appearing in the public field of controversy, he skulks in obscurity, and dares only to carry on a clandestine and inglorious war. he truth is, your supposition that Lay- ~ man was drilled by the clergyman, is completely destroyed by your former assertion, that the layman was actually the clergyman in disguise. _Inyour controversy with Layman I do not design very formally to interfere. If you imagine you have fought a hard battle, and gained over him a signal victory, I shall not, unless in a few instances, attempt to pluck the laurels from your brow. I would only admonish you not to be too hasty in laying aside your armour ; for it does not appear to me, that the victory is quite so decisive. Your antago- nist may arise and renew the conflict. eo Be In your late Battle, had you acted merely on the de: fensive—had you only endeavoured to repel the attacks of Layman, J should never have entered the lists - but when — you carry on offensive operations against all creeds and — confessions, particularly the Westminster Confession of Faith, the National Covenant, the Solemn League and Covenant, together with that venerable assembly by which those ancient documents were compiled, I feel myself called an to take up the gauntlet—to stand forward in defence of principles and characters, which, in my humble opinion, are worthy to be held in the highest estimation, but which you have indecently and furiously assailed. The whole of your reasoning against creeds and con- fessions appears to me resolvable into that species of sophism which logicians style ignorantia elenchi, a mistake af the question. In page 10, you inform us, that the ques- tion is, ‘‘ Whether the word of God be a perfect rule of faith and manners.’ Now, sir, this is not the question at all. This never was the question. JI appeal to your own motto, «‘ The word of God, whichis contained in the scrip- tures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us, how we may glorify and enjoy him.”? This motto, which, by mistake, you quote from the Westminster - Confession of Faith, will be found in the Shorter Cate- chism. It contains an explicit declaration of the senti- ments of our Westminster Divines, with regard to the _ sufficiency and perfection-of scripture. It declares those sacred oracles to be, not, only the rule, but the only rule to. _ direct us in the glorification and enjoyment of God ; and if proves, beyond a doubt, that your statement is erroneous. Pray, sir, what advocate of creeds and confessions ever ~ ealled’ in question either the perfection or infallibility of _ scripture? For what purpose, then, do you again, and | again, and again, talk about the perfection of scripture, and the infallibility of scripture—about mending that which is perfect, adding to infallibility, &c. What a waste of time and paper! On these points there is no dispute. You have fought, indeed, a hard battle ; but with whom? Not with the advocates of creeds and confessions, but with cer- _ tain imaginary beings, who deny the perfection and infalli- d _hility of scripture! In a word, you have set up a man of ‘Straw, and over him you have gained a signal victory ! _. In reply to these observations, you will doubtless exclaim. _ Of what use, then, are human creeds and confessions ?. 262 Tanswer, they are useful, not for mending the word of God, not for adding to its perfection or infallibility, not as a rule of faith and manners—but they are useful, as they as- sist us in applying the rule of God’s word ;' they are useful as they assist us in understanding each other, with regard to the ideas we attach to the word of God—for these pur- poses, I contend, they are useful, and not only useful, but necessary. © ' eet Gib sti omom F ' The controversy about creeds and confessions may be reduced, if I mistake not, to very narrow limits, thus: Rither a simple profession of faith in the scriptures (so far as belief is concerned,) is sufficient to entitle to the privileges of the Christian church, or it is not. [f such a profession is sufficient, then creeds and confessions are unnecessary ; if it 7s noé sufficient, then both the necessity and utility of creeds and confessions are fully established. Now, my dear sir, as you talk so much of the sufficiency, perfection, and infallibility of scripture, T ask you, Do you imagine that a simple profession of faith in the scriptures, is sufficient to entitle to the privileges of the Christian church? Were a person to apply to you for admission, and, upon his application, declare that he believed’ the scriptures to be the word of God, and, of course, that he believed: all the doctrines contained in that sacred volume, - would you regard this declaration as‘perfectly satisfactory ? —as perfectly sufficient to entitle him to admission ? Upon this principle, would you actually admit him? If you say you would, and prove that in doing so your conduct would be proper, you have gained yout péint : the controversy is ended. But, my dear sir, do you'Niot perceive, that if a simple profession of faith in the scriptures were all that is necessary to qualify for admission, the most erroneous and fanatical persons that ever lived could never be excluded. Those who “ give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, forbidding to marry, and abstaining from meats,” must all be adinitted into your community. Those who — hold the doctrine ‘of the Nicolaitanes, and contend for a community of wives; and those who plead for polygamy, divorce, and even fornication, must all be received. Those who deny the Christian ‘sabbath, baptism, the Lord’s sup- per, the preaching of the werd, and even the obligation of the moral Jaw of God, must all become members of your society. ‘Those who believe the Redeemer to be the Su-_ eC prenye God ; those who believe him to be a superangelic " eae - 263 being ; those who believe him to be a mere man, a pecca- _ ble being like ourselves; and those who believe that he had - no human nature at all, that his incarnation, death, resur- rection, and ascension, were all imaginary—all these must. be admitted by you to the enjoyment of the most solemn ordinances. If they profess their faith in the scriptures, you cannot refuse them. Dancers, Dunkers, J umpers, and Shakers, must all be admitted into your community. | If they profess their belief in the scriptures, you can ask no more ; yourself being judge, ‘‘ the utmost, that can be ex- pected of them is, to act on. their opinions.’’ Of course, When public worship commences, your alleys must ibe cleared, that the dancers may ‘‘ trip it on the light fantas- tic toe ;’’ whilst the J umpers and Shakers, having stripped off their clothes, leap till their heads strike the joists of your galleries, and their bodies fall down jn convulsions before you. tone Nor must you by any means refuse admission to the Fla- gellantes, who believe that salvation can only be obtained by faith and whipping. Presume not to deny them the most effectual means of their salvation—the cat-o’-nine-tails.— Whilst, with energy and zeal, they exercise their godly dis- __Cipline, and vigorously persevere in their pious flagellations, dare not to interfere. ‘The utmost you can. expect of them is, to act on their opinions.’? is , _ Suppose the next class of candidates for admission to be the Circoncelliones... With the clubs of Israel in ther hands, and the war-whoop of « Praise be to God” in their mouths, these ancient fanatics sallied forth in. frantic fury. As * vindicators of Justice, and protectors. of the oppres- ed,” they, enfranchised slaves, discharged debtors, cancelled bonds, and forced masters to exchange situations with their _ servants. With the clubs of Israel (for they used no swords, our Saviour having forbidden the use of one to Peter,) with, the clubs of Israel, breaking the. bones of their vie _ tims, and pouring into their eyes a solution of quick-lime and yinegar, they left them to perish in the utmost ‘agonies. - Violating. their vows. of chastity, they gave, themselves up to wine, and every species of impurity. At last, by volun- tary martyrdom, or suicide, they, terminated,a series of un exampled atrocities—These, no doubt, you would consider a coarse description of Christians... But what could you fo? If willing to:subscribe the scriptures, you could not 264 refuse them. ‘*The utmost’ you could expect of them would be, to act on their opinions.” — ~The Adamites, the Cainites, the Serpentarians, and Sa- tanians, must all be admitted members of your society. It is true, the tenets of the Adamites might, perhaps, dis- please you a little— particularly the fundamental maxim of their society, ‘‘ Jura, perjura, secretum prodere noli’”’— Swear, forswear, and reveal not the secret. Whilst they strenuously maintain, that it is highly improper to marry, or to wear any clothes, you must not presume to condemn their tenets ; for, according to your own doctrine, you are fallible as well as the Adamites ; you are as liable and’as likely to be mistaken, as they. In imitation of old father Adam, you must allow them the privilege of appearing in your assembly naked. ‘+The utmost you can. expert of them is, to act on their opinions.” Upon the same principle, I conclude, you are by far too liberal, to exclude from your community, the sect of the Cainites. You would not condemn this sect, for holding in the highest veneration such worthy characters as Cain, Corah, Dathan, Abiram and the Sodomites, but particu- larly J udas Iscariot, who was singularly useful in betraying the Redeemer, by whose blood we are saved! Nor must you, by any means, reject the Serpentarians, who venerate the serpent that beguiled Eve, supposing it to “be the son of God! Nor could you refuse the right hand of fellowship to the good old Satanians, who very wisely considered, that as the _ Devil was a being of great power, it was a dictate of prudence to venerate and adore him, You must not con- demn any of these tenets; for you are a fallible being, as liable and as likely to err, as any Serpentarian or Satanian in the world. «“ The utmost you could expect of such cha- - acters, is, to act on their opinions.” The Amsdorfians asserted, that’ good works were not only unprofitable, but: obstacles to our salvation. The Beguines maintained, that when once we are united to God, we arrive at a state, not only of sinless perfection, but impeceability—that we may indulge all our appetites and passions without restraint—that the greatest enormi- ties are perfectly innocent—and that we are bound by no Jaws, neither civil nor‘ecclesiastical, The Libertines contended, that God was the immediate — \ - 265 author of every action—that, properly speaking, there was: _ no such thing as sin, nor any essential difference between right and wrong—that we might indulge all our appetites and passions without restraint—that, all our actions and pur- suits were perfectly imnocent—that our blessed Redeemer ~ was nothing more than a mere je ne scai quoi,* composed of the Spirit of God and the opinion of man. : Now, Sir, is it not evident, that, upon your principles, Amsdorfians, Beguines, and Libertines, must all be admit- ted and recognised as church members? Professing to _ believe in the word of God, you could not refuse them. Nor - could you at all condemn their tenets. Why ?—You will - answer the question yourself. You are ‘as fallible, as lia- ble, and as likely to err,’’ as any Beguine, Amsdorfian, or Libertine in the world. ‘The utmost we can expect of men is, to act on their opinions-”’ To render your church a little more respectable, you might have. a few Stylites, or pillar-saints... These worthy characters, like St. Simeon Stylites, perched on the tops of towers forty or fifty cubits high, might stand there motion- less for thirty or forty years. The elevated piety and ex- alted devotion of these anchorites, could not fail to excite universal admiration: they would undoubtedly be looked up to by Christians of every description. Should our Rey. Presbyterian prove a little sceptical, and attempt to bring down from his high station one of these exalted characters, the anchorite might quote his authority thus: ‘I will set me on my tower, &c.’’ Continuing still a little sceptical, - Should your Reverence remonstrate with him—assure him that this was a perversion of scripture—and attempt. to substitute your own interpretation, his high mightiness might rejoin: According to your own doctrine, you are as fallible, as liable, and as likely to err, as any pillar saint. ‘« One interpretation may be as good as another.’’ Mine may, therefore, be as good as yours. I will not come down. _ Thus, Sir, it appears, that upon your principles, persons whose opinions are the most fanatical, the most erroneous, the most immoral, the most impious and abominable, must all be admitted, and recognised as church members : profess- - ing their faith in the scriptures, they cannot be rejected. tase * T know not what. 9 a> 266 Of the heterogeneous materials of sucha church, the popu- lation of Noah’s ark would be only a faint representation.’ So far from living together in love and peace, the whole ' British army could not restrain them ‘from ‘cutting each Others’ throats. From sucha chureh ‘‘ Good Lord deliver us.”? If this be liberality, let me for ever remain a bigot.* In the preceding pages, I have endeavoured to point out the consequences; which'naturally, and in my humble opin- ion, necessarily follow from the position, that a. profession - 6f belief in the scriptures, is all that ‘is necessary to entitle’ to the privileges of the Christian church. :' ‘The consequen* ces | have inferred, I humbly conceive, naturally and neces sarily follow from the premises. Sorry, however, ‘would I be to insinuate, that ‘my friend, the Rev.» Presbyterian, would acknowledge these consequences. Pcan assure you, my dear sir, that I hope better things of ‘you. «I -flatter myself, that you were not aware of the consequences, to which the principles laid’ down in your dialogue: would: naturally lead you. IT cannot believé; Sir, that upon them acknowledgment of the scriptures, you would profess your- self willing to hold communion with all descriptions ‘of men, however immoral, impious, or abominable their tenets. oo Though Latitudinarian and sceptical principles/are fre~ quently palmed on the world under ‘the specious’ guise of liberality and charity ; yet I do not believe there’ is any Rev. Presbyterian hardy enough to avow the consequences mentioned above. | Loup 3 iat esiagoman: 64! Now, Sir, if you grant (and I am confident yourwill) that on a bare profession of their belief in the ‘scriptures, “you would'not admit to church fellowship ‘such characters’ as mentioned above, I have gained my point. The utility and necessity of creeds and confessions follow’ of: course ; and all your reasoning falls to the ground, or’may be easily re- torted. A Nicolaitane, fur instance, applies'to ‘yow for ad- mission. You inform him, that ‘he’ cannot be admitted,’ so long as he pleads for a community of wives. He replies, that in the days of the apostles, they had aij’ things common. You begin to explain this portion, and to point out the absurdity of his opinion. He answers: «The Bible: is my éreed. I am willing to subscribe the ‘word of: God ; HT am willing to ‘seal it with ‘my ‘blood : but’ I am not ‘willing to subscribe your doctrines or opinions. The bible is infallible; your opinions are fallible—if_ God’s word be an infallible standard, can you add to infallibility? ‘The word of God is a perfect rule; measure me by that; but \ t2ah it} 267 Y will not submit to be measured by the imperfect rule of _ your opinions. ‘No man, or body of men, has a right to prescribe any other terms of communion between Christ _ and me, than those which he himself hath prescribed ; which ‘terms are a belief in his doctrines as contained in Revela- tion. ' Nay, further, however innocent you may presume ‘yourself to be, you are guilty of rebellion against the person of Christ, as the king: and head of the church, and of pre- - @umptuously making additions. to that which he has pro- nounced perfect. You might as well set up acandle, when the sun is in his splendour, as your opinion, where the gos- pel shines. You should never dare to dictate to me, what I am to believe. Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who art thou 2” io Pig on ad Thus, Sir, you see that a Nicolaitane, or any other person af erroneous principles, when refused admission, might, in ‘your own words, retort upon you all your invectives against creeds and confessions. The reason is obvious : the moment you refuse admission to any person on account of his tenets, you are, by your own acknowledgment, setting up ‘* your conscience against his conscience, your opinion against his opinion. You are setting up your interpretation.of scripture, as the confession, of his faith—as a creed to measure his ‘onscience. You area fallible, uninspired man, as liable and likely to mistake and wrest the true sense of scripture, as any of those for whom you are contriving tests, and ex- cluding under the name of heretics: and yet, fallible and uninspired as you are, we must suppose you to be wiser and more merciful than God, and capable of delivering his mind and will in terms more clear, express, and unexceptionable, than Jesus Christ himself.—Still farther ; if the Nicolaitane is willing to subscribe the scriptures, though in an unscrip- tural sense, what then, I ask, should hinder him from sub- scribing your interpretation in the same manner ? If he will deal treacherously with the words of God, why not much more so with the words of man ?”’—with the words of the Rev. Presbyterian ? Thus, Sir, you see the dilemma in which you are involved. If, upon their simple profession of faith in the scriptures, you refuse to admit persons of the most impious and abomi- nable principles, you have given up your cause; you are acting upon;the principles of creeds and confessions. All _ your own reasoning recoils upon yourself; and I may justly address you in the words of the apostle. Therefore, thou 268 art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest ‘another thou condemnest thyself, for thou that judgest dost the same things. : But, if, on the contrary, you say, that upon their ac- knowledgment of the scriptures, you would admit persons of all descriptions, however immoral, impious, and abomi- nable their principles—and particularly, that you would admit the Nicolaitane mentioned above, you stand reproved by the Spirit of God, Rey. ii. 14—17, “« But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of, Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stum- bling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacri- ficed to idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.’’ Read the words of your Redeemer in the 16th verse, and tremble as you read : ‘* Repent or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. He that hath an ear let him hear what the spirit saith unto the churches,’’. Were it necessary I might quote a variety of other texts, in which the previous Lati- tudinarian principle.is condemned ; but till once some person appear in public, bold enough to avow that principle, I shall not proceed any farther in its refutation, The principles of Latitudinarians stand condemned by - common sense, as well as by the word of God; for how can two walk together except they be agreed ?* , * Notwithstanding the abuse you have poured upon Layman for quoting this text in favour of creeds and testimonies, I haye ventured to commit the same crime. In this verse, and those that follow, the premises only are laid down; they are all incontrovertible truths, dic- tates of common sense. The literal meaning of the text quoted is, How can two men walk together except they be agreed? The conclu- sion to be inferred is, therefore how can God and his people walk togeth- er, &c. The validity of the conclusion depends upon the truth of the premises—upon the truth of that maxim, ‘* That no twomen can walk together, except they are agreed.”—-Your commentary on the text concludes thus: What folly to rub the dust off our bibles, while weonly read half sentences! My dear Sir, did you really believe that the text was a half sentence? or did you wish to impose that belief upon Lay- man ? Djd you really think, that the hue and cry you had raised in the beginning of the paragraph, together with the notes of admiration ap- pended to the end of it, would terrify Layman out of his senses, so that he would be unable to distinguish between a half sentence and a whole one ? Trust me, dear Sir, we should not calculate too much on the’ stupidity of laymen. Some centuries ago, their confidence in the ipse dixit of a clergyman was much more implicit thanitis at present. Of 269 How can thousands and tens of thousands whose princi ples and practices are the most heterogeneous, discordant, and opposite—as opposite as light and darkness, Christ and: Belial—how can thousands and millions of such characters walk together in love and peace? Sooner may we expect to see wolves and lambs, leopards and kids, foxes and geese, laying aside their natural antipathies, and uniting in one amicable and harmonious commonwealth ! ~ It must be confessed, however, that though Latitudinarian principles are inconsistent with scripture and common sense ; they are nevertheless perfectly consistent with themselves. If persons of all descriptions, upon the adoption of the bible as their creed, ought to be admitted to church fellowship, it follows, of course, that human creeds and confessions fall to the ground. ; ) Nor is it at all strange, that men of corrupt minds, who — walk in craftiness, handle the word of God deceitfully, and corrupt the Gospel of Christ—it is not at all strange, that such characters should cordially hate, and vigorously oppose, all creeds and confessions. Those who bring in damnable heresies, the apostle assures us, do it privily ; they ‘ creep in unawares.”’ But creeds and confessions tear _ off the mask, and expose to public odium those, who, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, lie in wait to. deceive. To suchmen, creeds and confessions are no less odious, than locks and bars to nightly depredators. Such characters, I say, in their opposition to creeds and confes- sions, act consistently, and as might be expected. But creeds and confessions are opposed by vast numbers of a. very different description—by individuals, and by commu- nities, strongly attached to the doctrines of the gospel, and firmly resolved, not to open the doors of the church for the reception of those, whom they regard as heretical. Such characters do themselves, what they condemn in others.— Between them and the advocates of creeds and confessions the difference is merely circumstantial. Whenever they exclude an erroneous person, they do it on the principle of a creed, as we have already observed. They exclude him, Nts late, they appear very much in the habit of thinking for themselves. And, indeed, it must be confessed, that to see the Jaymap- walking in the path of common sense, whilst the clergyman is wandering from jt, and completely bewildered, is no uncommon case. RAGE: Q3* ' 270 not because he refuses to profess his faith in the scriptures, but because, they conceive he has not correct views of the Scriptures. Their own views are exhibited to him as. a con- — fession of faith, which he is requested to subscribe. If he cannot acquiesce in these views, he is refused admission. For instance, if he refuse to profess his faith in the su- preme deity of the Redeemer—his atonement—the depra- vity of nature—the efficacy of grace, &c. he cannot be admitted. Now all these doctrines, be they what they may, are so many articles of their creed. The difference be- tween it and ours, (as I have already observed,) is merely circumstantial, and the balance appears decidedly in our favour. Theirs is a verbal creed, ours a printed one.— Theirs private, ours public. Theirs exhibited by obscure individuals, ours by a learned and venerable assembly of divines. Every candidate for admission with us, has an opportunity of examining our creed at. his leisure. He may pause, ponder, sift, and compare every article with the word of God. In joining those who have no public creed he has not this privilege. He has not the same advantage for becoming acquainted with the principles of those into whose society he is about to enter. Of course, the union cannot be supposed so complete, nor the communion so comfortable. To the reasoning employed in the preceding pages, it may be objected, that I have not attempted to prove the neces- sity or utility of creeds and confessions from the word of God. In reply to this objection, I would observe, that if the Latitudinarian scheme, which I have in the preceding pages, endeavoured to expose, stands condemned by the word of God, it follows, of course, that crceds and con-. fessions, by the same divine word, are fully recognised and established. Between the Latitudinarian scheme, and the adoption of creeds and confessions, I have endeavoured to prove that there is no medium. — It necessarily follows, that the condemnation of the one, is the recognition and establishment of the other. Should this answer, to persons. accustomed to close thinking, appear not altogether satis- factory, in confirmation of it I would ask a few questions. Are we not commanded to reject a heretic? Were not the Asiatic churches reprimanded for not excluding erro- neous persons? Are we not commanded to speak the same things? to be perfectly joined together in. the same mind and the same judgment, &c.? Now, sir; I presume 271 it will be a task too hard for you, or any man, to show, how it is possible to obey these injunctions, upon any other prin- ciple, than that of the adoption of creeds and confessions. If we throw open the door of the church for the reception of persons of the most opposite, jarring and heretical opi- nions, it is evident, we do so in direct violation of the above mentioned precepts: -on the other hand, if we ex- clude any, on account of their opinions, we must do it by acreed. Our views of scripture are a creed, and we ex- clude them because they do not acquiesce in these views. It follows, of course, that if we have any authority in scrip- ture for the exclusion of heretical persons, we have. the Same authority for the use of a creed ; because it is only by a creed that any person can possibly be excluded. Our creed may be a verbal one, a written one, or a printed one, (the difference is not essential, ) but still it is only by the medium of a creed we can possibly obey the above scrip- ture precepts. 1 am, Sir, a notorious creed-monger : but, at the same time, ie ) Your sincere friend, And very humble servant, JOHN PAUL, LETTER III. Rev. and dear Sir, Having, in the preceding letter, from principles. both of scripture and reason, endeavoured to prove, not only the utility, but also the necessity of creeds and confessions, I shall in the present, briefly advert to a few of the most plausible things you have. said-in Opposition to the cause which I advocate. Page 19, you conclude, that ‘ when there are twenty different. confessions, nineteen of them must be wrong,” With equal force of reasoning, you might infer that when there are twenty pictures, (suppose of Bonaparte) nineteen. of them must be, badly executed, and only one of them a true likeness. . Nay, farther, if such a mode of reasoning be legitimate, the blasphemous, consequence would follow, AY that only one of the four gospels contains a true biographi- cal account of our blessed Redeemer! Creeds may be dif- ferent, but not opposite: notwithstanding apparent or cir- cumstantial differences, there may be, upon the sbi an astonishing agreement. Page 24, you reason thus: «‘ But let us suppose ‘the ut- mrost, that your human cfeed, or test, whatever it may be, contains the true sense of scripture, yet still it is incompre- hensible how i should be any remedy against heresy, or any means of detecting the heretic more than the scriptures themselves. » Heretics, you allow, will readily subscribe the scriptures, though in an unscriptural sense ; and what then, T ask, should hinder them from subscribing human creeds and tests in the same manner? If they will deal treach- erously with the word of God, why not much more so with the words of men! !” This argument, being a remarkable one, you very wisely set off by two notes of admiration. With reverence and awe let us approach it! When you talk of heretics deal- ing treacherously with the word of God, what do you mean ? Do you mean that all heretics are hypocrites—that they do wot believe what they profess—that they do not believe their tenets to be founded on the word of God? If this be your meaning, allow me to inform you that a bigoted Covenanter is more liberal in his ideas respecting heresy, than the Rev. Presbyterian. If it is essential to the character of a here- tic that he is condemned of his own conscience, he never could be known, and of course could never be rejected. Would a heretic tell the world that he was acting in oppo- sition to the dictates of conscience? It would be absurd to suppose it. How then could any person ascertain the fact? It would be impossible. The truth is, that, however false and erroneous the tenets of heretics, we have no reason to imagine that they do not believe them. On the contrary, we are assured by the highest authority, that because men receive not the love of the truth, for this cause God gives them over to strong delusions—to believe lies. Their tenets are lies ; but they actually believe them. They believe them to be founded on the word of God ; and, there- fore, they can profess their. faith in the scriptures without any violation of the dictates of conscience. With regard to a human creed, the case may be different. We shall illustrate by an example. Suppose a person, such as Hy- meneus, Philetus, or one of the Corinthian «gaa applies 273 to you for admission. You ask him what he believes con- cerning the resurrection? He replies that he believes what the scriptures teach on that subject. You inquire still far- ther, do you believe that the dead bodies of men, both of the righteous and the wicked, shall, at the last day, be raised from their graves, and united to their souls, never more to be ‘separated ? He answers, 1 believe no such thing—lI believe that. the resurrection mentioned in scrip- ture is to be understood in a spiritual or mystical sense ; all that is intended by itis only a resurrection from sin, &c. This, I believe, is what the scripture teaches. The scrip- tural account I am willing to subscribe ; but I will not sub- scribe your creed. — se 5 Thus, my dear Sir, it appears to me quite easy to con- ceive how a human creed might shut the door of the church against a heretic, whilst the scriptures themselves would be ~ no obstruction. Indeed, I acknowledge, that when the tide of self-interest sets strongly in, creeds, confessions, scripture and conscience, frequently prove but feeble bar- riers. The exclusion of such characters will always be found difficult in proportion to the temptations of wealth and agerandizement. No wonder, therefore, ifthe English esta- blishment answer the laconic description of Pitt: “‘ A Cal- — vinistic creed, a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy.” In a word, it is not creeds, but royal emoluments, that make men deal treacherously with the words both of God and man. Page 18th, Covenanter asks: ‘: Do you not honestly think that it is necessary for men to be on their guard with respect to the solemn subject of religion?’ To this you reply : «‘ Most assuredly I do: and as these subjects will not run out of the bible more than the stars out of the heavens, we should imitate the example of navigators, who never steer by a blaze, and always endeavour to make ad- vances in science by viewing the heavenly bodies as they are arranged by God, and not as they are fancied to be by this man or that. All aid is fair ; but whatever the systems be, they will best appear in the volume of nature, which cannot be touched, and the volume of revelation, which ought not to be assorted. Hach object will appear best in its own situation ; and the moment you remove it to any other, it becomes deformed, and leaves a breach behind. Take, for example, a particular verse out of one of the gos- _ pels, and who can tell its meaning by itself, or discover the 274 sense of the whole, once it is removed 2”? But why, my dear Sir, did you dismiss this paragraph without the usual insignia ? If the former one was judged: worthy of two notes of admiration, surely this was fully entitled to at least half a dozen. In the commencement of it ‘you talk of sub- jects running out of the bible, and stars running out of the heavens—a very remarkable race indeed! The Olympic course never exhibited one so interesting. You then inform us, that we should imitate the example of navigators, who never steer by a blaze. If this be so, then down with all | light-houses.. You next assure us, that navigators always endeavour to make advances in science by viewing the heavenly bodies as they are arranged by God, and not.as they are fancied to be by this man or that. Pray sir, is there a single navigator on the face of the earth who is no way indebted to human systems? When once you have convinced the world of the impropriety of studying naviga- tion by the help of books and systems—when. once you have persuaded navigators to throw away these helps, and to study the art merely by consulting the volume of nature ; then let creeds and confessions be for ever exploded, and let the bible and the volume of nature be the only two books in the universe !—But, ‘« O,’’ says the Rev. Presbyterian, _“ all aid is fair.” A very candid confession indeed! It is alll ask. Indeed it is much more than I could have possi- bly expected. All aid is fair; then doubtless the aid of creeds and confessions is fair. Ifall aid is fair in studying the volume of nature, why not in studying the volume of revelation? My dear sir, had you duly considered the im» port of these four monosyllables, « ail aid is fair,”’ you would have thrown down your arms, and the Battle of Dialogues had never been fought, But the Rev. Presbyterian is not so easily driven off the field. As if my friend had made no concession, with undaunted courage he proceeds to observe, “whatever the system be, they will best appear in the vo- lume of nature which cannot be touched, and the volume of Revelation which ought not to be assorted.” But, in the name of common sense, what does my friend mean by the volume of nature which cannot be touched? Of this new volume. I solemnly declare, that down to the present moment, I have never heard one single syllable. It is only with the old volume of nature which can be touched that I am acquainted. This old volume, Sir, according to my dyll apprehension, we all touch—we cannot avoid touching 275 for we are living in constant contact with it. Nay, more; of this old tangible volume both the Rev. Presbyterian, and his humble servant, are constituent parts. ! - Philosophieally remarking, that the volume of nature cannot be touched, and theologically observing, that’ the volume of reyelation ought not to be assorted, you assure us, that whatever the systems be, they will best appear in these two volumes. Here again, I must confess my ignio- rance. I must candidly acknowledge, that I never before knew, that any system, but the true ones, would appear _ best, either in the volume of nature or revelation. Accord- ing to you, it is no matter what these systems are, whether they be true or false ; you assure us that whatever they be, they will best appear in these two volumes. Pray, Sir, do you really think, and are you perfectly sure, that not only the Copernican or Newtonian system ; but that the old ex- ploded systems of Ptolemy and Des Cartes, will best appear in the Volume of nature? Do you really believe, that the Socinian, Arian, Arminian, Calvinistic, Antinomian sys tems—nay, that all the systems of divinity, that ever were written, will best appear in the volume of Revelation? If © you believe all this, (and you have boldly asserted it) you are much more credulous thau any of the advocates of creeds and confessions. They really believe, that various " systems, exhibited both by philosophers and divines, are so far from appearing best in the volumes of nature and Reve- lation, that they do not appear in those volumes at all, Nay, farther ; they verily believe, that many of those sys tems have no existence in nature, but only in the bewilder- ed imaginations of their blinded votaries. : With great sagacity you go on to observe, that <‘each object will appear best in its own situation, and the mo- ment you remove it to any other it becomes deformed, and leaves a breach’ behind.” That each of the stars. planets, &c. appears best in the situation assigned to it by the Almighty, I readily admit; but how it would appear, when removed from that situation, Iam not at present pre- pared to say. You assure us that it would appear deform. ed—it may be so. Covenanters, not being <* great astrom -omers,”’ have not yet begun to pluck the planets from their orbits.” Of course, I can'say very little on this sub- ~ feet. - - But) when you talk of removing objects from one sitrra- tion to another, perhaps you mean not stars or planets, but i : 276 | objects in this lower world : Your language indeed implies’ both ; but, as we cannot always ascertain your meaning from your words, perhaps you had no thought of removing a star or planet, but only terrestrial objects, such as trees, flowers, stones, &&c. Now, my dear sir, do youreally think, that trees and flowers become deformed, in consequence: of their removal from the forest to the orchard or flower garden? Dostones become deformed, when removed from the quarry to occupy a place in the splendid edifice? Say, ye botanists, ye florists, and ye architects, is this doctrine true? is it true, that the moment ye remove any object from its own situation to another, it becomes deformed ? If so—on the face of this globe can ye find no better em- ployment, than to render deformed the works of your Maker ! _The truth is, that in Astronomy, Natural history, Botany, Chemistry—in every department of science and of art, classification and arrangement are absolutely necessary. In every branch of literature the necessity of systematic arrangement is universally felt. Even to the Rev. Presby- terian himself, the hero who fought the Battle of Dialogues, I would recommend a little more attention to classification and arrangement. The Duke of Wellington will inform him, that, without strict attention to order and arrange ment, he had never gained the victory in the Battle of Waterloo; and I can assure my friend, that unless in all his future military operations he display more attention to order than formerly, he needs never dream of conquering the Westminster Divines. . _ _ My Rey. and dear Presbyterian, I do not think it strange, that you oppose classification—(I do not mean clerical clas- sification, or the classification of regium donum,)—I do not think it strange, that you oppose classification, both in theory and practice ; for, to be candid, I am afraid you have not asingle correct ideaon the subject. Do you reallyimagine, that there can be no such thing as classification or arrange- ment without removing objects from their own situation to another, and leaving a breach behind? Is it not possible, for instance, to classify the stars or planets without plucking. ' them from their respective systems, rendering them deform- ed, and leaving a breach behind them ? In like manner, is it not possible to quote texts of scripture, and to classify and arrange those texts, without rendering them deformed, and leaving a breach in the sacred volume? ‘*'Take, for exam- Q277 ple,”’ say you, ‘a particular verse out of one of the gospels, and who can tell its meaning by itself, or discover the sense of the whole, once it is removed?” I confess, my dear friend, ‘that I do not like this example at all. “Take a particular verse out of one of the Gospels.’” {No, sir, I would not take a particular verse out of one of the Gospels forthe whole world. For, “ people turn all they touch into error and misrepresentation, and then raise the cry of absurd assertion against their neighbours ?”” Your readers may now judge what credit is due to the following sweeping assertions. ‘‘ There is not a single chapter in the confession of faith, to support which some passages have not been wrested from their ori- 293 ginal meaning—even if its doctrines were true, there 19 constant misapplication of scripture to support them.’’— Such assertions as these, published by a man confessedly under the influence of exasperated indignation, and con- victed of the grossest misrepresentation, will not be admit- ted as suflicient proof, that the Westminster divines were the most ignorant and dishonest men in the world. Say, my dear sir, does it not argue a weak—a desperate cuuse, when, in defence of it, you are obliged to brandish such disgraceful weapons? Why did you not allow the Westminster divines to speak for themselves? Why did you not lay before the public those texts they had quoted in proof of their doctrine? Why did you basely suppress those texts adduced by them to prove. that predestination was not founded on foreseen faith and good works? Were you afraid that those texts would flash conviction in the faces of your readers? To me, I coniess, it appears very difficult to conceive how any person, not previously biassed in favour of a system, could read those texts, and not be- lieve the doctrine true. We are said to be “chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, é&c.’? We were chosen, not because we were foreseen to be holy, but that we should be holy. From this very text, is it not demonstrably evident, that our holiness was not the foundation of our election, but our election the foundation of our holiness? Hence it is styled « an elec- tion of grace—and if it be of grace, it isno more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.’’ Such is the uniform language of scripture. In favour of foreseen faith and - good works there is not a single text in the bible. Rom. viii. 29, 30, the only one on which you seem to rely, is per- fectly silent on the subject. It does not say that God pre- destinated to life those, who he foreknew would believe, and perform good works. This is what you would proba- bly say ; but the scriptures say no such thing, Whatever be the meaning of the phrase, ‘“‘ whom he did foreknow,” the Arminian* gloss cannot be the true one. That predes- tination is not founded on foreseen faith and good works, is demonstrably evident from this—that faith and good works, « upon Arminian principles, cannot possibly be foreseen.— * * The term Arminian is used merely as a term of ‘distinction, not of 25* | §eproach. 294 Arminians maintain that it depends upon the self-determin- ing power of the will, whether any person believe or do good works. Upon their principles, every individual per- son may refuse to believe. Now, if any individual may re- fuse to believe, ald may refuse to believe. According to this scheme it was possible, that not one promise made to the Redeemer, with regard to the salvation of. sinners, should ever be fulfilled—it was possible that the Redeemer - should never see ‘one of his seed—one of the travail o his soul ;’”? it was possible that notwithstanding all our Me- diatorhas done andsuffered, not one single soul should ever belicve—that not one single soul should ever be saved—it was possible that all mankind might continue in unbelief and wickedness, and perish eternally ! 3 Now, I would be glad to know, how it was possible for God to have a certain foreknowledge of those. who should believe and do good works, when it was possible that none would ever believe or do good works. Believe me, dear sir, had your prudence been equal to your ‘‘ exasperated indignation,’’ you would have studiously avoided any com troversy about the foreknowledge of God. Arminians have laboured for ages, but laboured in vain, to reconcile their system with this divine attribute. Tillotson, Groves, Abernethy, Dr. Sam. Clarke, and a whole host of philoso- phers and divines, have exerted their combined energies, and exhausted their gigantic powers, in fruitless efforts to accomplish this more than herculean labour. The present , Jearned and acute Doctor Adam Clarke has not been a whit more successful than his predecessors. «! We grant,’’ says the Doctor, “‘ that God foresees nothing as absolutely and inevitably certain, which he has made contingent : and because he has designed it to be contingent, therefore he cannot know it as absolutely and inevitably certain. I con-> clude, that God, although omniscient, is not obliged, in consequence of this, to know all that he can know ; no - more than he is obliged, because he is omnipotent, to do all that he can do.”’? This is to cut, but not to loose, the Gordian knot—it is the dernier resort—the forlorn hope of Arminians—it is to deny one of the perfections of God, rather than give up a favourite system. ~ Though, in words, the learned Dr. acknowledges the omniscience of God ; yet, in fact, he denies that attribute. If the deity is not pos sessed of the actual knowledge of all things, but only of the power of knowing all things, he is not omniscient. To oie er alt Se} ae a © Sit ORT ee Le = "2 ¢ q ps - : 295 say that the supreme Being has a power of acquiring know- ledge, is the same as to say, that at one period of his ex _istence he may be comparatively ignorant, and at another period more knowing—that his knowledge may increase with his years, and that he may become wiser as he grows older! If the deity is capable of any accessions of power, he is not. omnipotent; in like manner, if he is capable of any accessions of knowledge, he is not omniscient. To say that God is omniscient, and yet deny that he must know all things, is a contradiction in terms. It. is as great a contra- diction, as to maintain that he is omnipotent, and yet deny that he must be possessed of all power. To say that the deity is not possessed of all power, is to deny his omnipo- tence; to say that he isnot possessed of all knowledge, is to deny his omniscience. The Doctor, therefore, denies the omniscience of God—he acknowledges the name, but de- nies the thing. But still farther, by denying that the Deity has the actual knowledge of all things, and maintaining that he has only the power of knowing all things, Dr. Clarke has gained jusé nothing at all. The difficulty remains the same. The question still recurs: How can the Deity, on Arminian principles, be possessed of such a power? How can he foreknow things which are contingent? things which may hever come to pass? As knowledge pre-supposes the cer tain existence of the thing known, so foreknowledge pre- supposes the certainty of the future existence of the thing foreknown. If the Deity knows that Dr. Clarke is at pre- * sent a believer, it is certain that Dr. Clarke is a believer, If it is possible that Dr. C. is no believer, whilst the Deity knows him to be a believer, then it is possible for the Deity to be mistaken. So, in like manner, if the Deity foreknew from all eternity that Dr. C. would be a believer, it was certain from all eternity, that Dr. C. would believe. If it was possible that Dr. C. might never believe, though the Deity foreknew that he would believe, then it was possible for the Deity to be mistaken! Every person must see that it is impossible for the Deity to know that a thing exists, if it does not really and cep- tainly exist. Equally impossible is it to foreknow that a _ thing will exist, if its future existence is not certain. That . these things are equally impossible, the Doctor. himself must acknowledge ; for, according to his own doctrine, Fore knowledge, after knowledge, and present knowledge, 296 are all the same. With the Deity there is nothing, strictly speaking, but present knowledge. ‘To say, therefore, that the Deity knows that a thing exists, and yet that it is pos- sible that. it does not exist, is to say that the Deity has a certain knowledge of its existence, and yet has no certain knowledge of it. In like manner, to say that the Deity foreknows those things which will exist, and yet that those things may never exist, is the same as to say that the Deity has a certain foreknowledge of their future existence, and yet that he has no certain foreknowledge of it! » Again, to say with Dr. Samuel Clarke, Mr. Bird, and others, that God foreknows necessary events as necessary, and contingent events as coniingent, is to say nothing at all to the purpose. The question still recurs: How is it possi- ble that contingent events should be foreknown. Mr. Bird illustrates his reasoning by the following example: We see the sun shining over our heads, and at the same time we see a man walking upon the earth. ‘The one we see as voluntary, the other as natural. He grants, however, that both must be done, or we could not see them at all; but he denies that they were both necessary before they were done—it. was only necessary that the sun should shine ; but not that the man should walk. Now, in opposition to this I contend that if it was necessary that the man should walk, in order that he might be seen walking, it was equally ne- cessary that he should walk, in order to be foreseen as walking. The walking of the man is an event which must certainly and infallibly come to pass, (as well as the shining of the sun,) -in order to be either seen or foreseen. As knowledge and foreknowledge are the same with the Deity, he can no more foreknow what will not certainly and infal- libly exist, than he can know what does not at present cer- tainly and infallibly exist. Mr. Bird asserts that God neces- sarily foreknows all that will come to pass. . Dr. A. Clarke asserts that God is not obliged to know all that he can know. This flat contradiction in the principles upon which these gentlemen proceed, does not prevent the Doctor from de- claring that Mr. Bird’s argument is a good one, and that his own is better. The Doctor must pardon me for think- ing that Mr. Bird’s argument is no argument at all, because it affords no solution of the difficulty ; and that his own is still worse, because it fails in solving the difficulty, and in- \ , beers \ ‘ Po os Fe Or at 297 volves, besides, not only a plain contradiction, but also the denial of a divine perfection,* _ Some of the most penetrating Arminian divines and phi- tosophers have given it as their opinion, that no man will ever be able to reconcile the contingency of future events with the foreknowledge of God. In this opinion I heartily acquiesce. I firmly believe these things will never be re conciled, because I believe they are irreconcileable. If any man is able to prove that it is possible for a thing to be and not to be at the same time—if he can prove that it is possi- ble to know a thing, and at the same time not to know it, then he may prove that it is possible for the Deity to fore know those events, which may possibly never come: to pass. Thus, Sir, it appears that predestination cannot be found- ed on foreseen faith and good works ; because, upon Ar- minian principles, it is absolutely impossible that either faith or good works should be foreseen. It appears that the doctrine of our Westminster divines, with regard to predestination, is not only sanctioned by the word of God; but the absurdity of the opposite opinion is capable of a demonstration, as strict as any contained in Euclid’s ele ments. Calvinistic principles stand upon a proud pre-emi- nence—they rest upon the immoveable basis of Divine Re- velation, and are consistent with the soundest principles of philosophy. Our moral philosophy class-room and divinity halls do not now resound with the doctrine of the self-deter- mining power of the will: the salt is now cast into the fountain. For more than half a century past, Calvinistic principles have been gaining ground, both among the learn ed and illiterate. At present they are rapidly progressing. If I can rely on the testimony of one of themselves, a young gentleman of great respectability, the students of the Synod of Ulster have, for some time past, been almost universally Calvinists. From the new wine they are turning with list- = < * If the denial of one of the attributes of Deity, and the belief of a contradiction, which is capable of the strictest demonstration, be neces sary to free Calvinists from the gross absurdities and blasphemies charg- ed upon them by Dr. C.; I am fully of opinion, they will. ubiversally agree with me in thinking, that the remedy is incomparably worse than the disease—they will regard the Arminian cause as desperate indeed, when in defence of it, a gentleman of the learning and talents of Dr. A, C,, is reduced to such extremities. RES * 298 less apathy, with the general exclamation, ‘‘The old is better.” ‘That the general Synod are retracing their steps that. they are returning to the Calvinistic. principles of their ancestors, is a fact which I believe. adinits of little doubt. The unanimity displayed in their judicious appoint. ment of a divinity professor, speaks volumes on this interes- ting subject. And, indeed, from my inmost soul I congrat- ulate them on their return to what I conceive to be the true and genuine principles of the gospel. ‘‘ I have no greater joy than to see”’ Christians of every denomination ‘‘ walking in truth.”’ : I am, 6c. LETTER VII. My Rev. and dear Presbyterian, I flattered myself that the vengeance you had taken on your enemies in your hard-fought Battle of Dialogues, would have fally gratified your ‘« exasperated indignation.” I flat- tered myself, that after the battle was over, the Westminster divines would find in the Rev. Presbyterian a generous foe. It never once entered my mind that so illustrious a warrior would return again to the field of battle, for no other pur- pose than to insult and abuse the wounded and the dying! In this it appears I have been mistaken. In your Battle of Dialogues, having knocked down, (or thought you had _ knocked down,) your enemies, you return, in your appendix, to kick them for falling. You assure us that the Westminster confession *‘ is not only inconsistent with the scriptures ; but that itis many times inconsistent with itself.’ To es- tablish this charge, you give a garbled account of the 3d Sec. of the 9th chapter ; after which you exclaim, “‘ How mizerable then is the state of this unregenerate man, since, if he pray to God it is asin, and since if he pray not it isa greater sin !’’ i belay ou ak Hino In the section referred to, the Divines teach that the works of unregenerate men, though they may be materially good, being done according to the divine command, and ‘useful both to themselves and others, are nevertheless sin- ful, on a variety of accounts,—because they do not proceed ~ 2o9 from faith ; for without faith it is impossible to pleaseGod ; —because they do not proceed from love; for though we give all our goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth nothing, &c. ‘I'he Divines also teach us that the neglect of these works is still more sinful, and displeasing to God. ‘This they establish by irrefragable evidence. If we give our alms to be seen of men, we have no reward. Without charity, giving all our goods to feed the poor, profits nothing ; and yet, at the judgment of the great day, men shall be condemned for neglecting acts of charity. «J was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: [ was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink, &c. Inasmuch as ye did it not to the least of these, ye did itnot to me, &c.’’ Instead of laying before your readers this appropriate proof, you foully suppress it, and quote only the introductory verse, which you are pleased to hold up to ridicule. «Then shall he say unto those on his left hand: Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” This. you style a singular proof; but did you not know, my dear friend, that this is no proof at all? Was it ignorance, - or was it a fraudulent design, that induced you to represent it as aproof? Did you not know, that it was only the in troduction toa proof; and that the proof ifself was contain- ed in the subsequent verses, which I have already quoted, but which you have disgracefully suppressed? You pre- tend to lay befere the public the proofs which the divines have advanced in support of their paradox. Instead of this, you only bring forward two garbled texts, in proof of the one. part—the other part you leave entirely destitute of proof. Of the two texts brought forward, the one you re- present as quoted for a purpose quite the reverse of that for which it was really adduced—the other you represent as a proof when it isonly the introduction to a proof. Such management needs no comment; the only observation I would make, is, that you acted wisely in concealing your name. Oe, iN ar » To support their paradox the Divines produce a multitude of appropriate texts, which the reader may consult at hig leisure. ‘hat an action may be sinful, and ‘the neglect of it more sinful, is a paradox censistent both with scripture and reason.» +‘ The ploughing of the wicked is sin,” and _ yet I trust you will readily acknowledge, that not to plough - -would bea greater sin: »The conduct of Henry VIII. in promoting the reformation, considering the abominable mo- t @ 300 tives by which he was actuated, was undoubtedly sinful ; and yet, what Protestant will deny, that his conduct would have been also sinful, had he neglected to promote the Re- formation? Jehu’s conduct, in cutting off the house of Ahab, because it proceeded from improper motives, was sinful ; and yet, had he disobeyed the divine command, his conduct would have been more sinful. Suppose a man sees his neighbour’s house on fire, and hates the family so much that he would gladly see them all consumed ; there being, however, in the house, a person who owes hima sum of — money, he assists in extinguishing the flames, and rescuing the family from the devouring element. Considering the state of his mind, and the baseness of his motive, is not his conduct sinful? and yet, to suffer the whole family to perish would be more sinful. May I not here exclaim in your own style, «‘ How miserable is the situation of this poor man! if he quench the flames, it is a sin, and if he do not quench them, itis a greater sin.”’ ‘The sacrifice of the wicked, we are assured, is an abomination to the Lord;’? and yet, had he neglected to sacrifice, he would have been guilty of a greater sin. In like manner, the prayer of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord ; and yet, not to pray would be a greater sin. In your introductory sentence you say, ‘« Perhaps he (the author) may venture to suppose, that in- dependent of the inconsistency which exists between it (the confession) and the word of God, it is many times incon- sistent with itself.” In reply to this, you will now permit me to say, that perhaps I may venture to suppose, that you are mistaken.” ah As paradoxes appear to be the order of the day, let us advert to those of the Rev. Presbyterian. Whatever may be your inferiority to the Westminster divines in other re- spects, candour and justice oblige me to acknowledge, that, in writing paradoxes, you are not “behind the very chiefest of them.’’ Those of the Westminster divines are easily solved; but the solution of yours, I am perfectly convinced, will baffle the ingenuity of all the philosophers and divines in the world. Compared with them, Samp- son’s riddle is not worthy to be named. Page 43, you assure us, ‘‘ that if the general assembly and Seceders avere to act up to the principles of their predecessors, Co- venanters would be punished as heretics.” Now, my dear, sir, as the predecessors of these two bodies were Cove- naniers, were they to act up to the principles of their . 301 ‘predecessors, they would be also Covenanters. How then could Covenanters be punished as heretics : Here is a paradox ! Page 26, you inform us, that though Layman be ortho- dox in Ireland, he would be a heretic in England. Now, my dear sir, every schoolboy, who has read a little geo- graphy, knows, that the established religion of England and Ireland are the same. How then could Layman be orthodox in Ireland and a heretic in England ? Another paradox ! . SHEE IE ee Same place, you assure us, that « Layman, if a Seceder, would be banished from the united kingdom by the solemn league.”” Now, my dear sir, if Seceders swear and sub- scribe the solemn ‘league, how is it possible, that by that same league they should be banished from the united king- dom? Another paradox! ’ Most extraordinary and para- doxical covenants to be sure! Those who believe them would be punished by them, and those who do not believe them would be punished’ by them—those who subscribe and swear them would be punished by them, and those who do not subscribe and gwear them would be punished by them—- Seceders would be punished by them, Covenanters would be punished by them, and all others would be punished by them! Diabolical covenants indeed ! No wonder they were burned by the hands of ‘the commo hangman ! | Page 36, you assure us, that the covenants and confes- ‘sion are inseparable. How then were they separated: by the synod of Ulster? How were they separated by the general assembly of Scotland? Another paradox! ‘ Without mentioning any more of your paradoxes, per- haps I might now venture to suppose, that independently of the inconsistence of your sentiments with the word of God, they are many times inconsistent with themselves. — I am, sir, notwithstanding, your sincere friend and para- doxical correspondent, &c. 96 302 p> LETTER VIL: My Rev. and dear Presbyterian, i ALP Rh ee wae It would not be doing justice to your talents and ingenu- ity, to pass unnoticed your lucubrations on Covenants, Co- yenanters, Seceders, &c. With regard to covenants, you express yourself thus: ‘* If our forefathers, instead of com+ posing leagues and covenants, and swearing to them, had bound themselves to spread the scriptures ‘by the gentle arts of persuasion, under the protection of the civil magis- trate, you must grant, that they would more readily and rapidly have melted down oppression from amongst themt- selves, and persecution from amongst their enemies.” Pray, sir, how could our forefathers have bound themselves to spread the scriptures, but by a league anda covenant? ‘The paragraph, when analyzed, will read thus: If our fore- fathers, instead of binding themselves by leagues and cove- nants, had bound themselves by a league and a covenant, éc. After reading an observation so sagacious and sensi- ble, can any person doubt your qualifications for discussing the subject of leagues and covenants? I confess, however, that notwithstanding the flood of light you pour all around you, there is one difficulty still rests upon my mind—it is to ascertain, whether the Rev. Presbyterian be not himself a kind of mongrel Covenanter. ‘T'o covenants, binding to spread the scriptures, you seem to have no dislike—on the contrary, you appear to approve of them highly. » Now, sir, were you to enter into a covenant to spread the serip- tures, do you: not know that you would be a covenanter? You appear to hesitate. When Covenanter. .cbhserves, * you are such an advocate for the Gospel, alone, that you would refuse, I plainly see, to sign them, (the covenants, ) or swear to them in any case ;”’ ‘“ that I cannot tell,” says the Rev. Presbyterian. You appear to doubt, whether, in any case, you would become a Covenanter. - In clearing this doubt perhaps I could assist you a little. e Page 43, you assure us, that the ministers of the church of Scotland swear and subscribe every article of the league and covenant. In this sentence, sir, there is a slight inae 303 curacy—-I mean that what you have asserted is not matter of fact. ‘It happens, that the ministers of the church of Scotland ‘neither swear nor subscribe one single article of the league and covenant. No matter: You thought they did’; for Iam sure you would not wilfully publish a falge~ hood. You thought, that the ministers of the church of Scotland swear and subscribe the league and covenants in other words, you thought they were Covenanters. Now, my dear sir, when you were exerting yourself to obtain a union with these ministers, did you not think that you were about to become a Covenanter ? Why then do you not join the Irish Covenanters? It cannot be lucrative motives that prevent you, for you assure us, “ that the foun- dation of your loyalty is not founded on the countenance of government ;”’ much less can we suppose that ‘* the foundation of your religion is founded on that countenance.”’ Perhaps you will allege, that the true reason why you give a preference to the: imaginary covenanters of the general assembly, is, that though they swear and subscribe the same standards; yet, with them, they are in a great mea. sure dead letters. That this is actually the case, you aw sure us, page 26. Now, sir, if this be go, why do you cen- sure Covenanters and Seceders, because, with regard to a section or two of the Confession of Faith, there is a slight diversity of opinion ; and because the subscribers explain _ the sense in which they understand these sections? To me, I confess, such a mode of proceeding appears quite candid and fair. You think otherwise, You express your- self thus : “ For Ido assure you, that society is now fully persuaded, from experience, that neither Covenanters nor Seceders are too honest or too holy, and that subscription to the whole doctrines contained in the confession of faith, larger and shorter catechisms, often turns out a rope of sand, which they can snap at pleasure.” All very good : but pray, sir, what do you think of the honesty and _holi- ness of the general assembly of Scotland ? If your account of them he true, they swear and subscribe the confession and covenants, and afterwards allow them to remain in a great measure dead letters. Could a more infamous ban- - ditti be found on the face of this earth, than you have re- Presented the general assembly 2—a banditti of perjured villains, who are no way influenced by oaths or subscrip- tions—who trample underfoot the most solemn obligations! Now, sir, if Covenanters and Seceders have a right to be 304. stigmatized as dishonest and unholy, because they subscribe a few sections of the confession and covenants in a quali- fied sense ; must not the general assembly, upon. your own principles, be ten thousand times more dishonest and more unholy ? and yet, strange to tell, dishonest and unholy as they are, you courted their fellowship !—still stranger to tell! dishonest and unholy as they are, they considered theme selves too honest, and too holy, to admit you into their communion! Their language to you was, ‘‘ Stand _ by thy- self; come not near us; for we are-holier than thou !”’ _ But again: Do you really imagine, that the two presby- teries of the Synod of Ulster, that, according to your own account, use the confession of faith ‘+ in. such a qualified manner as to render it a mere name—a piece of appear- ance !!!?’—-do you really imagine that these two presbyte- ries have much the advantage of Covenanters or Seceders. in point of honesty or holiness ? Ye Seceders and Cove- nanters! ye Christians of every denomination! come see the zeal of the Rev. Presbyterian for honesty and holiness! in him contemplate a perfect paragon of candour and im- partiality ! shia. ) Page 26, you say, ‘* Let any humble Christian compare the acts and testimonies of Seceders and Covenanters, and then let him judge, as to the harmony and uniformity which are brought about by adhering to the same human confes- sion.’ Here, 1 am convinced, both Seceders and Coven- anters should plead guilty. They have not, on all occa- sions, treated each other with that meekness and gentle- ness, which become disciples of the meek and lowly Re- deemer. The only legitimate conclusion, however, which follows from this, is, that creeds and confessions go only a certain length in producing peace and concord—they do not eradicate all our corruptions—they do not render men absolutely perfect. The objection. however, would prove too much ; it would prove that the scriptures themselves are only an imposture ; for these sacred oracles do not produce universal peace and harmony. Because perfect, harmony cannot be attained by all the means we can possibly em- ploy, is this any reason that no means at all should be used for obtaining so desirable an end? Surely not. ap eie ‘That the controversial writings of Seceders and Coven- anters, published fifty or a hundred years ago, should par- ticipate a little of the spirit of those times, is not very atrange. It is hoped, however, that the candid inquirer 305 t will judge of their spirit and temper by their modern pro- ductions. Let any unprejudiced person consult “« A short account of the old Dissenters,” and « An explanation and defence of their terms of communion,” both published by the Reformed Presbytery in Scotland. Let him also con- ~ sult the Act and Testimony published by the Covenanting church in America, Reid’s pamphlet against Fletcher, and Longmoor’s pamphlet against the Covenanters ; and then let him say, if they do not breathe the manly, but, at the same time, mild and candid spirit of the Gospel.* : For a considerable time past, it has been in contempla- tion to revise some of our subordidate standards, particu- larly our Act and Testimony. In the mean while, I trust it will be distinctly understood, that it is not for words or phrases, but for principles, that Covenanters contend. If, in their Act and Testimony, or other public documents, the language employed is in any instance harsh, or caleulated to give unnecessary pain to any denomination of Christians, - Covenanters do not approve of such language. Their ob- ject, however they may fail in its accomplishment, is, under a deep sense of unworthiness, fallibility, and imperfection, to testify against the evils of the age in which they live, in language calculated, not to irritate and mortify, but to con- ciliate and reform—in language calculated, not to widen, but to heal those breaches which so mournfully prevail. ‘The truth is, that if there be any want of harmony be- -tween Seceders and Covenanters, it is not to be attributed to their subscribing the same standards. It is not the iden- _ tity, but the difference of their standards that has occasioned _ their disputes. Among Covenanters themselves, who all subscribe the same standards, has there not been from the earliest period of their history, an astonishing uniformity of sentiment ? With them, doctrines the most heterogeneous and opposite are not exhibited from the same pulpit. One *® The only exception with which Iam acquainted, isa sermon en- titled the Times, published by the Rev. Mr. Edgar, present Seceding Professor of Divinity. .In this sermon the author has poured upon Coy- enanters a torrent of illiberal abuse. In less than half a page he has Javished upon them nearly a score of abusive epithets. The poison, however, is accompanied by the antidote. Suéh railing accusations against sister sects is strongly and repeatedly reprobated in the same Sermon. The author assures us, that sucha mode of supporting truth is wearing away. I believe it is. _T hope that his own virulent invee- tive may be safely regarded as the ast expiring groans of party spirit. . . 96 306 does not teach that. the Redeemer is the supreme God ; another, that he is the highest of all creatures ; and another, ‘that he is nothing more than a mere man. One does not teach, that the Medeemer’s blood is a vicarious sacrifice ; and another, that it is only a beneficial attestation of the truth of his doctrine. One does not teach, that we are jus- tified by. our own righteousness, and another, that we are justified by the righteousness of the Redeemer. One does not ascribe our sanctification to the efficiency of the Holy Ghost, and another, to the self-determining power of the will. In a word, with them, one is not employed in des- troying what the other builds. Neither, Sir, do Seceders differ among themselves, nor dispute with Covenanters about these great and important doctrines of our holy reli- gion. With you a greater diversity of opinion. prevails, than would obtain among Seceders, Independents, and Covenanters, were they all united into one community. “Nor can you boast very much of your harmony; at least you have exhibited a very poor specimen. You represent two of your Presbyteries as guilty of the deepest dissimula- tion—as acting a solemn farce in setting apart candidates to the office of the holy ministry—as using the confession of faith in such a qualified manner as to render it a mere name, apiece ofappearance! You represent a Rev. brother, whom, (if I mistake not the object,) learning, talents, zeal, and popularity, have raised to the highest eminence, and rendered an object of envy—this worthy character you rep- resent as so.completely absorbed in self, that duty never predominates over interest—as ‘+ always in a strait between two, the opinions of his hearers and the laws of his master, whilst the former frequently turn the beam!’? Were you to break cover, and come forth from your dark retreat, the general Synod, I have no doubt, would do its duty, by in- flicting on you that chastisement, which such insolenee, not to say malignity, deserves. ‘Tell me, my friend, could you exhibit to the world no better specimen of the harmony which pervades the general Synod, or of that liberality and charity/which characterise the enlightened enemies ofcreeds and confessions? Your quondam Rey. father, Dr. M* Dowal, of Dublin, has expressed himself thus : «« A society made up of jarring principles is more likely to defeat the designs of the gospel than to promote them. It bears somp resemblance to Sampson’s assemblage of foxes, which being enclosed in the same field, with their heads looking different ~~ 307 ways, but fastened together by the tails, with firebrands be- twixt them, snarled, bit, and struggled, drawing different ways, until they laid waste-the pleasant field, and utterly destroyed the plentiful crop.”’. Whether the Doctor would have regarded you as oné’of those foxes, bound to the Synod only by the tail, as he and |} are not in the habit of corres- ponding, I am not at present prepared to determine. Nor can I say much about the fundamental bond of union. That it is not the confession of faith is evident, for this you have decently laid aside—that it is not the bible is equally plain ; - for it would not teach you to snarl, bite, and devour. What the fastening ligament really is, as the Doctor is silent on the subject,“I shall leave to you and the public to decide. I confess, my dear sir, that, from your Battle of Dialogues, it is difficult to ascertain your real principles. You style yourself a Rev. Presbyterian—a title which you assure us exclusively belongs to the members of the general Synod. Your sentiments, as we have already seen, would sometimes lead us to conclude that you are a Covenanter ; whilst other parts of your pamphlet would authorize us to infer, that you were neither more nor less than a good old Roman Catholic. For instance, you triumph over Layman for asserting that fallible men may produce [teach] infallible doctrine. This you represent as the greatest contradiction, and the rankest popery. Now, Sir, if this be so, | hope to prove, to your own satisfaction, that you are arank papist.. That we may not forget our logic, I shall prove it syllogistically, thus: Whoever teaches truth teaches infallible doctrine : - But the Rev. Presbyterian teaches truth ; _ Ergo, the Rev. Presbyterian teaches infallible doctrine. You will not deny, 1 hope, that truth is infallible; and of course, that every true doctrine is an infallible doctrine— nor will you deny that you sometimes teach truth, or in other words, that you sometimes teach infallible doctrine, Now, Mr. Aristotle; just one syllogism more, and Ihave done: Veey : » Whoever teaches infallible doctrine is a rank Papist ; But the Rev. Presbyterian teaches infallible doctrine ; Therefore, the Rev. Presbyterian is a rank Papist. Do not blush, my good friend: you have not the least reason to be ashamed; you have performed a. glorious _ achievement. You are surrounded on all hands with ex cellent company. All the ministers of the general Synod— all Seceding ministers,—Covenanting ministers—Indepen- 308 dent ministers—Methodist Ministers—in a word, all the Protestant ministers in Christendom are rank Papists! / You have reclaimed them all—reduced them all to obedi- ence to the Holy See! You have effected more by a few lines of your Battle of Dialogues, than all the anathemas of Rome—than all the Pope’s bulls—than all the tortures and executions of the holy Inquisition! A jubilee, not only at Rome, but a universal jubilee, will, no doubt, be immedi- — ately proclaimed : and, hark ye, my friend! when the chair of St. Peter becomes vacant, who is better entitléd to fill it than your reverence ?—after death, whose name will be more deserving of a place in the.calendar of Saints ?—whose shrine will be more generally visited than yours ? that of St. Thomas-a-Becket, will be almost entirely deserted—it will sink into comparative contempt. Kata Hail, universal peace and harmony! Animosities and divisions are now no more. All ‘distinctions of sects and parties are entirely abolished. Heresy is completely anni-— hilated. The term, heretic, will no longer be used—not even ‘« as a bugbear to ‘frighten children.” The only herétic in the world is the Rev. Divine, your neighbour; - who, you assure us, ‘‘is a teacher of words ; but in no in- stance of truth.’’ I confess, indeed, that I was of opinion there was no such teacher in the world—I thought that- e@rrors and lies, without any mixture of truth, were a dose by far too nauseous for human beings of any description; but in this, it appears, I have been mistaken ; for your neigh- bouring clergyman, you assure us, is “in no instance, a teacher of truth. Now, if this be so, (and who can doubt it, after you have asserted it?) if this be so, it is quite plain, that the preacher in question is no Papist. If he teaches no truth, he teaches no infallible doctrine—if he teaches no infallible doctrine, he is no Papist—if he is no Papist, he is a heretic,—and if he is a heretic, you know how to treat him. After you have ascended the chair, of St. Peter, by your Inquisitor General proclaim an auto da fe ; and by one decisive blow banish heresy for.ever from the world, Leaving you in the bosom of your old phother church, and congratulating you on the prospect. of your advance- ment to the Papal chair, I am, sir, warmly attached to in fallible doctrine, and at the same time, . | Your sincere Friend, &e. PIs 309 LETTER IX. Rev. Sir, Against Covenanters, both ancient and modern, you pre- fer the heavy charges of intolerance and persecution. ‘It is notorious,’ you assure us, ‘* that numbers were banish- ed and confined for non-comformity, and that many were put to death for denying some of the doctrines of the con- fession. Among those who were tried and hanged was a student of Edinburgh College, for speaking against the tri- nity and incarnation of Christ. He was denied the com- mon place of interment, and was appointed to be buried in the same ground with notorious criminals and malefactors, Such was the manner in which the covenanted uniformity was prosecuted.’’ I suppose, sir, you will not deny, that every man should be held innocent, till once he is proved guilty. ‘This privilege is all I ask for our reforming ances- tors. You are their public accuser: bring forward your evidence. You say numbers were banished—pray what number? You affirm that many were put to death—pray, how many? Such vague and indefinite language is indeed a very fit vehicle for slander and calumny, but is ill adapted for the ascertaining of truth. Please be a little more parti- cular: quote your authorities: specify time, place, and other circumstances. The characters of our reforming an- cestors, to whose magnanimous exertions we are indebted both for civil and religious liberty, are too precious and respectable, to be allowed to fall victims to your licentious, unauthenticated abuse. Remember, sir, you are publicly called on to substantiate your charges. If you fail in your evidence, or refuse to bring it forward, you must be content to be viewed as a public calumniator. I have no idea, that either the civil constitution or ad- ministration of our reformers was perfect. Iam no way bound, nor do I feel disposed, to vindicate all their mea- sures, acts of parliament, &c. In some instances they might be too severe: in general, however, lam convinced they ruled, considering the circumstances of the times, with a very mild sceptre. Their measures were sometimes quite too lenient. So far were they from attempting, ac- 310 cording to your groundless accusation, to put down all who differed from them in opinion; that a considerable minority, who refused to acquiesce in the established order of things, were nevertheless allowed to live unmolested in the enjoy- ment of personal liberties and property under the protection of the law. These men were generally attached to prelacy ~ and arbitrary government : many of them had fought against the liberties of their country under the reign of Charles I. : and many of them were men of infamous moral character, hence called malignants ; yet notwithstanding, so foolishly indulgent were our reforming forefathers, that they admitted these men into places of power and trust, to the complete subversion of the constitution, and introduction of prelacy and arbitrary power, with all the horrors of tyranny and per- secution in their train! Be candid, my dear sir, and dis- tinguish between that just chastisement inflicted on those who were conspiring against the civil and religious liberties of the nation, and any severity which may be supposed to have been exercised on men merely on account of their re» ligion—make this candid distinction, and I am convinced that the mountain of persecution which you have conjured up before the imagination of your readers, will instantly dwindle into a mole hill. As, in the reformation period, the circumstances of the times might justify a degree of severity, which In the pre- sent age would be highly criminal; so we might expect, that modern Covenanters would be much more mild and hu- mane than their forefathers. It appears, however that the case is quite otherwise. You assure the world, that if Co- venanters could get the king to sign and swear the cove- fants, we should soon feel the wholesome effects of their contents—what these wholesome effects would be we may learn from page 44, where you assure us, that “all must be- lieve, or seem to believe, the doctrines contained in the covenants and confession, or be burned, buried, or banish- ed, as Covenanters and the magistrate might think proper.”’ —Pray, sir, how many were burned, buried, or banished for those crimes, when the king did sign and swear the covenants? Was a single individual burned? not one. Was a single individual buried? yes, no doubt, after death. An odd kind of punishment indeed, to bury people after they die! I suppose the majority of the nation were so punished.—But perhaps you mean, (for your words would generally require an interpreter,) perhaps you mean that 341 Dissenters would be buried. alive, Pray, sir, how many were buried alive during the Reformation period? It ig true indeed, this is not the question—the question is not what Covenanters did nearly two centuries ago; but what they would do in the present age.—The ancient Covenan- ters, it seems, had a small portion of humanity; but the modern ones have none. The old ones were content with hanging and beheading ; but nothing less than burning and burying alive would gratify the ferocity of their degenerate sons! What a perverse race of mortals are these same Covenanters! Whilst all other classes and denominations are in_a progressive state of civilization, these savages are constantly becoming more sanguinary and Serocious! In the course of less than two centuries more, we may expect them metamorphosed into complete cannibals '—Compose yourself, my dear friend; dismiss your fears ; I hope you need not be very uneasy: I trust there is no great danger. of your being either burned or buried alive - your fears on this quarter are nearly as groundless, as those you enter- tain lest the Covenanters should pluck the planets from their orbits. ‘It is well,” says the Rey. Presbyterian, « that you (Covenanters) are not great astronomers, or I dread you would pluck the planets from their orbits, that you might the better arrange their courses.” Now, sir, your fears of being burned or buried alive are, | presume, ag groundless as your dread of the planets being plucked from their orbits—nay they are more groundless. | From the fewness of their numbers, it is not very likely, that Cove nanters will attempt to overturn the state: and as they do not stand on a very respectable footing with his majesty’s government, there is little danger of the king joining them in their diabolical scheme of burning the people, or burying them alive. But with regard to the plucking of the planets from their orbits the case is very different. To qualify for this, according to your own doctrine, all that is necessary is, that Covenanters be great astronomers. Now, who can tell but, some time or other, this may actually be the casa, I can assure you, sir, it is whispered, nay, it is confidentl affirmed by some, and they appeal to the records of Glae gow college for the truth of their statement—that for mote than twenty years past, the Covenanting students, in pro- ortion to their number, have taken more prizes, particus laity in the higher philosophical classes of that university, than the students of any other denomination in the united 312 empire. It is even reported, that the gentleman who, in philosophical studies, has lately eclipsed all his fellow stu- dents, and who, at this very moment, is in possession of a large burse, is an Irish Covenanter.. Now, sir, I must con- fess, that according to your doctrine, there is something in these appearances truly alarming! Should Covenanting students go on in this way, eclipsing their fellow. students, itis hard to say but some of them may at last become great astronomers’; and in case of this event, | would not-guaran- tee the safety of the solar system. What mischief might enter the minds of such aspiring headstrong fellows, it is difficult to say. Should they actually pluck any of the pla- nets from their orbits, for aught I know, the consequences might be universally pernicious. Not only would these planets, according to your doctrine, appear deformed ; but, as you are a great astronomer, you know much better than I do, that these planets are peopled as well as our own ; and of course, should those desperadoes drag them to a nearer conjunction with the sun, their miserable inhabitants though not buried alive, might be burned alive—on the other — hand, should those miscreants sweep the planets to a greater distance, the conqueror of the French, general Frost, might, without the least mercy, overwhelm in one universal catas- trophe their entire population! : Now, my dear sir, being a very humane gentleman—your benevolence being not at all confined to this dirty litle world, but embracing in its extensive grasp the inhabitants of distant stars and planets, 1 have no doubt you will me- morialize the faculty, not to permit any Covenanter to enter the higher philosophical classes in Glasgow college, till he has previously given sufficient security, that he will not on any account whatever, either pluck, or assist in pluck- ing from their orbits, any of the planets of the solar system. Allowing you time to draw up your memorial, and in the meanwhile, warmly participating in your benevolentconcern for the safety of the planets, d pation. 4 fiat | Lam, &c. | ey, 313 LETTER X, Rev. Sir, ~ To convince the world that the principles of Covenan- ters are intolerant, you quote the following paragraph fron their Act and Testimony :, “« And further they declare, that it is most wicked, and what manifestly strikes against the sovereign authority of God, for any power on earth to pre- tend to tolerate, and by sanction of civil law to give license to men to publish, and propagate with impunity, whatever errors, heresies, and damnable doctrines, Satan and their own corrupt and blinded understandings may prompt them _ to believe and embrace : authoritative toleration being des- e tructive of all true religion, and of that liberty wherewith Christ hath made his people free, and of the great end thereof, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of ' Our enemies we may serve the Lord, &c. Now, sir, you will certainly grant, that the Presbytery who published the above document are the best qualified to explain it. In an abstract of their principles, designed as- an intro- duction to their Act and Testimony, they express them- selves thus: ‘ While Dissenters testify against toleration, _ * they are’not to be.understood as meaning a merely Passive _ toleration, implying nothing more than simply permitting men to exist unmolested, to hold their different opinions, without using external violence to make them change these, or to exterminate them from the face of the earth if they do not. Forbearance of this kind, after every scriptural and rational means-has been used without effect, cannot be condemned’; but what they have in view, is, that authori- tative toleration, in which the rulers of a kingdom, assum- ing the character of judges in these matters, by ‘their pro- clamations or other public deeds, declare what different Opinions or systems they will allow to be taught and propa~ | gated ; and to what modes of worship they will give coun tenance and protection, while they exclude others from that supposed privilege.”— ieee Such are the principles Covenanters have published to the world. Be candid, sir, and tell your readers, that it is vip 314 omy against authoritative toleration that Covenanters testify. Passive toleration, they have declared in their public deeds, they by no means condemn. ‘They approve of no weapons for converting men, but the bible, the preaching of the gos- pel, arguments, prayers, and the like. ‘That toleration against which they testify, even in the paragraph you have quoted, is expressly styled authoritative toleration. Viewed in this light, the texts adduced in proof of the doctrine are perfectly appropriate. They read thus: «‘ There is one lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy : who art thou that judgest another ?—Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant ? to his own master he standeth or falleth— But Peter and John answered and said, whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto God more than unto” you, judge ye—And now, Lord, behold their threatenings, and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word—Ye are bought with a price; be ye not the servants of men—And call no man your father, upon the earth, for one is your father who is in Heaven, &c. © By way of inuendo, you tell us that these texts are wor- thy of observation—and then you go on to observe: ‘* If these texts mean any thing, it is, that no magistrate, or man, or body of men, has a right to prevent their fellow creatures from believing whatever doctrines their under standings may prompt them to believe and embrace.’’ Pray, sir, did the Reformed Presbytery teach in the pas sage you have quoted ; or have they taught in any other part of their writings, that any magistrate has a right to prevent men from believing according to the dictates of. their understandings? No, Sir: neither the Reformed Presbytery, nor any other Presbytery, have taught as you ridiculously insinuate. They have taught no such absur dities. No Spanish inquisitor can prevent a man from be- lieving according to the dictates of his understanding. He might as well attempt to prevent him from seeing colours, or. hearing sounds, according to the dictates of his senses. Not to believe the doctrines which our understandings promptusto believe, is a contradiction : it is to believe and not to believe, those doctrines at the same time.—Now, sir, were the texts, quoted above written for the purpose of proving—that no man has a right to do that which is impossible—that which. implies a contradiction? A new and admirable commen- - tary indeed ! ge ae ye The texts, my dear sir, were quoted against authoritatewe of = ot Hy ae Ot gta 3 4 toleration. They were quoted to prove, that no man or magistrate has a right to assume the character of a judge in matters of religion—that he has no right to license men to publish and’ propagate whatever doctrines he may think | ‘proper, and to prohibit by law the publication of others. — The doctrines which are tolerated are cither the true and ’ genuine doctrines of the bible, or they are not. If they are not the doctrines of the bible ; for any mortal man to give them the sanction of his authority, is downright rebellion against the king and- head ‘of the church—to -sanction by civil law what is contrary to the divine law, is nothing less than treason against the king of Heaven. What would be thought of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, were he to issue proclamations, tolerating us to obev laws directly contrary to the laws of the land? On the other hand; if the doe- trines tolerated are the true and genuine doctrines of the bible, they require no toleration—they disdain it. To pre- tend to tolerate such doctrines, is to insult the majesty of Heaven. How impious for any monarch, who is but a ‘worm of the dust, to say to the subjects of king Jesus, “I tolerate you to obey your master !”’ Does not such language imply, that he has a right to prohibit their obedience if he pleases, and that his authority is paramount to that of the blessed Redeemer! What “would be thought of the Presi- dent of the United States, if, coming over to Ireland, he were to issue proclamations, tolerating us to obey the laws of our country ! Such, my,dear sir, is that legal toleration, of which you appear to be so great an admirer, and against which Cove- nanters esteem it their duty to testify. Now, every person must at once see, that it is not, the enemies of legal toler- ation, but its friends, that plead-fer the interference of the civil magistrate in matters of religion—they must see, that Covenanters, in testifying against legal toleration, are testi- fying against the interference of the civil magistrate : and that the Rev. Presbyterian, by approving of legal tolera- tion, approves, at the same time, of magistratical inter- ference. ie You tell us, that our forefathers, like Jesus and his apos- tles, could have struggled for toleration. Pray, in what one instance did our blessed Redeemer and his apostles struggle for a legal toleration? It would border too nearly on blasphemy to suppose it. Did the Redeemer struggle to obtain a legal toleration from Herod? How different his 316 ' a conden !—*¢ Go ye and tell that fox, behold I cast out de- vils and do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.” It is true, indeed, that in your dialogue you declainis very much against the interference of the magistrates in matters of religion. I confess, however, that I find it very difficult to give you credit for the sincerity ly of your declamation.— I am sure it would require more ingenuity than I can boast of, to reconcile your professions and your practice. We have just now seen, that you contradict those professions by approving of authoritative toleration. . In a variety of other particulars, the inconsistency-of your ¢onduct is still more glaring—F or instance ; ; why do you allow the civil magis- trate to dictate to you in the appointment of days of public fasting and thanksgiving? Is this to disclaim magistratical interference ? Is this to ‘+ call no man master 2?” Is this to act in agreeableness to the divine prohibition—** Be not ' ye the servants of men?” Again: Why do you allow the civil magistrate to dictate to you in the manner of swearing? Swearing is one of the most solemn acts of worship. “To direct us in the manner of its performance we have the example of God himself—of his saints—and of his son. Our blessed Redeemer “lifted up his hand to heaven, and swear by him that liveth for ever and ever—that there-should he time no longer.”? Book- swearing has its foundation neither in scripture ni nor example : it can only be traced to heathenish idolatry.— No matter : it is enjoined by the civil magistrate ; and with you, it appears that Ais authority for the manner of performing this solemn act of worship 1 is perfectly suffi- cient. Allow me, sir, to ask you ¢ as a Dissenter, Why did you separate from the church of England? Was not our prin- cipal reason the imposition of human rites and ceremonies ? — Now, sir, if you submit to the imposition of one ceremony, why not of two? why not of ten? why not of all the cere- monies of the church of England? If you obey the civil magistrate when he commands.you to touch and kiss the book in swearing, upon the same principle, would you not obey him, were he to command you to kneel at the sacra- ment, to use the sign of the cross in baptism, or to con- form to all the other ceremonies of the established church ? You would not suffer the church to wreathe about your neck: a yoke of ceremonies. You stood fast in the liberty "i, =) ye ve & "i _ wherewith Christ has made you free: why then have you surrendered that liberty at the discretion of the state? By submitting to the dictation of the civil magistrate in the article of book-swearing, have you not entirely given up one. principal ground of your dissent from the church of England? You assure us, that it is impossible to prove, that magistrates have any authority to. dictate to us how we are to worship the Deity. J think so too. Why then do you suffer them to dictate to you in that solemn act of ‘ worship, swearing ? Has not our Saviour expressly declar- P g Pp ed, ‘‘In vain’ do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.’’* fy You are. very much afraid lest erceds and confessions di- vert our attention from the word of God. Pray, sir, whether do. Covenanters or you adhere most closely to that divine word in the article of swearing ? But again: If you.are in earnest in deprecating the interference of the civil magistrate in matters of religion, why do you strain every nerve to obtain a coalition with the general assembly of the church of Scotland? Do you not know, that the king is virtually the head of that church; or at least, that a compromise is made of her headship between the king of England and the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you not know, that the king assumes the right of calling, adjourning, or dissolving her assemblies at *his pleasure ; and that he has sometimes exercised that right in a very arbitrary manner? Do you not know, that he claims it as his prerogative to circumscribe the objects of their attention, and to prohibit them from discussing such matters as. he may judge improper? Do you,not know, that he prescribes for the ministers of that church whatever political oaths he pleases, as an indispensable qualification for the exercise of their office? Do you not know, that ‘* ~ * The above observations are not intended as a censure on the civil government. ‘The government is Episcopalian. Episcopalians act consistently ; and yet, book-swearing has been condemned by-some of the most respectable dignitaries of the established church, It is only Dissenters who.are inconsistent. Nor would this mode be imposed up- on them, were government convinced thatit wasreally obnoxious. A. respectful remonstrance would obtain for them immediate relief— judges and inferior magistrates are, in general, extremely indulgent,— Some of the latter have, in a very generous and disinterested manner, be en exerting themselves to have the grievance redressed. ine S18". i ; ial . “he peremptorily commands the ministers of that church, as -his servants, to read on the Lord’s day his proclamations, or other state papers, which may be subservient to the pur- poses ‘of government? Do you not know that the right of presenting to vacant charges, is, in many instances, vested in the crown ?—Now, sir, can any person in the world give you credit for the sincerity of your professions? Can any person believe, that you have a strong aversion to the interference of the civil magistrate in matters of religion ? If you have such an aversion, why did you persevere so long in fruitless attempts to obtain a coalition with the Erastian church of Scotland? i The truth is, that a variety of churches at present, so far from deprecating the interference of the civil magistrate, - seem to value themselves in proportion to the intimacy of their connexion with the state. The general assembly were not ashamed to avow this principle, when, in their communication to the general synod, they declared—that in consequence of the respectable footing on which the synod — _ Btood with his majesty’s government, they thought it might be expedient to have communion established between the two bodies, &c. The church of England looks down on the church of Scotland, because she does not stand on so respectable a footing with his majesty’s government: the church of Scotland looks down on her Presbyterian sister in Ireland, because she does not stand on so respectable a’ footing with his majesty’s government : for the same reason does not the general synod look downon the secession church, &c.? and yet sir, where is the candid observer who would presume to deny, ‘‘ That the declension of churches from primitive christianity may in general be estimated by the re- spectability of the footing on which they stand with the civil governments of the nations ?”? Did not an aged and respectable member of the general synod, when comment-- ing on the assembly’s letter, shrewdly observe, “ that neither the twelve apostles of the lamb, nor even the Lord Jesus Christ himself, were he to come down from the right hand - 4 of God, would be admitted into the pulpits of the general assembly of Scotland?” Why? because they would not stand on a respectable footing with his majesty’s govern- ment! Would to God the above pointed remark were ap- plicable to no assembly in the world, but only the general assembly of Scotland! = ~- S | i 319 e "That all churches without exception, so far as they have deviated from primitive Christianity, may with one accord retrace their steps, ‘‘ seeking the Lord their God, and in- _ quiring the way to Zion with their faces thitherward,” is the _ fervent prayer of, ~ : : Rev. Sir, : Your sincere friend, as % And very humble servant, JOHN PAUL. Loughmourne, April.1, 1819. FINIS, Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1012 01 029 2219 = : eS Se Ihe es sows pases ceceer es Soles depres mae acd eee