> ae od Amo RY OF PRINCE i at \e if o fe at A } i XQ Ay ah \“£0} r ‘ RUNS ft ited. OG CAI cseM yo, he : oa ~ oe BT 135 .W5 1809 Williams, Edward, 1750-1813. An essay on the equity of divine government and the Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/essayonequityofdO0Owill_ 0 coer, = eames ( - te AN | MSS AY oe ON THE | | EQUITY or pivins GOVERNMENT, | AND. THE SOVEREIGNTY or vivins GRACE, WHEREIN, PARTICULARLY, THE LATITUDINARIAN HYPOTHESIS OF INDETERMINATE REDEMP- TION, AND THE ANTINOMIAN NOTION OF THE DIVINE DECREES BEING THE RULE OF MINISTERIAL CONDUCT, : ARE CAREFULLY EXAMINED, BY EDWARD WILLIAMS, D.D. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ?2—Geu. xviii. 25. And he dceth according to his will in. the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.— Dan. iv. $5. . Why doth he yet find fault ? for who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus 2—Rom. ix. 19, 20. The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children for ever.—Deut. xxix, 29, - ra ; LONDON: © ; _ Published by J. Burditt, Paternoster Row ; sold also by Maxwell and Wilson, Skinner Street, Snow Hill; T. Crookes, Rotherham; and all other Bookselle tte 0 B06 oi ssc uatolaisn sonia yes ’ » Eddowes, Printers, Shrewsbury. \ CONTENTS. Preface é e @ «a 2 ° ° ° ° e °. « e ° e bad e Vii INTRODUCTION. Containing some preparatory observations. Page. ‘The importance, and yet the awful difficulty of the subject—different systems compared —the system of Socinus :and_ his followers—the system of Arminrus—the system of the Reformed—plan of this work - _—a devout meditation . : . sa © ° 7) or) ® e e ° ° e e 1 CHAP. I. Containing an Explanation of the principal Terms relating ? to the subject under consideration. Equity—Sovereignty—a moral agent—moral evil—that liberty which is essential to moral agency—different kinds of necessity—and whether a moral agent is subject toany ofthem . . . .« « . «. 21 CHAP, II. Containing a View of the Moral Government of God with respect to mankind. — Secr. I. Of Man, as the subject of moral Government . ” a e 42 ll. Of the Rule of moral Government ° e ” J . ° e e 51 Ill, Of the different dispensations of revealed Religion . . . 955 IV. Of the universal aspect of Revelation . . . . 4. 86 V. Of the Rectoral intention of the Supreme Governor , ., 92 VI. Of the Obligations of Men to receive the Gospel and its exhibited blessings . 0 Pe ei me Taree lavish Mette sre Ss 05 Oe VII. Of tie Rule and Process of final Jadgment . . . . . 412 CHAP. II. Containing a View of Sovereign Grace. _ Seet.*I, Whether Sovereignty, in the Calvinistic sense of the ‘terin, bea Divine ‘Attribute ie eR eer a a OT Il, Of the Sovereignty of Grace in proposing an Ultimate End 141 Ill. Ofthe Sovereignty of Grace in the choice of Means , . 151 *1V. The Sovereignty of Subjective Grace in transformiug the mind tothe Divine Likeness eae ty ° ° e ‘e * e * The Sections thus marked have been misplaced by a mistake which | it would be uninteresting toexplain, CONTENTS. CHAP. IV. Containing an Examination of the fundamental principles of the Arminian System ; particularly of Dr. WurrBy’s Discourse on the Five Points, and Mr. FLETCHER’s controversial Writings. Page. Sect, I, Whether a perfect moral agent, ia a state of original proba- tion, has inherent power, according to equity, to preserve himself in a course of active, unsinning obedience , . 156 II, Whether the Calvinistic explanations of the five points in dispute be inconsistent with equity . . . . . , 196 Point i: Absolute Election e ° e < e e ° e Cit A xed ii, Particular Redemption... .:,. ... . « Q11- ill. Special Grace . . i hh aus eal 'o OER am Reena eae iv. The Will determined by Grace . . . . , 263 v. The PerseveranceofSaints . . . . 3 . . 244 III, Whether the certainty, or hypothetical necessity of fature | events, be consistent with that freedom which is essential to moral agency fo) iP Lived dyivitke si Wg Ucar) age CONCLUSION, | Shewing how the leading principles of this Essay are calculated to expose a number of other erroneous opinions, beside those professedly discussed—and their consequent advantage— 1, In reference toMoral Science . 2 2. 1 se om ee ALN 2. In reference to Scriptural Theology . . . . . . . 438 3. In reference to Personal Religion . . . . . . . 4 463 ” NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS . .. .°. 477 APPENDIX, In which are noticed Objections and erroneous State. | ments made by different Writers, in reference to some ». of the Author’s Sentiments, ‘ PcNe AHEM AME BOO Ce is Wether ea Ge eas cle 509 The Christian Observer 2 e e . e e e ° e . © e e 510 Rev. Wm. Bennet’s ‘‘ Remarks, &e.” . . 4, ot cet op eee eee or owseneers es Thoughts, &ec.”? ° e ‘ e . . e e 527 Rey, Wm. Parry's *< Strictures, Se oo Do ee eae The Theological Review. 660.0 60s wa le a e599 PREFACE. 1 iy ae author of this Essay, when studying a particular | subject, above twenty years ago, was naturally led to contemplate, through the medium of the sacred writings, GOD’s COVENANT of redemption and grace, and its various dispensations. In the course of his inquiries, he perceived an evident difference between what may be denominated the mternal form and the external administration of that covenant, as clearly im- plied in the whole tenor of divine revelation. He found in the same records, that the INTERNAL FORM is nothing else than a decretive design’ of benefiting the favoured objects of the covenant, together with the actual execu- tion of ‘that design, by an infinitely wise order and. process, known to Gop alone; but that the EXTERNAL ADMINISTRATION is only an exhibition of the good we need, whether by proclamation, by testimony, or by positive institutions, under a conditional form, addressed to the will of a free agent. This induced him, unavoidably, to view man as at once a PASSIVE RECIPIENT of decreed ‘benefits, and a FREE AGENT; an agent possessed of evemption from restraint or interference in the morality, or manner of his accountable actions. The more he thought of this distinction, as fairly implied in the scriptural account of Gop’s covenant and its dispensations, the more clearly he perceived its great importance in reference to the blessings we actually receive, and the accouné we must b finally 7 viti | PREFACE. finally give of our conduct. The holy scriptures, throughout, represent man, in the fist instance, as a passive recipient of benefits; as to his very being, his righteousness, his holiness; his renovation, preserva- tion, and spiritual ability for acceptable obedience : but in the second instance, they abound in representations of man as possessed of will, and exemption from constraint in the morality of his actions ; as the subject of moral covernment, before whom are laid good and evil, pro- mises and threats, the approbation and disapprobation of the legislator, governor, and Ai judges for time and for eternity. Comparing these important representations of man, according to scripture, with the just principles of science, he found that the latter might be successful- ly employed in the service of the sacred reeords, And particularly, as the doctrines of LisErTy and NEcEssiTy stand so intimately connected with the preceding views, he was led, from the importance of the subject, to a close re-examination of those doctrines. In this pur- suit, he saw reason to conclude, that the internal form of the covenant. was in fact a glorious branch of — decretive necessity ; and that its external administra- tion was an important part of the doctrine of Liberty, ‘Since, however, liberty and necessity, as commonly understood, had been considered zncompatible with each other, this occasioned a new. object of enquiry ; whether, the scripture doctrine of man being at once, but in different respects, physically. necessztated and yet free, be not philosophically accurate? The result has been, to the author’s full conviction, in the affirm- ative. But, PREFACE. ix But, reflecting that the uniform tenor of scripture (with which a few expressions of a different aspect are easily reconciled) regards man, whenever sovereignly necessitated, as. the recipient of some Jenefit, he saw just cause for inferring, that such necesstty is connected with good, in a manner exclusive of evil. And this appears perfectly consistent with reason. As Gop is not a being containing in himself the source of Good, and the ource of Evil alzke, resembling an union of the OromaspEs and ARIMANIUS of the Persians, he cah be the author or cause of good only. But ifso, his necessituting decree ean Have only good for its object. Nor is it sufficient to say that good and evil are only relative considerations ; that what is good in one respect, may be evil in another. For this remark applies only to physical good and evil, and therefore both are worthy | of divine necessitation. The mechanism of the uni- verse; and the laws of matter and motion, are goods though individuals are sufferers by their influence. — The same may be said of the world of minds. The constitution of intelligent natures, and the general laws to the influence of which they are necessitated, are all good, and worthy of infinite benevolence. | Now a ereat difficulty presented itself. Since good alone appears worthy of Gop’s necessitation ;— while common sense, reason, conscience, and every part of the sacred scriptures testify that there are evils which Gop blames, hates, and condemns; how can the ru- ‘TURITION of those evils be pronounced certain, while. a necessitating decree of them is rejected ? The author plainly saw, that the advocates of philosophical necessity are not a little embarrassed on this head ; and many -of them, in order to preserve self-consistency, are eas ‘ obliged x PREFACE. obliged to do it at the expense of a moral system, and even the possibility of moral evil. According to them» every thing is of decretive, and consequently of physical necessity ; and to call it philosophical, hypothetical, or metaphysical necessity, does not alter the case, while the idea tntended is not different. Though man is the subject of innumerable associations, all the creatures of circumstances ; yet, to be consistent, while maintaining that the evil manner of a physical act is included in the divine causation, they must hold that man 7s as much impelled to the murderous villany of his free act, as a dog is impelled, by his instinctive propensity and the will of his master, to worry a sheep, or to killahare. He was also aware, that authors of great and deserved cele- brity, in the orthodox persuasion, went little farther _ than to ascribe to Gop the causation’ of good only, with a bare denial of his being the author of sin. When pressed with the enquiry, How can the certain futurition of sin, and the divine causation, be separated in a fair and. satisfactory manner? they have said little more than, ‘‘ Beware of going too far—we shall know it well. in a future state.” But if it be a good thing to be well informed concerning it in another world, I can see no sufficient reason why further information in the present, should not likewise be considered as. good and useful. This investigation, the true CAUSE of the certain futu- rition of moral evil, the author could not regard as a. speculative nicety, but as a subject of MOST RADICAL IMPORTANCE, intimately connected with almost EVERY BRANCH OF ETHICS AND THEOLOGY. Here also he had recourse to the dictates of the sacred oracles ; which, though they do not expressly state the case, as in a chonaene other points of confessed importance, clearly afford PREFACE, | ee afford sufficient DATA from whence the fair conclusion may be drawn. ‘They every where maintain that Gop is the cause of our good; and that WE OURSELVES are, the cause of our moral evil. The scattered rays of this great truth are brought, by the apostle James, into a focus: ‘‘ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of Gop; for GoD cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift, and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no vari- ableness, neither shadow of turning.” The holy: scriptures also fully state an ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between the Creator and the creature ; ascribing to the one, self-existence, independence, and all-sufficiency, but to the other a derived existence, absolutely dependent on the first cause, and therefore without any sufficiency but what is derived by partici- pation. And the nature of the case is so plain, that these predicaments are not less applicable to all crea- tures, than to some; to creatures we’do not know, as well as to those whom we do know. It matters not in’ what period of time or of eternity, or in what spot of the universe they exist; nor does any conceivable excellence of their nature or endowments alter the case, _ Grant that they are contingent and not absolute beings created, or caused to exist by an uncaused agent; and itis enough. They are then stamped with essential comparative defect and limitation. By magnifying and exalting their nature, we only magnify and exalt. as b3 | the \ xii : PREFACE. the CAUSE in whom they ‘‘live, move, and have their being.” For, abstracted from that cause, their nature, their existence, the mode of their existence, and their operations, are as. NOTHING. After viewing this awful truth in relation to every individual creature, and to the whole universe of created existence, through the medium of. scripture and of reason ; and after dwelling upon it habitually as an _ essential principle closely connected with personal re- ligion ; the author could not resist the evidence which presented itself, respecting the true cause of the futuri- tion of moral evil, as being clearly and necessarily implied.in the preceding considerations. For eyidence of the manner how this conclusion follows from the principles ascertained, the reader is referred to the work itself, But from what has been said it may be perceived; that the conclusions respecting the Origin of Sin were not so much purposely sought, as naturally and unavoidably perceived to flow from indubitable principles of truth. | The argument by which his conclusion is supported, _ ihe author cannot regard as a mere ‘Hyporuesis con- cerning Moral Evil, but as an IRRESISTIBLE INFERENCE drawn from the primary truths of scripture and of moral science. And, indeed, as in every demonstration, the conclusion i is the thing proved ; in proportion as the data are true, and the inference i is legitimate, it may be called a DEMONSTRATION. An ‘é Hypothesis” is an assumed supposiiion, as the basis of a theory ; ; but here no data are assumed which are not either granted by all as first principles, or the denial of which is not reducible to a contradiction. In moral science there is no AxIOM sq perfectly self-evident but cavils may be raised against it. if the het be not admitted as an axiom in the science PREFACE. ee science of morals—There is a God—it is difficult to say what can be; and yet who knows not that this proposi- tion has been controverted? If, therefore, some men controvert what others regard as a self-evident axiom, their denial is not sufficient to discredit the honourable title of a Demonstration, provided that denial be redu- _ cible to an absurdity, or a fair self-contradiction. There is one thing of great importance on this head, \ which the author believes i is very generally ov erlooked, | and to which the attention of the reader is earnestly Invited, viz. That to ascertain the ORIGIN.of moral evil is a very different affair from ascertaining the MODE of — its origination. Where this confusion of ideas so © different in their nature exists, there is little prospect of | accommodation. To the general philosopher, and par. ticularly to the physiologist and chemist, it will easily occur, that the modus of a process in producing an effect may remain a profound mystery, while the origin or cause of such effect may be satisfactorily demon. strated.. This remark is equally applicable to the origin and the process of good and evil; and the precise point of dispute is, What is the ULTIMATE source of the one and of the other ? Inseparably connected with the preceding steps of inquiry, were found the views of the DIVINE CHARACTER which correspond with the twofold relation of man, who is at once both necessitated and free. The questions which principally needed to be ascertained were, What is the true cause of necessitation to good? and, What is the true cause of freedom, or exemption from a decre- tive necessitation to moral evil? As nothing exists without an adequate cause, both the one and the other of these predicaments of a moral agent must necessarily b 4 _ have xiv -- PREFACE. have such cause. And by observing the same process of investigation ; first by an examination of scriptural positive eieice: and then by comparing that with true principles of reason; it was found, that no other adequate cause could be assigned of necessitation to good, but SOVEREIGN BENEVOLENCE ; nor any other adequate cause of. exemption fr om decretive necessita- tion, but DIVINE EQUITY. The more strictly and impartially this inqniry was made, the more forcible was the evidence, that to these two causes were all the parts of ethics and theology ultimately reducible. Hence the determination of at~ tempting a scriptural and rational display. of the Equity of divine Government and the Sovereignty of divine Grace, and an examination of different systems by the light of these principles. At first, indeed, the design was to pub- lish a small Essay, containing merely theauthor’s leading ideas ; but as he proceeded in penning his thoughts, ae subject: appeared to acquire accumulated interest and importance. Accordingly, he announced his design of publishing an octavo volume ; and, amidst many inter- ruptions from personal and domestic illness, changes of situation, and multiplied engagements, he penned the greatest part of the work at intervals; and a consider- able portion of it was printed many years ago, He had from the first, and ever since increasingly, a strong and habitual conviction that the primary and essential parts of the projected work are the truths of Gop, deduced from, and harmonizing with the holy scrip- tures; and not only that they are truths, but also principles of the utmost importance towards a satis- factory view of religion in all its bearings, as to _ doctrine, experience, me PacHE: é : This oe PREFACE. as This made him proportionably anxious to ascertain, whether they would bear, with equal satisfaction to his mind, the test of continued experience, in their personal and practical influence ; of argument, by means of yeflection, conversation, reading and correspondence ; and of prejudice, by an occasional diffusion of them. On trial, he found—at least he thought—this last to be the only formidable opponent; while the experiment has given him the most satisfactory proof of a warm appro- bation from persons whose judgment, piety, and use- fulness are highly respected in the religious world. He does not, therefore, all things considered, regret the delay of publishing the | work, notwithstanding the frequent and pressing solicitations of his friends ; for, though efforts have been made to represent his views of Equity and Sovereignty, and some primary truths inseparably connected with them, as an unprofitable speculation, (than which nothing can be more un- founded) it has been the means of preparing the public mind to give the subject more close attention, which it is presumed will be growingly advantageous to the important truths here defended. After a watchful attention to the interests of consistent orthodoxy, for above twenty years past ; after constant prayer to Gop, the only wise, for direction ; after trying the effect of his principles on the congrega- tions where providence has called him to labour in the ministry ; after feeling, when apparently at the very entrance into the eternal world, that a just view and experience of the Equity of divine government, and the Sovereignty of divine grace, filled him with godly con- solation ; after observing with increased conviction, that learning and ingenuity, in some late attempts,* have | utterly * See the Aprenpix at the End of the Volume. xVi PREFACE, utterly failed in their opposition to the leading ideas contained in this work ; ; and finally, after learning that the publication of it is now more than ever expected 5 ~the author ventures it abroad with fervent supplica- tions for a blessing to rest on every reader, and with firm and unshaken confidence, that the sentiments it contains are ‘the truth as it is in Jesus,” and highly important to be well understood by professing christians, The appITIONAL NOTES are inserted from a convic- tion, that though philological and critical disquisitions respecting the use of terms are seldom interesting in the body of a work, yet much controversial difference in the investigation of real opinions arises from a ne- glect of accurate statements. The principal terms ine deed are defined in the first chapter, but it has been found by experience that some other terms needed explanation, the use of which in a metaphysical sense could not be avoided, without still greater inconveni- ence in inventing new ones. Inno case is this more clear than in the words TENDENCY; EVIL, POWER, CAUSE and EFrEcT. The generality of readers hastily conclude that all such terms must convey positive ideas whenever used ; without reflecting, that there is most assuredly a negative idea, to bee expressed by each of these terms, which cannot well be conveyed. without them, Such persons, being familiarly and exclusively acquaint. ed with either the physical or moral application of them, are soon confounded by their metaphysical use. And yet, since metaphysical ideas are not less real and _ precise in their nature than the others, there seems no alternative but the use of such terms in a new sense, properly explained, or the fabrication of new | terms PREFACE. Sales terms, which would also need appropriate definitions, To make light of this process, is to impede scientific knowledge, and virtually to say, that rhetoric alone is _ the field for improvement. . The author has, at various ‘times, submitted to the public some of his leading sentiments on the subjects discussed in this volume ; and these have called forth the opposition of different writers, for whose extraordi- nary opinions, and still more extraordinary misrepre- sentations, it is difficult to account. _ But where are the arguments, founded either on scripture or common sense, adduced by the opposers of his principles ? Is it fair, is it candid to assume a sense of terms which the author utterly disavows, and which had been previously disavowed by repeated and various explanations? To triumph in supposed absurd and shocking consequences so deduced, argues a disingenuous and cowardly mode of attack, and a disposition not very friendly to the attainment of sacred truth, Had any persons profess- ing themselves the followers of PELAGIUS or ARMINIUS produced such works as have recently appeared, in order to counteract the doctrine of sovereign grace and to obtrude the self-sufficiency of the creature to secure his own goodness, their denomination would have served as an antidote to those who profess opposite sentiments. But works which have no settled explana- tion of terms, which do not even pretend to any fixed sentiments on the subject they discuss, seem but little calculated to cope with the subtle adversaries of evan- gelical religion. Such works may obtain approbation for a time, from unwary readers; but truth is no temporizer. | | | Of X Val ! » PREFACE. Of one thing the author is fully satisfied ; that no consistent scriptural Calvinist can oppose the leading principles of this Essay. Concede toa philosophical Necessttarian that Gop is the author of good and evil alike, and to a Pelagian that MAN is the author altke of his good and evil; and their systems respectively may assume a tolerable appearance of consistency. Buta Caloinist, siding to either of these hateful extremes, | departs at once both from self-consistency and from truth. Having long seen the importance of subverting error by a developement of sacred truth, as revealed in the scriptures, in its most radical principles, the writer’s mind has been habitually impressed with the mode adopted in this Essay; while convinced that the me- chanical, necessitarian scheme, on the one hand, and the self-determining hypothesis, on the other, can never be fairly overturned on the principles of science, but in harmony with what is here defended. . But whether an opponent sally forth from the camp of PELacivs, of ARMINIUS, or of PRigsTLEY; or whether he call himself a high or a low, a rigid or a moderate Calvinist, a supralapsarian or a sublapsarian ; the author is not moved about it. It is enough if they be confronted with the unforced language and uniform tenor of scripture, the experience of the humble and be. nevolent christian in his most heavenly tempers, the dictates of common sense, the first” principles of moral science, and the legitimate use of right reason. ‘Truth and sch company may give a modest man confidence.” There are thousands who defend the doctrines’ of grace in @ constant appeal to ‘chapter and_ verse ;” and PREFACE. | xix) 4 and they do well. But why should not a person some- ‘times with the pen—though seldom from the pulpit, be- fore a mixed audience—meet the adversaries of truth, by shewing, that every scheme and every tenet which opposes thie truths we hold, is unreasonable as well as unscriptural; by shewing, that when they réason correctly, their principles are false, or when their principles are common, their ratiocination is inconclu- sive. 'To make “ metaphysics” a watch-word in order to avoid every thing defended by the science, as if faith in the pure gospel were in danger, argues a weakness truly contemptible. If reputed metaphysicians re- proach Calvinism, or evangelical principles under whateyer name, as an trrational system, is a person who rejoices in the truth as it is in Jesus, though clothed in its plainest form, to be blamed and condemned when he undertakes to prove that it is perfectly consistent with the first pririciples of reason, and that the various schemes of its opposers will not stand the test of such investigations ? Should we not, on proper occasions, shew the reason of our faith and hope, to the full extent of attainable evidence ? If the whole system of revealed truth, or any particular part, which demands our fa:th on the mere testimony and authority of Gop, can be shewn, in the face of subtle objectors, and by instru- ments to which they constantly and boastfully appeal, to stand clearly and immovably on the basis of eternal truth, does an effort to that effect deserve opposition ? Let not the reader be imposed upon by ungenerous innuendos, as if this volume were sufficiently exposed by calling it “‘ a new theological scheme :”” but let him reflect, whether it be not more properly denominated “Ca new arguinent against error ;”? or ** a new argument | for pu PREFACE, | for the truth,”’ particularly for genuine CALvINIsM—for the good old way, so frequently and fiercely spoken against—and for the doctrine according to godliness, opposed alike by the profane profligate, the proud pharisee, and the equally proud philosophical sceptic. Satan is a busy foe, and never has there been a probabi- lity of great good to be effeeted by any scripture doc- trine, or any mode of exposing error, but he has employed all his arts to suppress it. But what a pity that good men should have either lot or portion in such a work !—Indeed we ought not first to rea- son and then believe. No; let us first believe what- ever Gop asserts, and because he asserts it: then we may shew, that we are not chargeable with being erratwnal by those who question our interpretation of scripture. Our opponents contend that what we pro- nounce to be the genuine sense of revealed declarations js a mistake, because not compatible with rational prin- ciples ; let us then take them on their own ground, and shew, from those very principles, that their objections are futile. a ) From the time that Dr. BEATTIE attacked Mr. Hume and other sceptical writers, in his ‘* Essay on the Nature and Immutabiflity of Truth,” it has been the fashion to decry metaphysics as useless and dangerous ; and to consider common sense (as if the former were inconsistent with the latter) as the wiltimatwm of evi- dence. The method he adopted was followed by two effects ; one was, to bring into discredit the writings he attacked, and a happy effect it was; but the other was of a very different complexion. By calling Humg a. metaphysician, the association was easy to bring into disrepute a sublime and most useful science. But Dr. BratTiz would have done much greater service to the catise PREWAQE: (070.2 esd cause of truth had he represented Mr. HuME as, what indeed he was, a subtle, sophistical wrangler. To rea- son with acuteness on principles fundamentally false, is the true province of a sopfist, but not at all ofa metaphysician. | Perhaps there never was a man less intitled to the honourable appellation of a metaphysician than Mr. Hume. ~ And perhaps, too, there is not a term in the whole nomenclature of science so little connected, in its too common application, with a clear and distinct jdea, and consequently so much abused. If indeed the science consist in ‘‘ verbal disputation without precise ideas ;”? if the aim of proficients in it be ‘‘ to divest the mind of every principle, and of all conviction ; and_ consequently, to disqualify man for action, and to render : him as useless and wretched as possible ;”’ if it intend <¢ that mode of abstract investigation which is supported by ambiguous and indefinite phraseology, and partial experience’; and which seldom fails to lead to such conclusions as contradict matter of fact, or truths of indubitable authority ;”’ let it be for ever banished inte those regions of darkness whose prince is the father of falsehood : or if it be permitted to occupy any spot of this earth, let it be some solitary Crete, whose inhabi- tants are ‘‘ always liars,”’ - But, on the contrary, if while standing in the Tem- PLE OF TRUTH, we are assisted by any science, (the title is of no moment,) to discover the grandeur of its design, its wonderful proportions, and its exquisite ernaments; and if while viewing the TEMPLE oF Error, we are enabled, by the saine aid, to perceive the insecurity of its foundation, its tottering pillars, and “~~ xxil PREFACE. and its disgusting: want of symmetry, notwithstanding its gaudy and petty embellishments ;—to speak con- temptuously of such assistance is a mark of ignorance and folly, and to cultivate acquaintance with it is worthy of the purest wisdom. | V3 EQUITY ano SOVEREIGNTY. INTRODU GT FON, ‘Containing fome preparatory Obfervations. $1. Man is a fubjec of moral obligation. § 2. And therefore free in his actions. § 3. Yet his actions are predetermined. § 4. Hence the difficulty of reconcil- ing the divine decrees with human liberty. Abp. LeicHTon. § 5. Saurin. § 6. The general plan of this work. § 7. Preparatory meditation. § i. HERE have exifted but few charac- ters, comparatively, among men, fo obdurate and abandoned as to deny, that man- kind are fubjects of moral obligation; and, indeed, it is very. difficult to reflec /erioufly for a moment, without admitting the folemn fact. If man be not — fuch a fubjeét —an accountable creature, originally and conftantly defigned to render voluntary hom- age to the will of God—vwe have no evidence that there is, or may be, amy being whatever in ' the univerfe, who caz be morally obliged, But =~ B to 2 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. to maintain fuch a confequence, 1s to move, with unhallowed fieps, to the gloomy regions of Atheifm. For, it feems impoflible that any crea- ture fhould either prove, or believe, on juft grounds, the exiftence of a firft Caufe, without admitting, on the fame grounds, his own obligations to obey him.* § 2. But if man be the fubjec& of mora! obliga- tion, it is requifite he fhould be free from conftraint in his moral aétions. We may juftly fay, that man becomes morally ob/iged to any act, on condition that he is formed and permitted to aé freely, ac- cording to his choice and pleafure. The limits of his freedom (call it power, ability, liberty, or what you pleafe) to act as he choofes, are the limits of his obligations to act; and vice verfa. To fay that a man is ot at liberty to act according to his voli- tions, is the fame as to fay he 1s not obliged fo to act. Ifa man is not at liberty, or has not power, to make himfelf an angel, to fly as a bird, or to perform any other impoflibilities, it is felf-evident that he is not obliged to perform them. We fhould remark, however, that when any vo- lition has for its object, in any given circumftance, what is contrary to reézitude, whether that object be attainable or unattainable, phyfically confidered ; freedom is abufed, and a breach of moral obliga- tion follows, For though we are not objiged to per- ) form * The feparate and concurrent verdict of confcience, of reafon, and of revelation, in evidence of this point, being fo univerfally acknowledged to be decifive, renders a more particular difcuffion of it here unneceflary. INTRODUCTION. 3 form impoffibilities or improprieties, however thefe may be the objects of our choice; and thouch we have no freedom to att, phyfically, according to omnis of our volitions; yet the chorce itfelf is the a@ of a moral agent, and, if contrary to rectitude, wrong. Of the exiftence of this liberty every thinking perfon has the evidence of confcioufnefs, and reit- erated experience. From thefe refpectable fources, notwithftanding the efforts of fcepticifm to prove that liberty is an illufion, he is fatisfied and affured that he is free, unconftrainedly free, in all his moral actions. He finds that his accountablenefs to the fupreme Governor is not only the infeparable adjun&, but alfo the neceflary effec of liberty pro- perly fo called. I fay, liberty properly fo called; for it muft bé* carefully diftinguifhed from f{pon- taneity, or the liberty of brutes, and therefore may be denominated human liberty. § 3. Neverthelefs, in proportion as we afcribe to the Almighty Sovereign the character of wi/dom, we muft exclude chance out of the world. The one is pure light, the other total darknefs. Seeing, therefore, he is infinitely wife, every Heo whe- ther being or action, mutt be the effect of defign.— Befides, whatever takes place in time mutt be fore- - feen; and whatever has an efficient caufe muft be the effect. of omnipotence ; hence, the predetermination of all entity in human actions. We obferve in the world around us, independ- ent of the evidence formed by teftimony, numerous inftances of evi/, natural and moral; and many, _ glorious difplays are made of wifdom and benevo. B2 lence, 4 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. -lence, power and grace, which could have no being without the prior exiftence of moral evil. This is abundantly clear from that illuftrious effect of | divine benevolence, the gofpel difpenfation. —But is evil a weceffary inftrument to produce good ? What, then, becomes of the divine holinefs, that fhouid employ fuch means; of the divine wifdom and power, that fhould require them ; and of divine _goodnefs and equity in fubjecting the creature to their influence ? — Hence, § 4. To reconcile the exiftence of moral evil with the acknowledged perfections of Deity ; the irre- verfible divine decrees with human liberty; or, which amounts to the fame thing, to account for (709 Exod. xx. 3—17, 14 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. with moral precepts, merciful grants, conditional — promifes, and awful fanétions. § 21. Confiderable light is thrown on the nature of the Mofaic covenant and difpenfation by the pro- phet Jeremiah -and the apoftle Paul.* And from what they fay relating to the Mofaic covenant, compared with Gon’s laft difpenfation of mercy through the gofpel, I would deduce the following conclufions, § 22. It was an a& of fovereion favour in Gop to take the people into covenant at all. ‘* Thus | | “ fhalt . * Thus the former ; ‘ Behold the days come, faith the Lord, * that I will make a new covenant with the houfe of Ifrael, and * with the houfe of Judah: not according to the covenant that I * made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand * to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; which my covenant they ‘ brake, although I was an hufband unto them, faith the Lord ¢ ‘ but this fhall be the covenant that I will make with the houfe of © * Ifrael ; “* After thofe days, faith the Lord, I will put my law in ‘¢ their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will be their “Gop, and they fhall be my people. And they fhall teach no- “¢ more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, fay- “© ing, Kzow the Lord : for they fhall all know me, from the leaft of “« them to the greateft of them, faith the Lord: for I will forgive “¢ their iniquity, and I will remember their fin no more.” Jer. xxxi. 2934. And thus the /utter: * But now hath he (that is, ‘ Chrilt) obtained a more excellent miniftry, by how much alfo he ‘ is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was eftablifhed upon * better promifes. For if that fir covenant had been faultlefs, ‘ then fhould no place have been fought fora fecond. For find- “ ing fault with them, he faith, “ Behold, the days come, faith the “ Lord, &c,” In that he faith, “A new.covenant,” he hath | ‘ made Ch, ik A View of moral Government. 78 ‘¢ fhalt thou fay to the houfe of Jacob, and tell the «¢ children of Ifrael; Ye have feen what I did “unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on “ eagles wings, and brought you unto myfelf. “© Now therefore if you will obey my voice indeed, << and keep my covenant, then ye fhall be a pecu- ‘© liar treafure unto me above all people: for all «¢ the earth is mine. And ye fhall be unto mea «« kingdom of priefts, and an holy nation,” There was no inherent excellency in the people, as Gop himfelf frequently reminded them, to deferve a feletion from among other people for the enjoy- ment of fuch privileges. Nor does there appear to be in former promifes any ground of obligation on the part of Gop, that he fhould enter into this covenant with Ifrael; it remains therefore that it was done in purfuance of his /overeign purpofe and grace. However, i § 23. This tranfaétion had in it more of the na- ture of a find covenant than any thing that had been fo called, in any preceding period, between God and men; and was perhaps more fo than any event record- edin fcripture. For all the federal folemnities dur- ing the mofaic economy were either ratifications of this, or fubfervient and explanatory. And under the evangelical economy there is nothing of the kind. *¢ Thefe are the words thou fhalt {peak unto the ** children « made the firftold. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, ¢ is ready to vanifh away. ‘Then verily the firft covenant had alfo ¢ ordinances of divine fervice, and a worldly fanctuary. For ¢ there was a tabernacle made, &c.” Heb. vili.6—13. 1x. 1, 2. 76 ' EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ‘¢ children of Ifrael And Mofes came and called << for the elders of the people and laid before their *¢ faces all thefe words which the Lord commanded “© him. And all the people anfwered together, and ‘* faid, All that the Lord hath fpoken we will do, — “© And Mofes returned the words of the people “< unto the Lord.” Here we fee a gracious pro- pofal in form from the Lord to the people; the peo- ple’s public and formal acceptance of the terms propofed; and the Lord’s avowal of that accept- ance. Moreover, § 24. The manner of making known to the people the divine will and requifitions, particularly in proclaiming to them the formula of the covenant, clearly fhews the magnitude and importance of the’ tranfaction. ‘“* And the Lord faid unto Mofes, << Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the «< people may hear when I fpeak with thee, and “ believe thee forever.” After a folemn charge given to the people to prepare for the awful inter- view on the third day, itis added; “* And it came “¢ to pafs on the third day in the morning, that “© there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick «¢ cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the “< trumpet exceeding loud; fo’ that all the people “ that was in the camp trembled.— And mount ‘* Sinai was altogether on a fmoke, becaufe the «« Lord defcended upon it in fire: and the fmoke ‘¢ thereof afcended as the {moke of a furnace, and — ‘* the whole mount quaked greatly. And when the “* voice of the trumpet founded long, and waxed | : * louder Ch. 11. © & View of moral Government, "7 << Jouder and louder, Mofes fpake, and Gop anfwer. ed him by a voice. — And Gon fpake all thefe « words, faying, Iam the Lord thy Gop, which << have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, << out of the houfe of bondage. Thou shalt have no <¢ other Gods before me, &c.”’ Can any thing, if we - except the concluding fcene of human probation and the fate of angels, at the laft day, be more tremendous than the ufhering in of this covenant? <¢ And all the people faw the thunderings, and the “¢ lightnings, and the noife of the trumpet, and the <¢ mountain f{moaking : and when the people faw it, ** they removed, and ftood afar off. And they «¢ faid unto Mofes, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not Gop fpeak with us, left we die.’ And Mofes faid unto the people, ‘* Fear “¢ not: for Gop is come to prove you, and that his _ fear may be before your faces, that ye fin not,” Hence, i us aR Lad A wn § 25. This covenant contains, by implication, a rich exhibition of fovereign grace; and exprefsly, the moft tremendous difplay of impartial juice ; the former, to encourage obedience; the latter, to deter from fin, What can be more gracioufly en- couraging than thefe words? I am the Lord thy God. Or what better calculated, in connection with the whole folemnity, to imprefs them with a proper fenfe of the divine majefty and juftice, than the fol- lowing words ? God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye fin not. § 26, Majettic 38 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ~ _ § 26. Majeftic and venerable as this covenant was, the edifice was not intended to continue un- removed; but after a limited time to be taken down, not with violence, but with dignity and eafe, by the fame divine hand that erected it. “* Behold <¢ the days come, faith the Lord, that I will make a “¢ yew covenant with the houfe of Ifrael and the “ houfe of Judah: not according to the covenant «¢ that I made with their fathers in the day that I “¢ took them by the hand to bring them out of the «© land of Egypt. In that he faith, 4 new cove-— ‘¢ nant, he hath made the firft old. Now that «¢ which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanifh “¢ away.” Seeing this covenant contained fome things of moral and perpetual obligation, but the greater part was of a pofitive and variable nature; the former, on pulling down the building, was ufed in erecting the gofpel temple; the latter, became a heap of ruins, never to be employed any more. The edifice, as a whole, was demolifhed; but the materials that were in their own nature durable and incapable of decay were adopted for a new purpofe, For inftance, did the Mofaic covenant or law (words often ufed fynonymoufly) contain the duty of Joving Gop and our neighbour? This duty was not laid afide, as a duty, on the abolition of that covenant ; it was not left to perifh with “* beggarly elements” in one common heap of rubbifh; but was preferved and transferred to the zew building, * the houfe of ‘* the living Gop,” which is never to be exchanged for another temporal difpenfation ; its nature is not altered, Chl. 9 A View of moral Government, 79 altered, though the fituation be new and more con. fpicuoufly honourable, — Therefore, § 27. The Mofaic covenant or law was evidently of a preparatory nature. This is what. St. Paul means, when he fays, * Before faith came, we were ““ kept under the law, fhut up unto the faith which ‘* fhauld afterwards be revealed, Wherefore the “¢ law was our {choolmafter to bring us unto Chrift, “ that we might be juftified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a [chool- ““ mafter. For ye are all the children of Gop by “faith in Chrift Jefus.?* By * she Jaw he means the Mofaic law or covenant, as fuch 3, that building as a whole; and not thofe preceptive parts of holy writ, whether the ten commandments or any other, which, as far as they go, are rules of rectitude. It is of confiderable moment to obferve, — that in the New Teftament where “ the law” is mentioned, the en commands exclufively are feldom or never intended; but moft commonly the whole code of Mofaic law asa covenant, of which the deca. logue was the formula, the bafis, or the conftitu. tion; and always, when any reference is had to its removal, its abolition, or difannulling, If it is impofible, in the nature of things, that the rule of rectitude, and obligation of conformity to Gop, thould be difannulled with refpect to man, ‘in any- ‘f{tate of his exiftence, whether before or after the fall, before or after the gofpel, before or after be- Jieving, on earth, in heaven, or in hell; and ifthe | {cripture * Gal. iii. 23-26, 80 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. {cripture afferts that ** after faith is come, we are *¢ no longer under a /choolmafter,” that is, the law, as there explained; it follows irrefragably, that by the Jaw, when the idea of abolition, removal, dif- annulling, non-obligation, or the like, occurs, we are not tounderftand the ftandard of moral rectitude, and obligation to obedience purely moral, but the Mofaic law or covenant, as fuch. § 28. The Go/pe/, according to Jeremiah and St. Paul, is called a covenant aswell as the law. ‘* But ‘© this fhall be the covenant that I will make with the ** houfe of Hrael,; After thofe days, faith the “¢ Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, <¢ and write it in their hearts. But now hath he *¢ obtained a more excellent miniftry, by how much <¢ alfo he is the Meditator of a better covenant. In << that he faith, new covenant, he hath made the “< firft old.” Though the go/pel, ftri@ly fo called, is more properly termed a fe/fament than a covenant; yet, feeing this teftamentary grant muft neceflarily imply a requifition of acceptance and correfponding duties, many of which dutics are frequently {peci- fied, and this enjoined fometimes under pain of Goo’s higheft difpleafure, there is a propriety in calling the zhole of the New Teftament a coz VEHAUL amen - But this leads us to another head of difcourfe, § 29. The diftinguifhing character of the Gofpel covenant, compared with the /aw covenant, and all former ones, may be comprifed under the following particulars. The gofpel, as to its mature, is the fame with Ch.ll. © A View of moral Government, i with all the preceding exhibitions of grace and mercy to finful men; and differs only in the amplitude and clearnefs with which they are revealed. It contains the promifes in maturity; their foundation, the Meffiah, is clearly pointed out; and their ultimate tendency fhewn in the light of open day. The promife to our firft parents was the green blade, the gofpel, as revealed in the new teftament, is the full corn in the ear. The former was the morning ftar, the latter is the rifen fun. § 30. The gofpel, in its proper nature, is effen- tially different from every law whatever, Every law is ‘a rule of action,” but the gofpel is the offer or promife of happine/s. But as the offer is made to accountable beings, it is manifett that none can réfufe it and beinnocent. This is beautifully illuf- trated by the parable of the great fupper.* And as the gofpel contains an exhibitory grant of every defireable good, and the fulleft happinefs; hence’ arifes more clear, more forcible, and more exten- five obligations on thofe who live in the open day of the gofpel difpenfation above all others, § 31. The chriftian covenant is propofed as attend- ed with uo temporal inducements, or penal fan@ion; wherein it greatly differs from the Mofaic. The latter abounds with temporal promifes, fuch as of long life, a numerous offspring, plenty, and ex- ternal peace; while the former direéts almoft the ! i G whole * Luke xiv, 16—-24, $2 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. whole of our expectations to a future ftate, a king- dom of celeftial glory. ‘The one threatens all that is tremendous to human feelings in this life, the plague, the peftilence, and fantine; captivity and fervitude, wars and devaftations; to which we may add the punifhments annexed to violations of certain precepts to be judicially infli@ed on the tran{oreffor: the other, refers the difobedient to the fufferings of an after ftate, where the jire is never quenched, and their worm never dicth,; where the unprofitable fervant is confined to cuter darknefs ; where all who obey not the gofpel are punifhed with everlafing deftruction. § 32. The chriftian covenant differs effentially from the legal, in that it has not only a mediator but alfo a furety. Mofes was a mediator in the inferior im- port of the term, but in no fenfe was he a furety. Jefus is not only “the mediator (ucl]c) of a better covenant, which was eftablifhed upon better pro- mifes,” but alfo “ a furety (syyuvec) of a’ better teftament.” ‘The mediation of Mofes was only ceremonial and typical; that of Jefus Chrift real and efficacious with refpect to life and falvation, and our concerns with God as our moral governor. Not only would Mofes have acted the moft prefump- tuous part if he had undertaken to be the furety of the Ifraelites, as to their moral obedience and {pi- ritual welfare; but, being their equal, he was naturally incapable of the office, and therefore could not have pretended to the ufe of it without the greateit abfurdity. He, and he alone, is entitled to Ch, Il. A View of moral Government. 83 to this truft, the higheft in all the univerfe, who can engage to Gop as the equitable governor, that © all-whom the Father gave him’? to fave, fhall be the happy recipients of the covenant, not only in its external form but alfo in its internal grace; who can make them wii/ling inthe day of his power, and obedi~ ent unto the end of their probationary ftate ; who can quicken whom he will, and be to them the perpetual — fource of life and happinefs; who can fay with truth concerning thofe for whom he engages, “¢ they ‘“¢ hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow “© me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they ss fhall never perifh, neither fhall any pluck them “6 out of my hands,” | § 33. The chriftian covenant is, in 2 peculiar manner, ¢he minifiration of the fpirit, Not only the fubjects of divine influence are more numerous, but ‘the degree of that influence is more abundant than — in any prior period. ‘* After thofe days, faith the ** Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, ** and write it in their hearts;—-and they {hall teach ** no more every man his neighbour, and every *¢ man his brother, faying, Know the Lord, for they ‘< fhall all know me.” Here it is clearly implied, not only that the means of knowledge fhould be more general, but that the fpirit fhould be abundantly imparted to individuals under | this difpenfation, “¢ This is that which was fpoken by the prophet *¢ Joel, And it hall come to pafs in the lat days *¢ faith Gop, I will pour out my fpirit upon al! G2 : *< fefh. $4. BQU ITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. . aa wt Life bral of this invaluable blefiing fhall be extended to Gentile inners, as well as to Jewith people. ‘T’hus all who are baptized with water have the promife (underftanding thereby a fovereign gift, or exfibitory grant,) of being baptized by the holy {pirit. And under this difpenfation are, in fact, more frequent inftances of regenerating grace ; where- by every divine law, of ftanding obligation, becomes as written on the heart, and refides in the inward parts with an authoritative and lovely influence. The law of Gop and the inward man are in {weet amity. Without regenerating, transforming influ- ences, the perfon muft be termed ‘a natural man,” and his mind ** a carnal mind,”? which is averfe to _ fubjection to the law of Gop; but when he is “* born “< again,” made ‘“‘ anew man,” and ‘ renewed in ‘¢ the fpirit of his mind,” by the fovereign agency of him who commanded the light to fhine out of darknefs, and which renewal no means, as fuch, would ever effect, he begins to delight in the recti- tude, purity, and perfection of the law. What we cannot hope to be equal to we may love and adore. To this we may add, in illuftration of what Gop fays, ‘* I will put my law in their inward parts,” that, on fuppofition of divine influence being equal in an Old Teftament and a New Teftament faint, this mode of {peaking may denote, that the excel- lency of the means, on fimilar fubjects, would be eas of fuperior effect. But there is, more- ver, great reafon to conclude, that Gop’s gracious Lae is exerted to a greater degree on individuals than © PACtn 10, Ae. Ch, Il. A View of moral Government. 85 _ than in any former period ; if we confider the united _teftimonies of the prophets, John the Baptift, our Lord himfelf, and his apoftles. From this detail of the divine difpenfations, I hope it appears, that, while grace lays the founda- tion, equity prefides over and fecures the glory of the whole fuperftructure and each department. __ G 3 USEC T 86 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. 5. TV, Of the UNIVERSAL Aspect of revelation. S 1. We should diftinguifh between the afpeét and the boundaries of revelation. § 2. All revelation from Adam to Noah had an univerfal afpet.. § 3. Alo to Abraham and Mofes. § 4. The want of univer fality in the attual acquaintance of mankind with revealed truths, from Abraham to Meffiah’s advent, accounted for, § 5, The afpeét of the chriftian revelation, univerfal. § 6. How to reconcile this with matter of fact. § 7. Corollary, $f. ( ] E thould carefully obferve the differ. vy V_ ence between the actual boundaries and the a/peé? of revelation, The latter is univerfal in every period, at leaft as to the moft important parts of it; the former has been, in moft ages, very partial. Thus light, air, water, natural liberty, are defigned for the ufe of ail, or the grant of them bears an univerfal afpe&, but the a@ual uf is not fo extenfive, § 2. Whatever divine revelation was made to Adam, Enoch, and Noah, it had undoubted] y an uni-. verfal afpect, there being no exprefs reftri@ion of its promulgation and ufe to one more than another; - nor any affionable reafon exifting for fuch a reftric. tion, though there is little doubt that the actual knowledge of the facred difcovery was very unequal, Through Ch. iif. A View of moral Government. 84 Through carelefsnefs, worldly purfuits, and fenfual gratifications, it is eafy to conceive how many per- fons, families, and even tribes or large neighbour. hoods, would lofe the clearnefs of certain revealed truths, however interefting and important, while they were no lefs intended by the exhibitory grants of fovereign benefits than others who enjoyed ad- vantages far fuperior, The a/pef of the original. promife, “‘ that the Meffiah fhould bring deliver- “¢ ance to men,” was to Cain as well as Abel; to the daughters of men as well as the fons of Gop; to Ham and Japheth as well as to Shem. § 3. It may, at firft, be not fo eafy to apprehend, how what Gop revealed of his will to Abraham and Mofes had an afpect fo diffufive and univerfal. But when we confider that there is a wide difference between the zu/iruments and the objeés of covenant | favours, the difficulty will vanifh. Abraham and Sarah, Laac, Jacob, and his defcendants to the time of the Meffiah, were not only the odeé7s but alfo the infiruments of covenant bleflings. While the Ifrael- ites alone (including profelytes) were the honoured inftruments of introducing the promifed blefling ; while it was faid to Abraham, ‘* I will make thee ‘¢ the father of many nations, and in [aac fhall thy “< feed be called ;” it is evident from the encourage- ment given to profelytes, and from the coincidence of the Abrahamic promife with the gofpel, that towards the odjeéfs of the covenant its afpeét was univerfal. Had any one of the human race ftepped forward, and put in a claim of admiflion in virtue Oe ac of $8 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. of the claufe inferted in the facred ftatute in favour of profelytifm, the Jews had no right to difpute that claim; which demonftrates, that even the revelation which of all others is deemed the mot reftritiive, abfolutely excluded no man. § 4. It is not difficult to account for the want of umiverfality in the adfual acquaintance of mankind ~ with revealed religion from the time of Abraham to the Meffiah’s advent. For, 3 1. Antient prediéfions of a Saviour were neceflary in order to encourage and eftablith the belief of fin- ners from the beginning; which to an impartial mind muft appear to be a truly amiable trait of moral government, And, in purfuance of the fame end, the more {pecific and particular thefe predic. tions were the more valuable they muft be. But it is plain, 2. That the truth of thefe predictions could not be afcertained, by identifying the perfon for the conviction of all the world, “but by {uch limitations -and exclufive rites as were in fact enjoined upon the Hraelites. By not mixing with other nations their genealogies were kept exaé, whereby the predic- tions, the life and glory of which were derived from their fpecific character, were eafily traced; the evidence of his {pringing from Abraham, Laac, and Jacob; the tribe of Judah, and family of David; the time of his coming, and the place of his nativity; muft break forth with peculiar luftre, and conflitute no fmall part of the evidence of Chriftianity. § 5. The, Ch. Il, 4 View of moral Government. 89 § 5. The univerfal afpect of the chriftian revela- tion is fo plain on the face of the New Teftament, that it would be needlefs to enter on a formal proof of the fat. Though John the Baptift was con- fined in his miniftrations to the jewifh nation, being commiffioned to call them, as the fubjects of the Mofaic covenant, and to whom primarily and moft direftly the promifes were made as the de-. fcendants of Abraham, to the exercife of repent- ance and a thankful reception of the Mefliah; and though our Lord himfelf, for fimilar reafons, came only to “* his own,” the ‘ loft fheep of the houfe ‘* of Ifrael,”? when he had finifhed his redeeming work he fpeaks a different language from what he had done before: ¢ And Jefus came, and fpake ¢ unto them, faying, ‘* All power is given unto “© me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore ‘¢ and teach, or difciple, ALL NATIONS ;” or, as St. Mark exprefies it, ‘“* Go ye into all the world, “¢and preach the gofpel to every creature.” St, Peter, for a time, hefitated, with refpect to the univerfality of this commiffion, but he was, at length, fufficiently convinced, that the gofpel look. ed upon every man, and made a gracious profer to him of life and falvation. ‘* Gop hath fhewed me. ‘© that I fhould not call azy man common or un- “© clean.”* Accordingly the apofles went forth in all directions, making no difference between Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and barbarians, preaching peace by Jefus Chrift as Lord of all, . § 6. If * See Acts x. throughout. 90 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. § 6. If it be enquired, How can we reconcile this univerfal afpect, and orignal defignation of the gofpel, with matter of fact? If it was intended for all nations, how comes it to pafs that fo many nations are aéiually unacquainted with it? We re- ply; the partial manner in which the nations are evangelized is not owing to any reéforal reftrictions, but to the fovereign diftributions and arrangements ofprovidence, Norcan any one, who underftands the gofpel commiffion, and has it in his power (cat, par.) to propagate it where it is not, remain unre- proved in his own confcience while hindering or not forwarding its more extenfive fpread. | § 7. Coroll. To be waconcerned about the fpread of the gofpel among the heathen is truly /iful. Fiow can fuch pray Thy kingdom come, without con- demning themfelves by the very petition they utter ? Since the eftablifhment of Chriftianity Gop does | not work miracles for its propagation, but leaves it to the fame iffue with other providential events ; and this is an argument why we fhould, with holy promptitude, improve every providential oppor- tunity that offers to diffufe the favour of Chrift, and the falutary ftreams of his gofpel. Have not opulent merchants, ftatefmen, and fovereigns, much to anfwer for on this account? The poor fheep in the wildernefs perifh for. want of pafture and of fhepherds, while millions are lavifhed on pleafures and poffefiions that perifh in the ufing, and in the end involve their votaries in perdition, and fill them with the keeneft remorfe. May Britifh influence lie Ch. II. A Vier of moral Government. OE lie no Jonger fo criminally dormant ! And when, at any time, miffionaries are employed for this bene- volent purpofe, may they be men of Gop, whofe hearts and lives are tranfcripts of the gofpel of peace! Then, how beautiful upon the mountains would be their feet, while moving from place to place to publifh the glad tidings! SECT. g2 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Or ity Fe) «Va Of the RECTORAL INTENTION of the fupreme Governor. § 1. We muft diftinguifh between the rectoral and the de- cretive defigns of God. § 2. This diftinétion effential 4o moral government. § 3. Further proved and illuftrated, §& 4. When both defigns coincide in the fame fubjett, §5. This further explained. § 6. Corollary. § I. FE, muft diftinguith, with care, between ; the rectoral and the decretive defigns of Gop; which diftin@tion is not to be confidered as arbitrary, to ferve a turn, but as founded on the very nature of moral government. That Gop has decretive defigns, with refpeét to the univerfe he hath made; the hypothetical refult of the fyftem now exifting being foreknown, beheld by the infinite intellect in the divine all-fufficiency ; and what . otherwife could be but merely poflible becoming by a fettled purpofe or decree certainly future ; the proof of this, muft be referred to another place. We now proceed to fhew, that the reéforal intention is, and neceffarily muft be, different from the decretive. § 2. Without fuch a difference of intention, moral government can have no exiftence. The only way to know any decretive intention is from the event ; _ whatever ts found to be faé, as far as it could be } the Ch. Ul. 4 View of moral Government. 93 the object of a decree, we are obliged to conclude that it was decretively intended. Since he is the efficient caufe of all created real entity, it is folly to enquire, concerning fuch an object, Whether Gop purpofed its exiftence or not; for it is felf-evident that without fuch a purpofe it could no more exit than it could be Gop, He as affuredly decrees what he effects, as that he is wi/é; therefore, to controvert the decretive defign of any event, is the fame as to queftion, Whether Gop be wife or not, But his reforal intention is to render all account. able beings obedient and happy. So far is the obe- dience and happinefs of men intended, in every dif- penfation of religion, that nothing whatever prevents it but their own adufed iberiy. When mercies are moft freely and unrefervedly offered, or the moft equitable laws enacted, and both as much calculated as poflible to render the fubject obedient and hap. - py; man would not be a free agent, and confe- quently would be no fubject of moral government, if he had no power of fruftrating the above men- tioned rectoral intention. A power of /ininng, or of being difobedient and confequently unhappy, is effential to moral agency ;. without this, man could be no more accountable than a brute. But if fo, who fees not that the moft unbounded benevolence, the moft gracious promifes, the wifeft laws, and the moft engaging mercies, (when a fuitablenefs of difpofi- tion is.not enfured by fovereign grace, and which is by no means requifite to conftitute the equity of moral government) may be frufrated, as to their native tendency, and their rectoral defign of making the fubject obedient and happy ? : § 3. When 94 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. § 3. When Gop convened the thoufands of Ifrael to the foot of mount Sinai, and with the majefty of Godhead pronounced the ten commands, forbidding idolatry and other fins, was it not his legiflative and reéoral intention that the people to whom they were addrefled, without exception, fhould be obedient to thofe laws, and, by a collateral ufe of the preceding promifes, be happy in the com- pliance ? He who can deliberately deny this, is beyond the reach of argument, But yet, what was the event ? Did this benevolent defgn of the Law- giver preferve them, in fact, from idolatry, irrever- ence, fabbath breaking, difobedience to parents, murder, adultery, thieving, falfe witnefs, and covet- oufnefs ? Hiftorical evidence decides to the con- trary. The confequence then is irrefragable, that the redforal intention of making them obedient and happy failed of the end; it was counteracted and fruftrated by abufed free agency. But was Gon’s decretive defign therein counteracted and rendered void? This is the fame as to afk, Was the evens, which is ever the infallible index of the decretive purpofe, counteracted by any thing? From the very definition of a decree, the event can never clafh with it. But the legiflative and retora! de- fign accord with the event, or not, as liberty is rightly ufed or elfe mifimproved. § 4. Then only do the decretive and rectoral in. tentions coincide in the fubje&t, when he is actually conformed to the rule of government. When he | yfes and improves his natural, powers, abilities and CPP Ch. II. . 4 View of moral. Government, 95 opportunities to the divine glory; when he conforms to the rule of right announced to him; when he is fuitably grateful and thankful in the enjoyment of bleflings beftowed on him; when he receives and improves exhibited favours; then he may be faid to be conformed to the rectoral intention. And when this is the real event, the fubje&’s happinefs and the decretive defign concerning him coincide, § 5. For the further explication of this Aphice! if may be proper to remark : 1. The divine rectoral and decretive intentions, though different, are not oppofite. When Gop gives to man a law with the defen that it fhould be obeyed, and the event is, that it is not obeyed; it by no means follows, that difobedience, or the finful- nefs of the event, was the object of a decretive in- tention. The fnfuluefs of a difpofition or action, having no efficient caufe, cannot proceed from any pofitive act of Gop; and confequently cannot be the object of any divine decree. It is, in fa@, a negative idea, confifting in a want of moral good in a moral agent; which as really affects his happi- nefs as if it were of the moft pofitive nature. The rectoral defign 1s full, of denevolence, which appears from the variety, fuitablenefs, and wonderfully en- gaging nature of the means employed to promote the fubje&’s happinefs; if the event, therefore, prove difaftrous to any, it is not from want of benevolence in the Governor, but finfulnefs in the creature, whereby his benevolent intention i$ coun- teracted. Nor can the difaftrous event be owing to the ee EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the decretive intention, feeing the obliquity or fin- fulnefs of the event cannot poflibly be any object of a decree, from what has been already faid; andun- — happinefs, or pofitive fuffering as a penal evil, is never attached to any thing fhort of mora/evil. It therefore neceffarily follows, that thefe two inten- tions, the one aiming at the happinefs of a// moral fubjects, the other aiming at the happinefs of thofe only who are eventually happy, though fo different are not oppo/fite. 2. Whenever the rectoral defign is counteracted or fruftrated, it is owing to the finful defec? of the creature; and whenever the event is obedience and happinefs, it is owing to the /overeign influence of Gop. This arifes from a pofition too little known or confidered, viz. ‘“* That the creature has power, “* of itfelf, to fall fhort of rectitude, but its power “< of acting well is wholly of God,” and which will claim particular notice in the fequel of this Effay. § 6. Coroll. From the fundamental and neceflary difference between the decretive and rectoral inten- tion of Gop, while at the fame time not oppofite to each other, we infer the -perfe& confiftency of many paflages of {cripture with the divine decrees, though - often urged as incompatible, Ch. II. A View of moral Government. 97 Bape CT. NI Of the oBLIGATIONS of men to receive the GOs- PEL, and all the bleffings it exhibits. $1. The gofpel finds men finners. § 2. Yet is peculiarly adapted to certain charatters. § 3, 4. Whence refult obligations. § 5—7. Coroll, That God’s recioral intention was, that Chrift be a Mediator to every finner whom the gofpel addreffes, or may addrefs, with offers of pardon. § 1. HE gofpel of Chrift finds all men fners, condemned and perifhing, helplefs and hopelefs ; if therefore it addrefles them at all, it muft addrefs them as fuck. To fuppofe the reverfe, is to fuppofe that there is fome ‘‘ other way given «¢ among men whereby they may be faved”? befide , the gofpel; and, that the re¢toral defign of Gop may be oppofed with impunity. There is no pre- vious condition required in us to qualify us for a fhare in the promife of mercy; fince the evangeli- cal promife is an ab/olute grant to the unworthy, the needy, and the ruined.* It denotes ‘* good H “< tidings * The following words of the amiable Mr. Hervey {0 fully exprefling my ideas of the fubjeét under confideration, I fhall make no further apology for their infertion in this place. ‘ Nothing <* is required in order to our participation of Chrift and his bene- su dite, 93 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ‘s tidings of great joy, which fhall be to ai people 5” not to all good people exclufively. The gofpel is a falutary ftream that iffues from under the throne of Gop’ s high ce diffufing itfelf wider and wider, * fits, but only that we receive them. Receive them, as-the freeft of gifts, or as matter of mere grace, vouchfafed to the moft « unworthy. Is it not neceffary that we have, at leaft, a convic- “ tion of our need of thefe benefits, and a fenfe of their unfpeak- « able worth? Not as the condition of our enjoying them. ‘The ¢ proper bufinefs of fuch convictions is only to att as flimulatives ; <¢ exciting us earneftly to covet, gladly to receive, the unfpeakably « needful git, ” Theron and Afpafio. vol. IT. p. 310. Lond. A789: «¢ In this hasta [Matt. xxii. 11.] Chrift is both the bride- “ groom, the feaft, and the wedding-garment. And who are in- <¢ vited to an union with this Bridegroom? To be guefts at this ‘«s feaft? To be arrrayed with this wedding-garment ? — The «¢ meflengers are fent, not to the manfion-houfes of the rich, or the palaces of the mighty 3 but to the highways and hedges. — “6 To whom is their meflage addrefled ? Not to the amiable of «* accomplifhed. But to the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind. (Luke xiv. 21.) Perfons, who have no recommending endow- « ments, but even Jothefome and di/guftful property. Yet thefe « (mark the paflage, my Friend ; mark well the encouraging cir- « cumftance) thee are not only allowed, but intreated — impor- « tuned — and, by all the arts of perfuafion, by every weighty or «¢ winning motive, compelled to come in. — After all this, furely, it ‘¢ cannot be an act of prefumption to accept, but muft bea breach _ “ of duty to refufe the invitation.” did. p. 311. a “© Ihave prepared my dinner, fays the King eternal. All things *« are ready. (Matt. xxii, 4.) Whatever is neceffary for the jutti- *« fication, the holinefs, the complete falvation of finners, is pro- ‘s vided in the merit and the grace of my Son. Let them come *¢ therefore, as to a nuptial banquet ; and freely enjoy my muni- “¢ ficence 5 and feaft their fouls with the royal provifion. — Let ‘¢ ys imitate the returning prodigal. He came, with no recom- ** men- Ch. IIL. A View of moral Government, 99 wider, till at length it cover the whole earth as the “* waters do the fea.” Its. progrefs, however, is directed with an awful mixture of fovercignty and wa oa “~ e n“ n ~~ nw “a bal wr n n nw a n Hi 2 Shee equity. mendation, either of drefs, of petfon, \ or of chara¢ter. None but his nakednefs, his mifery, and an acknowledgment of vile- nefs, which had every aggravating, not one) extenuating circum- ftance. Yet he was received — received with indulgence —~ received with carefles — and, without ftaying to provide any handfome apparel of his own, F, as clothed with the ef robe, the robe of a Saviour’s righteoufnefs.”~ Ibid. p. 312. ** When the Almighty made man, and placed him in this habit- able world, did he fay ?. « Here is a dwelling-place, furnith yourfelves with accommodations . Here are materials, let your own {kill form the trees, the fruits, the grain.”—-Or did he fay ? Here they are, ready formed to your hand ; only do fomething, in order to qualify yourfelves for them, or entitle yourfelyes to them.” No; his language was ; “ ‘They are fully prepared. You are welcome to make ufe of them all. They are my free gift to. my needy creatures.” In like manner when he {ent his Son into the world, to make the atonement for fin, and to work the juftifying righteoufnefs, he faid not to fallen man; “ Dg your part in this grand bufinefs. At leaft make yourfelf, in fome degree, meet for thefe benefits.’-— No ; but he {poke, or rather now fpeaks in the gofpel, to this effeét : “¢ The work is all done ; with a perfection that is abfolute, and admits of no addi- tion. ‘The benefits are, thot to diftinguith merit, but to recover the ruined. Therefore, as ruined, undeferving, guilty creatures, you are welcome to apply and enjoy them all.” Jéid. p. 314. “¢ ‘The facred word defcribes the Gofpel, as a Wi// or Tefament. (Heb. ix. 16, 17.) This notion not only runs through the {criptures, but ftands confpicuous even in their title page. — What are they called? Tus Orp and Tur New Tesra- MENT. — What is a teftament? An authentic deed, in which eltates are tranfmitted, and legacies bequeathed. In cthey teftaments, fome earthly poffeffion ; in this, the heavenly patri- mony, even all the riches of grace, and the everlafting inherit- : “ ance & Pe) ; f #* 100 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. equity. In that it flows to one part, and not to another, in any given time, how /fovereign! In that it has no refpect of perfons, making no difference in its offers between external rank, or degrees of. pretended merit, how equitable ! § 2. Yet we muft fay that its contents are pecu- liarly adapted to certain difpofitions and circum- ftances. Are any made fenfible of their {piritual ficknefs ? how feafonable the information that Chriit is a phyfician. Are any burdened and heavy laden? Jefus promifes freedom from the toil. Are any poor in fpirit? the riches of grace and heaven are opened for their ufe. Do they hunger and thirft after righteoufnefs? with righteoufnefs and glory they fhall be filled, Do they mourn over their own fins and thofe of others, the difhonour done to Gon, and the confequent miferies of finners? the Saviour declares that they fhall be comforted. In fhort, the gofpel propofes to every foul of man, invaluable bleffings fuited to every flate without exception. It brings its righteoufnefs near to ‘¢ the ‘© ftout-hearted who are far from righteoufnefs.” And yet the fact is, that none will receive it but fuch as are convinced of their need of it. He who _ is made rich is firft made poor. He who is fatisfied 1s *¢ ance of glory. Did we confider the fcriptures in this light, it * would be a moft engaging invitation, to fearch them with “¢ afiduity and pleafure. What child is willing to continue *¢ ignorant of a deceafed parent’s laft will and teftament ? Who <6 does not covet to know, what hondurs, hereditaments, and ‘¢ wealth devolve to his enjoyment, by fuch an interefting and ‘¢ honourable conveyance?” Jbid. p. 315. Che it. A View of moral Government, IOL is firft made to hunger and thirft. He who enters in at the ftrait gate is firft made to flrive for an entrance. He who enjoys eternal reft and falva- tion, is firft found a penitent, a believer, obedient and perfevering, § 3. Obligations refult from the mere exhibition of bleflings, as moral means held forth by the fu- preme governor ; and not oly when bDleflings are actually poffeffled, Moral means are the grand medium whereby Gop governs his accountable creatures. His rectoral intention in giving them is, that we may be obedient and happy in the right ufe of them. To the benighted there is light; to the guilty, pardon; to the weak, ftrength; to enemies, reconciliation; to the forrowful, comfort; to the needy, heavenly riches. If thefe things are pro- claimed for our conftant ufe, as they evidently are, we are under obligation to receive them according as they fuit our cafe. And this obligation is aug- mented from exprefs commands: to repent, that our fins may be blotted out; to awake from the fleep of fin, that Chrift may give us light; to deeve on the Lord Jefus Chrift, that we may be faved; to rua that we may obtain the heavenly prize. And we may add, that this obligation is heightened from the awful ¢hreatenings attending a refufal : thofe who refufe the invitation to the great fupper, fhall not tafte of it; thofe who continue impenitent fhall perith; thofe who perfift in unbelief fhall be damn- ed; and thofe who obey not the gofpel thall be 3 Ve ele : punifhed. 8 - 1c2~—«xEQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. punfhed with everlafting deftrudtion from the prefence of the Lord and the glory of his power. § 4. It appears to me, Lown, nota little furprifing, that any intelligent perfon, who believes the New Teftament to be the expreflion of the divine will, fhould {eruple to own, that Jefus Chrift and all his benefits are there propofed or offered to the acceptance of men‘as fimners, 1s the gofpel the primary inftru- ment in converfion, or is it not? If itis, can it addrefs men in any other character than as'perifhing finners ? And if they are addreffed in that character, is 1t not their duty, are they not ftrictly obliged, while poflefing fuch a character, to accept of the heavenly donation ? The negative of this queftion is confronted by every principle of moral obligation. On thecontrary, the rejection of Chrift and his proffered falvation, ranks with crimes of higheft aggravation and deepeft guilt. He who rejects Gonp’s teftimony, makes him a lar. And this is the record; ‘* that Gop hath given to <¢ yg eternal life; and this life is in his fon.”* If Chrift is preached at all to men, they are under in- difioluble obligations to believe on him. § 5. Coroll. That there might be a fuitable, reafon- able and confiftent ground of believing in Chrift for falvation, we muft infer, that Gop’s refloral intention was, that Chrift be a Mediator for every finer whom the gofpel addreffes. I am apprehenfive that the chief reafon why fome have contended againft the jree offers of Chrift and falvation to finners have been a dread fe : See 1 John v. g—13. St». it Sin. a 5 — eels’ Ch. Ul. A View of moral Government, 103 a dread of the necefiary confequence of that doc- trine, which is expreffed in the corollary. But is it a confequence to be dreaded by any lover of truth ? Far from it. For it by no means militates againft the honours of fovereign grace, or a decretive [pecta- ity in his mediation. The {cripture afferts, ‘¢ that “ he died for all;” to anfwer Arimuian objections advanced from fuch a paflage, by faying that it means “ all the eleci,”? “+ fome of all forts, *$ Gentiles “© as well as Fews,” or the like, appears to me by no means fair and fatisfactory.* But when we fay, H 4 that #* cc But you will fay, all thefe general expreflions do but denote, “ genera fingulorum, fome of all forts, the world. of the elect, or the all of believers. In anfwer to which I fhall only put two « queries. | « 1, If thofe general expreffions denote only the world of the « elect, or the all of believers, why is it not faid in {cripture that « Gop elefed all and every man, the world, and the whole world? “ in that fenfe it is as true that Gop elected them all, as it is that «© Chrift died for them all. Why then doth the Holy Spirit alto- <¢ gether forbear thofe general expreflions in the matter of e/ecfion, 6 which it ufeth in the matter of redemption ? Surely it imports <¢ thus much unto us, that redemption hath a larger {phere than <¢ election ;. and therefore the {criptures contract eleStion in words & of fpeciality only, whilft they open and dilate redemption in <¢ emphatical generalitics. | “2. If thofe general expreffions denote only the world of the riz EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. S.EyQGet, VIL Of the rule and procefs of final JupcMenr. § 1. A final judement afferted in feripture. § 2. The — immediate fubject of this fection. § 3, The rule of final judgment, what. § 4. What the proper object — of judgment. § 5, 6. The intereft of equity and fovereignty therein. § 7. The acquittance and remt- nevation of the bleffed ftand on equitable grounds. § 8. The effecis and confequences of judgment. § g—12. Remarks on univerfal reftoration, § 13 — 17. Objections of the defenders of univerfal re- oration anfwered. § I. Ce Shall bring every work into judgment, - faith Solomon, with every fecret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.* And Fefus commanded us to preach unto the people, fays Peter, and to teftify that it was he which was ordained of God, to be the judge of quick and dead. — Behold the Lord cometh eith ten thoufands of his faints, fays Jude, to execute judgment upon all.— We fhall all fland, faith Paul, » before the judgment feat of Chrif.§ <* I beheld,” fays Daniel, <<‘ till the thrones were caft down (all «* terreftrial kingdoms abolifhed) and the ancient ‘< of days did fit, whofe garment was white as fnow, “ and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his « throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as : burning * Eccles, xil. 14. T. Acts = 42. Judeia, 154) ),.> , & Romemiv ao, Ch, II. A View of moral Government. 112 “ fire. A fiery ftream iffued and came forth from “‘ before him; thoufand thoufands miniftered “¢ unto him; the judgement was fet and the books “* were opened. — And at that time thall Michael “* ftand up, the great prince which ftandeth for the “¢ children of thy people; and there fhall be a “‘ time of trouble fuch as never was fince there *¢ was a nation even to that fame time, and at that | “< time thy people fhall be delivered, every one that *¢ fhall be found written in the book. And many. ‘“‘ of them that fleep in the duft of the earth “¢ fhall awake, .fome to everlafting life, and fome ‘© to fhame and everlafting contempt. And they “¢ that be wife fhall fhine .as the brightnefs of the “< firmament; and they that turn many to righte- “* oufnefs, as the ftars for ever and ever.” * Who the ancient of days is we learn from St, John, (Rev. i. 13-16, xx. 11 — 15.) and from truth itfelf, (Matt. xxv. 31 — 46.) § 2. From thefe paflages of infpiration, nothing can be plainer than the appointment of a judgement to come; but the immediate bufinefs of this fection is not to fhew who are the per/ons judged, and who is the judge, nor is it neceflary here to enter on a formal proof of the fecond perfonal coming . of ' Chrift, and the certainty of a final general judg. ment at the day of gefurrection; + what chiefiy PRON yh demands La * Dan. vii. g, 10. xii. 1—3. + Some of my readers know that there has lately appeared a theological phenomenon (not to fay comet or meteor) in the religious world, portending that there is no fecond coming Of our Lord, no laf, 114 HQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. demands our prefent attention is to inquire — what is the rule of final judgment — what is the proper object of it what the refpective influence of equity and fovereignty in the whole procefs — and -what the effec of all? § 3. The laff judgment, no refurrettion, in the fenfe they have been always underftood by the chriftian church. The foundation of thefe tenets, and moft of the peculiar doctrines of the New Ferufalem Church, eftablifhed by Baron SwEDENBOoRG, is what they term the Science of Correfpondences. "This once admitted as an inviolable part of their creed, -the particulars juft mentioned, with fome other points of lefs notoriety, feem to follow of courfe. We thall therefore, firft, look at the foundation and main pillars of this tuminous caftle, from whence the remaining parts of the frudture may be eftimated; and, then, fubjoin a few remarks. 1. The Science of Corre/pondences. ‘* Correfpondence in gene- ral may be defined, the relation fubfifting between the effence of a thing and its form, or between, the caufe and its effect : thus the whole natural world correfponds to the fpiritual world , the body of a man, with all its parts, correfponds to his foul ; and the literal fenfe of the word correfponds to the fpirituah “ fenfe. So that wherever there is a correfpondence, there is neceflarily implied fuch an wxion between two things, as only akes place when the one is derived from the other, in the fame manner as an effect is derived from its efficient caufe, or as fpeech is derived from thought, and the geftures of the body from the affections of the mind ;. in all which cafes the exterior forms can no more be feparated from the interior effences, without lofing their exiftence, than the body of a man can be feparated from his foul without death. Such is the nature and power of correfpondences.” Mr. HinpMarsy’s Letters to Dr. Prizstiey, p. 281. “ The /ceence of correfpandences is now ‘¢ difcovered, which is the only true key that can unlock the + cabinet of the’ literal fenfe of {cripture, within which are con- A$ tained the jewels of its {piritual and celeftial fenfe.. ‘The great * diverfity of opinions refpecting the letter, of which you are e: fuliciently ee Ch Tio View of moral Government. 115 - §3. The rule of final judgment can be no other than shat of moral government, called the morz/ law the immediate foundation of which lies in conti. tuted relations, Hence it is plain, that oblications 12 vary *¢ fufficiently apprized, is in a great meafure owing to the want ** of fuch a key ; for the more we are acquainted with the {cience Ser ot correfpondences, fo much the more fhall we be agreed in “* judgment, and in the true urflerftanding of the feriptures. “* Indeed fo regular and certain is that {cience, that were any ** given number of perfons, praperly acquainted with it, required “© to give their opinion of any part of {cripture, they would all ** uniformly agree in the fame explanation, if not in words, yet “in fubftance ; which is a circumftance not even pretended to “¢ by thofe who reject the fpiritual fenfe, but at the fame time a “* ftriking proof of the reality of correfpondences, and that the «¢ Word of Gop is written according to that fcience.” lbid. 268. *¢ Tt only requires a proper knowledge of the {cience of corref. “* pondences, to be poflefled of a rational, fatisfattory, and “¢ determinate way of explaining them. For example, wherever *¢ mention is made of a hor/e, it invariably: fignifies the wader ¢ fianding ; and a chariot means doGrine.” Ibid. 273, Av mere *¢ figure or fimile is the refemblance: which one xatural objeét or ‘* circtimitance is fuppofed to bear to another zatural object or *¢ circumftance; whereas a correfpondence is the aétual relation ** fubfifting between a xatural object and a /piritual fubje@, or a * natural form and a fpiritual effence ; that is between outer and “‘ inner, lower and higher, nature and fpirit; and not between ¢ nature and nature, or fpirit and fpirit. "This diftin@tion thould *¢ be well attended to. The language of correfpondence js the language of Gop himfelf, being that which he always “¢ {peaks, both in his word, and in his works: but figure and ‘¢ metaphor, together with the language of fable, are the mere © inventions of man, which took their rife when the divine {cience of correfpondences began to be loft in the world.” Téid. 28 a “¢ Numbers, as well as names, in the holy word, are fignificative "and correfpondent ; therefore it is faid, Apoc. xiii. 18. Here is a ~ nn we 6 ~ #16 ' EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. vary as relations and circumftances do. And it is no lefs plain, that moral obligation, the moral Jaw, and conftituted relations, are co-exiftent; there is no obligation is wiflom, let him that hath underftanding count.the number of the beaft : for it is the number of aman ; and his number is fix hundred | three feore and fix. — 1 remember to have read, fome years ago, many curious explanations of the number 666, all having refer- ence to the titles of the Pope, in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, orn fome other way alluding to the church of Rome. The words Lateinos, Romiith, Vicarius generalis Dei in terris, Vicarius Faht Dei, with various, others, were by dint of numeral powers, and fuch like.calculations, all made to produce the exaét com- plement 666. At that time I thought fome attention was due to thofe ingenious fpeculations ; but on further inquiry I foon found, that not only the names above mentioned would make up the required number, but perhaps an hundred and fifty other names, that could no more be fuppofed to have any con- neétion with the contents of the Apocalypfe than the man in the moon. 1 then faw, that a// fuch explications could not be the effect of that w:fdom fpoken of in the 13th chapter, and to which we are invited; but that there muft be fome other hidden meaning, with which the learned were unacquainted. It did not fatisfy me, that Lateiuos, Romiith, Vicarius Fili Dez, or even Ludovicus, made up the complement 666, when other words were to be found, that did the fame, fuch as Fo/eph Smith, Tomkins, Benjamin Bennet, and what is fingular enough, the Rew. Fof. Prieftley; for by the magical power of numerals I could bring them all to fing the fame fong, fix hun- dred and fixty fix. It was indeed a curious circumftance ; but I thought shat not fufficient for one who is in {earch of genuine truth; neither did I then, nor do I now think, that a mere rebus or conundrum is worthy a place in thofe oracles of divine truth, whofe author is no lefs than the great JEnovan, the Gop of heaven and earth.” Jbid. 284, 286. ‘* As the true meaning of the number 666 may be feen at large in Baron | “* SWEDEN- Na Chil; A View of moral Government, 117 obligation without law, and there is no law without conftituted relation ; and the one flows from the other as a neceflary effect. The only poffible way, therefore, of exempting us from obligation to the 66 6 & 46 ‘<4 6 4 € €6 a chap. v. and vi. it is thus remarked: *¢ That all thefe dévices Die moral SWEDENBORG’s Apocalyp/e Revealed, I thall here only obferve, that the whole chapter in which it is contained, gives a de- {cription of the faith of the Proteftant or Reformed churches, particularly in refpect to its feparation from charity or good works, and that the number of the beaft denotes — she quality of that faith, as being a complex of the moft enormous falfes ! It is called the umber of a man, becaule number fignifies quality, and man fignifies wi/dem and intelligence, but in the oppofite fenfe, as in the prefent cafe, felf-derived wifdom ; for it is faid of thofe who feparate faith from charity. I have already ob- ferved, that a whole church, or community of men, appears before the Lord as ove man ; it is for this reafon that the quality of a church is, in the letter of fcripture, faid to be the number ofaman.” Ibid. 288. ‘¢ He who knoweth nothing of the fpiritual fenfe of the word, little thinketh that by a garden, a grove, anda wood, are meant wifdom, intelligence, {cience ; that by the olive, the vine, the cedar, the poplar, and the oak, are meant the good and truth of the church, under the different characters of celeftial, fpiri- tual, rational, natural, and fenfual; that by a lamb, a fheep, a goat, a calf, and an ox, are meant innocence, charity, and natural affection ; that by mountains, hills, and valleys, are meant the higher, the lower, and the loweft things relating to the church ; alfo, that by Egypt is fignified what is f{cientific, by Afhur what is rational, by Edom what is natural, by the children of Ammon the adulteration of truth, by the Philiftines faith without charity, by ‘Tyre and Sidon the knowledges of goodnefs and truth, by Gog external worfhip without internal ; in general, by Jacob in the word is underftood the church natural, by Hrael the church fpiritual, and by Judah the church celeftial.” Jdid. 291. On the hiftory of 1, Sam. of 118 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. . moral law, properly fo called, is to annihilate our human exiftence. — This /aw, which is the rule of right and wrong, will be the ftandard of meafure in judgment, the impartial balance to weigh the varied characters *¢ of the Philiftine diviners were correfpondences, is evident from their fignification, which is this; the Philiftines themfelves . “¢ fipnified thofe who are influenced by faith feparate from cha- “* rity; Dagon reprefented their religious worfhip ; the emerods, ‘¢ wherewith they were {mitten, fignified the natural loves, which, “6 if feparated from fpiritual love, are unclean ; and mice figni- «¢ fied the devaftation of the church, by falfifications of truth ; % anew cart fignified natural doétrine of the church; for chariot, ‘“‘ in the word, fignifieth dottrine derived from fpiritual truths ; «© the milch-kine fignified good natural affections; the golden “© emerods fignified the natural loves purified and made good ; «¢ the golden mice fignified the devaftation of ‘the church re- “« moved by means of goodmefs; for gold in the word fignifieth <¢ goodnefs; the lowing of the kine in the way fignified the “ difficult converfion of the concupifcences of evil in the na- <¢ tural man into good affections ; the offering of the kine and $* the cart as a burnt-offering, fignified that thus the God of ‘¢ Tfrael was rendered propitious. All thefe things then, which <¢ the Philifiines did by the advice of their diviners, were corref{- pondences ; from which it appears that that {clence was long ‘¢ preferved. among the Gentiles.”. fdzd. 296. “* The reafon ‘¢ why the fe1ence of correfpondences, which is the true key to the r* f{piritual fenfe of the word, was not difcovered to later ages: ¢ Tthough it remained amongft many eaftern nations, even till the ‘© coming of the Lord] was, becaufe the ehriftians of the primitive “ church avere men of Juch great fimplicity, that it was to no purpofe “to diteover it to them ; for had it been difcovered, they would 6¢ have found no ufe in it, nor would they have underftood it.” fhid. 3°9. } : . 2. Uhe fecond coming of our Lord. ** With refpect to the Lord’s “ fecond advent, the dotirine of the New Church is this ; that the ‘¢ Lard cannot come zx perfon into the material world, becaufe “ fnce Chi Te megan of maral Government, 119 characters of mankind. By this will be judgéd the .. patriarchs and prophets, the twelve apoftles of the lamb, confeflors and martyrs, as well as the igno- rant and wicked, who know not Gop and obey not lia the * fince his afcenfion into heaven he is in his glorified humanity, ** and in this humanity, although it is amniprefent, he cannot be ** feen by any man unlefs his fpiritual eyes be firft opened, as was ** the cafe with all who faw him after his refurrection ; for as a ** material eye can fee nothing but matter, fo the Lord’s glorified ‘* body being fubftantial, and not material, can only he feen by a “* fpiritual eye. Indeed it is a clear cafe to me, that, were the ** the Lord to make his perfonal appearance among men in the un- “* clouded fplendour of his divine humanity, it would be attended with more certain deftruction to the whole race of mankind, “* than if this ball of earth, together with all its inhabitants, were * caft into the Sun.” Ibid. 305. * 'The whole paflage [A@ts i. 11, “ Ve men of Galilee, why look ye up to heaven ? &c.] is the record of ** a tranfaction that occurred, sot iz the natural, but in the {piritual “* world; for, as has been already proved, the Lord never was, “ nor could be, feen after the refurreétion, by the natural eyes of ** any man. He was then in the lower parts of the {piritual ** worlds confequently his perfonal afcent muft have been from *¢ thence into heaven, and not from the material world, which he ** had left forty days before, viz. at the time of his refurretion. “¢ Befides, there are clouds in the fpiritual world, equally as wel] ** as in the natural world ; and the clouds of the former, are more “¢ properly called the clouds of héaven, than the latter, which in ** fact are nothing but the clouds of the earth. It is evident, there.. *¢ fore, that what the angels faid of Jefus returning from heaven “ in like manner as he went up into heaven, ought to be under. *¢ ftood as alluding to his appearance in the {piritual world, at the <¢ time of his fecond coming, and not to any perfonal appearance ¢ in the natural world. To men on earth who are enlightened s¢ fo as to difcern the fpiritual fenfe of the {criptures, the Lord “ appears as divine truth: but to thofe inhabitants of the {piritual ¢¢ world, who in heart acknowledge him,as the only Gop of “¢ heaven oe -~ « an 120 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the gofpel. No evangelical /iderty, extend it to any conceiveable degree, can form an exemption from being obliged here, and judged hereafter, by this rule. Public judgment does not create a law to judge *¢ heaven and earth, he not only manifefts himfelf in the character *¢ of divine truth, but alfo occafionally prefents himfelf in perfony defcending in the’ fame glorious manner, as the men of Galilee faw him afcend. And thus the event which the angels fore- told, hath actually taken place.” bid. 306. ‘* Clouds denote” “¢ the literal fenfé of the word ; and riding upon a cloud fignifies inftruétion in divine-truth. The fame was reprefented by the thick cloud in which Jeuovan defcended upon Mount Sinai, ¢ when the law was delivered to Mofes, that being the jirfifruits of the word. From all which étrettentad ded it is evident, that the Lord’s fecord coming in the clouds of heaven, which is for “¢ the purpofe of bringing into his church the full harvef? of the word, can have no other meaning than his more immediate prefence in the literal fenfe of the word, in confequence of the ‘¢ revelation which is now taking place of its fpiritual fenfe.” Ibid. 309. 3. ‘The daft ee « Baron SwepEnzBoRG afferts, that the laft judgment was accomplifhed in the fpiritual world, in *¢ the year 1757.— The precife moment when it began, may be as “¢ difficult to determine, as it would be for you to point out the “* frft day in which Frenchmen began to think of civil liberty. — “« A fimilar change [to that which took place at the time of the “* Lord’s firft coming] has taken place in the minds of men fince “* the year 1757, the period when (according to Baron Swe- “* DENBORG) fpiritual liberty was reftored, by the accomplifh- © *¢ ment of the Jaft judgment in the fpiritual world. And it may even be feeh in the evident decline of ecclefiaftical power, par- ‘* ticularly in roman catholic countries. It may be feen in the ty general fpirit of free inquiry that begins to pervade the world ; ¢¢ in the expulfion of Jefuits from different kingdoms; in the ** comparatively timid and cautious proceedings of the inquifition, “ in thofe countries where it is not yet abolifhed ; in the fuppref- ‘ “6 fion 66 €é 66 74 é Ch. ll. 4 View of moral Government. 126 judge by, but only try the characters and works of men according to a law already exifting, and which was the ftandard of obedience in a ftate of probation. e& 66 ¢ -~ 66 ¢ ~ ¢ nw 66 74 66 & ~~ & ¢ 74 44 na a U8” a nw § 4. What fion of monafteries ; in the pope’s filent and humble refignation of thofe more than regal powers, which his predeceffors had ufurped and impioufly exercifed over kings and princes ; in the benevolent exertions of the friends of humanity for the aboli- tion of flavery ; in the new and filccefsful inftitutions for the gradual inftruction and reformation of the poor; in the im- proved regulations of prifons, and numerous other inftances of national police ; in the humane focieties formed for the reco- very of perfons apparently dead ; and, laftly, it may be feen plainly and decidedly in the aétual commencement of the New Church, called the New Jerufalem, whofe members require no miracles to convince them of truth, being in poffeflion of what is a thoufand times more excellent and fatisfactory, namely, the true interpretation of the fcriptures, fupported by clear and ra- tional evidence. — Although we really believe, that the laf ‘general judgment was accomplifhed in the year 1757, yet we alfo maintain, that every man zz particular will be judged im- mediately after death, and that he will be rewarded according to the deeds done in the body, whether they have been good or evil. he laft judgment we confider to be of various fignifica- tions, general, particular, and fingular ; gevera/, as having re- fpeét to the end of a church ; particular, in reference to the death of individuals ; and fizgular, with refpect to the future {tate of man, as determined by every thought and affection, every word and work.” Ibid. p. 310. 52. 315. 4. The refurrecion of the body. ‘* As the notions commonly entertained about the refurre¢tion of the dead, are, like thofe on the laft judgment and the fecond coming of the Lord, drawn from the mere letter of f{cripture, without any knowledge of its {piritual fenfe, it isnot to be expeéted, that they fhould ap- - proach any nearer the truth than them.—All this [1 Theff. iv. 15—17.] may be very eafily explained, confiftently with the 6 dotizines B20 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. § 4, What is the proper objed? of judgment ? This queftion is not a little important, and the proper folution of it may tend to illuftrate what otherwife might feem involved in great obfcurity. — 1. The * dottrines of the New Church, by confidering it as fpoken ac- cording to the appearances of the literal fenfe of the word, which defcribes fpiritual things by fuch images and expreffions as are accommodated to the apprehenfion of men in the natural world. — We maintain that the new heaven is formed before the new earth, that is, the Néw Church takes place in the *¢ {piritual world before it does in the natural world 3 which “ agrees with this faying, that the dead in Chrift thall rife frit. *¢ And as the church on earth will be conjoined with the church in heaven, fo as together to form only one church, like internal and external, therefore it is faid, that we who are alive and re- *¢ main, fhall be caught up together with them in the clouds to mect the “ Lord in the air; that is, we fhall be enabled, at the Lord’s “* fecond coming, when the {piritual fenfe of the werd thall be’. ** revealed, to penetrate through the fhade and ob{curity of the “« letter, and, difcerning the glory of its inner contents, be elevated “ into the heat and light of heaven, by virtue of which we fhal] “ worlhip the Lord alone in fpirit and in truth, as angels do ** above.” Ibid. p. 327. —“* To be changed in a moment, in the “ twinkling of an eye, at the la trump, means nothing elfe but ‘¢ the certainty of pafling from a natural into’a {piritual flate, at “6 the time of the Lord’s fecond coming 3 and this change may ** take place, according to its meafure, as well with thofe who are 4¢ now living, as with thofe who are already dead. Not that a ~ ** material body {hall be ever converted into a {piritual body, for ** this is a thing impoflible, as being contrary to divine order ; but on the death and removal of the former, together with al] the imperfections of its nature, man will be endowed with a fpiritual fubftantial body, in which he will live for ever, and no More fee the corruption of death.—-'The material body, ** that is laid in the grave, forms no part of that {piritual “and fubfantial -body, with which man rifes ; but the {pirie, * which _ Ch. Ul. 4 View of mral Government. 123 1. The immediate object of inquiry, with the great Judge, will not be, By what aids did you perform fuch aéts of obedience? or whence had you holy difpofitions? What the Lawgiver com- mands, «¢ which is within the material body, quits it after death, and *¢ then man lives as a man in all refpetts as before, only in a more <¢ perfect fate, in confequence of being difincumbered of the grofs st body of clay.” Ibid. p. 331, 333- After*apologizing for the length of thefe extraéts, which exhibit a pretty caniplete fummary of ihe New Terbtens diftineuifhing tenets, in reference to the above points, I fhall now fubjoin a few remarks. 1. The whole {cience of correfpondences, if mee analyfed, feems nothing elfe than the well known dottrine of analogy abufed, and carried to an extravagant length. And the chief part of that abufe is, that every eflence is related to its form, and every caufe to its effect, in a fenfible manner. ‘This led the AupEans of old, commonly called the Anthropomorphites, to afcribe to the divine being the human forms and, very lately, {fuffered a writer of re- fpectable abilitics to exprefs himfelf in the following manner : «¢ When we aflignto Gop the form ofa man, you fhould recolleé& *¢ that we confider him asa divine and infinite man, whofe func- *¢ tions and mode of life muft alfo be infinite and divine. We «¢ fay he is and muft be a /ub/lance, becaufe all other fubftances are «6 derived from him; and as we are afiured that no fubftance can sé exiit without a form, therefore we are under the neceflity of $ afcribing to Gop fome form or other. But we know none ‘6 equal in dignity and majefty to the human form. — Man is a ‘6 mortal God, and God an immortal man.” THinpMaRsH, ut up. p.225, 226. ‘The cardinal queftion relative to the fubjeét before ‘us is plainly this: Who acts the wifefl part, he who allows there ay be forms of which man can have no /ex/ible determinate con- ption ; or, he who abides by the confequence of afcribing /enfible take to pane fubftances, and fuch a form even to Gop himfelf. The beft reafon why the {piritual world mult correfpond in form with the natural is, becaufe awe know of no better form ; but a fuf- ficient i24 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. mands, ‘be ye holy in all manner of converfation, “be ye perfec,” the Judge requires. The /ource of ability, the divine concurrence in all human aéts; how much or how little we have been affifted to difcharge ficient reafon why Gop cannot have a human form is, becaufe - every fenfible form, properly {peaking, is unworthy of his infinite glory. As to the inftances produced, of horfe fignifying under- flanding, and fo on, according to the fcience of correfpondences, I leave it with every intelligent reader to judge whether they are the effect of /cientific knowledge, or of whimfical credulity ? and whether the o/d dorine of the analogy of faith be not a better key for biblical interpretation than the xeqw Jeience of correfpondences ? z. The new dottrine of Chrif’s fecond advent is founded on this 3 znafmuch as Chrift is in his glorified humanity he cannot be feen by a material eye. We have a right to interrogate, Why not ? Is the power of Chrift to work miracles exhaufted ? Or, may there no adequate change take place in the bodies of men at his coming, _tocapacitate them for the view? Here are, on the zew {cheme, feveral things taken for granted without evidence. The liceral fenfe muft be rejefed — Chrift did not thew himfelf corporeally to the difciples after the refurreétion ; and he cannot render himfelf wvifible perfonally to men in our world without deftroying them, that is, human bodies cannot even by omnipotence be formed to behold his glorified humanity; and yet the divine effence has a Auman form. 'Thefe are a ftring of fingular aflertions with- out proof, which appear neither honourable to Gop nor com- fortable to men. It is prophefied that fome fhould fay, Where is the promife of his coming ? for fince the fathers Sell afleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the avord of God the heavens vere of old, and the earth fanding out of the water and in the water : avhereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perifhed, But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the fame word are hep¢ in fiore, referved unto fire again? the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly mer. — And let them further know, The Lord is not flack coucerning his promife, as fome men count Slackuefs 5 but is longfufforing P47) Ch, Ui A View of moral Government. 125 difcharge incumbent duty ; is out of the queftion, — Whereas, 2. The immediate object of inquiry will be, What means of obedience and perfection have you enjoyed? According to the nature and degree of moral means, mutt needs be the nature and degree of our obligation. ‘* That fervant who knew his << Tord’s will, and prepared not himfelf, neither « did according to his will, fhall be beaten with ¥ nay to us--ward, not willing that any fhould perifh, but that all fhould come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thiefin the night in the which the heavens fhall pafs away with a great noife, and the elements fhall melt with fervent heat, the earth alfo and the werks that are therein fhall be burnt up.* 'Vhat is, ** perfons will arife who, “© following their private fancies and defires, fhall deny the litera} « fenfe of Chrift’s fecond coming; impertinently appealing to “ the conftancy of the ccurfe of nature, we/fully overlooking the fa& ‘ that there were fettled laws of nature before the flood; and who 6 fhall be as averfe to believe a miraculous deviation from thofe “¢ Jaws as the Antediluvians were.” 3. Asto the laft judgment and the refurrection of the body, which the catholic church have always underitood to take place art the end of time, it is fufficient to remark, that the new mode of ex- plaining them mutt ftand or fall vith the doctrine of the fecond.- advent; and all thefe together with that of the fcience of correfpond- ences. He who can give up his underftanding to fuch far-fetched analogy, and venture to build his theology upon it with his future hopes, may perhaps regret it when too late. By every foul di- vinely taught he will be pitied, but envied he cannot be. To found a theological fyftem on the bafis prefented to us by the fcience of correfpondences, is not unlike ‘ building a cathedral on, “‘ the ftalk of atulip.” As the divine /cience of animal magnetifm. has performed fo many wonderful feats in phyfic ; who knows what may be effected in divinity by the late difcovery of a /eience fo long loit from among mortals! * 2 Peter ili, 3-10, 126 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. “* many ftripes, But he that knew it not, and did “* commit things worthy of ftripes, fhall be beaten “* with few ftripes; for unto whomfoever much is ** given, of him much fhall be required; and to ‘whom men (or Gop the righteous Governor) “* have committed much, of him they will afk the ** more.” * Now, regenerating grace, and fove- reign influence, muft not be confounded with fuch moral means as are a fufficient bafis of obligation. On the latter, the accountable creature has an equitable claims on the former none at all, other- wife it would be no more grace. — Moreover ; 3. Another immediate objet of inquiry will be, What have you been; what have you done, or omitted doing; and what are you now? How have you improved, or mifimproved, your talents, or the means of improvement? Have you repented? have you deleved? has your charaéter been that of peni- tents and believers? have you gratefully received what I freely gave you? have you done what I commanded you, and abftained from what I pro. hibited? For ‘* the kingdom of heaven is as “‘ a man travelling into a far country, who call. ed his own fervants, and delivered unto them ‘“‘ his goods. And unto one he gave five ta- ‘¢ Jents, to another two, and to another one, &c, “© After along time the Lord of thofe fervants ‘© cometh, and reckoneth with them.?? —“ Unto _ “ every one that hath fhall be given, and he fhall ** have abundance: but from him that hath not §* fhall be taken away, even that which he hath, And “ caft & Luke xii. 47,48, Ch. Il. 4 View of moral Government, a9 _ caft ye the unprofitable fervant into outer darknefs: *¢ there fhall be weeping and gnafhing of teeth” — ‘+ When the Son of man fhall come in ‘his «¢ slory, and all the holy angels with him, then ‘¢ fhall he fit upon the throne of his glory; and ‘< before him fhall be gathered all nations; and he ‘< fhall feparate them one from another, as a fhep- *« herd divideth his fheep from the goats. And “< he fhall fet the fheep on his right hand, but the ‘* goats on the left. Then fhall the King fay to «< them on his right hand, Come, ye blefled of my Father — for I was an hungered, and ye gave ‘< me meat; I was thirfty and ye gave me drink; «© T was a flranger and ye took me in; naked and <«¢ ye clothed me; I was fick and ye vifited me; I <¢ was in prifon and ye came unto me, &c, —Then <¢ fhall he fay alfo unto them on the left hand, «© Depart from me, ye curfed, into everlafting fire i “ —for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no “© meat, &c. — And thefe fhall go away into ever. << lafting punifhment; but the righteous into life <* eternal.” * § 5. But what is the refpective influence of equity and fovereignty in this awful tranfation? In reply I obferve two things :— 1. It is but equitable that thofe who.are fhort of moral rectitude fhould be condemned according to their abufe of the moral: means and opportunities «they enjoyed. What plea can be urged againft _ this pofition? ‘* We are fure that the judgment of “* Gop * Matt, xxv. paffr, . 728 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. “¢ Gop is according to truth; —O man, defpifeft «< thou the riches of his goodnels, and forbearance, *¢ and longfuffering, not knowing that the goodnedfs ** of Gop leadeth thee to repentance? But after ‘* thy hardnefs and impenitent heart, treafureft up “< unto thyfelf wrath againft the day of wrath, and ‘* revelation of the righteous judgment of Gop; ‘« who will render to every man according to his *¢ deeds. —— To them that are contentious and do “* not obey the truth, but obey unrighteoufnefs, in- *¢ dignation and wrath, tribulation and anguifh ** upon every foul of man that doeth evil, of the «© Jew firft, and alfo of the Gentile.” * If thou doeft well, thalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doeft not well, the evil of punifhment, the neceflary adjuné& of fiz, as a growling monfter, Heth at the door, ready to devour thee.t ‘ The juft wages of ** fin is deaths” even that death which ftands op. pofed to eternal life. And “ it is a righteous thing ** with Gop to recompenfe tribulation to them who ** trouble the church ;” and “‘ to take vengeance on’ “* them who know not Gop,” while they had the means of knowing him, ‘* and that obey not the *¢ gofpel of our Lord Jefus Chrift, ? = On the con- trary, SiG Bt Seeing “< every mouth is flopped, and ‘¢ all the world is become guilty before Gop,” no one would be acquitted in judgment without the in- terpofition of fovereign favour. ‘* If thou, Lord, * fhouldf{ mark may O Lord, who fhall eine ftand 2 obi * Rom. ii,2—9. $ Gen. iv. 7. Ch. Ul. © 4 View of moral Government. 129 “¢ ftand?” { To illuftrate this pofition let the fol- lowing things be noticed : (1.) It was an act of fovereignty to defer the full punifhment of fin, with refpect to all offenders; and to conftitute fuch a plan as admitted of delay, with- out reflecting difhonour on the divine government, Had jiric? juftice taken place on the Jirft offence, punifhment muft have taken place of probation immediately. | (2.) It is by a fucceffion of fovereign acts that one finner, in preference to another, is preparea for an honourable acquittal. Of this kind are jufti- ication, by which the unworthy are pardoned and accepted in the beloved; regeneration, whereby the dead in fin are made alive to God by the operation of the Holy Spirit ; adoption, in virtue of which the outcafts are brought into the family of Gop; pro- grefive fanéiification, which is every where confider- ed as an effect of which Gop is the caufe: finners are fanétified by God the Father,* Chrift is made to them the transforming caufe of Janétiification,+ and fuch are changed from fin to holinefs, from glory to glory by the fpirit of the Lord. | (3.) It is by a fovereign conftitution that the beft of men will be acquitted in-judgment; for in many things all offend, and were Gop in extreme juftice to mark iniquity in the pardoned, renewed, adopted and fanétified, none would be able to ftand. (4.) Itis through fovereign favour that the future blifs of the redeemed was prepared for, and will be conferred upon them, The inheritance was defigned K for t Pfalm cxxx. 3. *Juder. $1 Cori, SOS) (2: Cor iin, 1a 130 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. for them before they had a being, and the fervice bears no proportion to the reward, whether we con- /fider the quality, the quantity, or the duration of that fervice. §7. We muft remark, however, that though ftrict equity would condemn the leaft imperfect of human characters, neverthelefs the honourable ac- quittance and remuneration of the bleffed will ap- pear to reft on equitable grounds, For, 1. The provifion made in the appointment of a Mediator, the favour conferred in the imputation of worthinefs, the mode adopted in the communi- cation of purity, were by no means incompatible with the ftricteft equity. Its line was not tran/greffed by the fteps of fovereignty, though left at a glo- rious diftance on the favourable fide. | 2. That there fhould be made a great and lafting - difference between the righteous and the unrigh- teous, the good and the bad, between penitents, who have mourned for fin, hated and forfaken it; de- » lievers, who received Gop’s teftimony of his Son, and of every revealed truth; obedient ones, who took up their crofs daily to follow Chrift, through the tribulations of time; good and faithful fervants, who improved their talents for the glory of Gop and the good of men— that there fhould be a dif- ference between thefe and the oppofite characters, ‘every one muft allow to be equitable. The fu- preme Governor propofes the reward conditionally ; as far, then, as the condition is performed, as to ae : i] Ch. II. . -4 View of mili Government, 13 righteoufne/s which gives a title, or holinefs which renders meet for heaven, it can be no infringement of the rights of juftice that the one is provided for us, and the other wrought in us, by a fovereign hand. § 8. Let us now enquire, What will be the effects and confequences of judgment? With re- {pect to the righteous, there can be little doubt, Their happinefs, it is univerfally allowed, will be complete and everlafting; a happinefs, which im. plies the purity of their nature, freedom from the moleftations of,evil, with a full, uninterrupted en- joyment of Gop the chief good, | On the contrary, the miferies of the wicked will be great. What is there terrible in nature, or painful to humanity, which has not been employed by the righteous Governor to reprefent their -miferies? And, indeed, the moral impurity of their natures, not meliorated by grace, will prove as con- ftant fuel to the fire of hell. To which we may add, as no {mall fource of their woe, perpetual © moleftations from every object that prefents itfelf, Even in this life, how different the fenfation excited by a view of a number of innocent children, or an aflembly of benevolent men, engaged in divine worfhip, or confulting to promote the good of their fellow men, from what is felt by a view of a gang of robbers, a lawlefs banditti, or malevolent defperadoes ? What can exceed the woe of banith- ment from Gop, accompanied with a fenfe of his K 2 io gif 132 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. difpleafare, an accufing confcience, felt gigi hi with infulting and tormenting devils ? § g. But it has been formerly afferted by Oricrn, and of late by fome American divines, who have at this day fome abettors in England, chiefly * among the Socinians, that the mifery of the wicked will not be everlafiing. On this opinion, which for many ages was deemed heretical, let us beftow a few thoughts. In this controverfy, the firft point of inveftiga- tion fhould be, What is the due of a moral agent as tranfgreflor of a law holy, juft and good? When this is clearly afcertained, no doubt can remain with refpect to the queftion, What is equitable conduc in Gop towards him ? Now, if moral evil be not fol- lowed with natural and penal evil, an accountable creature may fin with impunity, which involves a contradiction. But this natural evil is not a fome- thing extraneous to the fubject; it arifes from the defect itfelf introduced by fin, and the infeparable circumftances of the finner. And this mifery will ‘be fo far from receiving mitigation from the idea of the divine benevolence, that the latter will rather increafe it. The more amiable and glorious Gop is in himfelf, the more intolerable will be a con- {cious contrariety to him. Moral means, from all juft views of their nature, will ever enfure a change. of heart in the finner. His free nature, if left on the * Mr. WincHEsTeEr, indeed, who is a ftrenuous advocate for the dottrine of univerfal reftoration, belongs to another clafs of chriftians. Ch. Il. A View of moral Government. 133 the ground of mere equity, may revolt everlaftingly , and the fame nature, as depraved, neceflarily mu/f, except a miracle intervene. As foon may rivers run to their fountains, matter {pecifically heavy re. cede from the center, or any great law of nature be reverfed, as natural evil ceafe to exift in a moral agent fallen from rectitude. § 10. To begin this controverfy, therefore, with the examination of {criptural phrafes, fuch as forever, forever and ever, eternal, everlafting, as if there was no evidence of the doctrine (that the juft wages of fin is never-ending pain) prior to the confideration of {uch phrafes, is not a fair procedure. - Where- fore, the true ftate of the queftion is, Whether Gop has given us pofitive evidence fufficient to engage our belief, that he will fo far /uperfede the claims of Siri equity by an af of fovereign benevolence as to liberate the inhabitants of hell from the flavery of fin, and the mifery it merits, by conftituting them righteous, and miraculoufly changing their nature from finful to holy. To fuppofe that punifhment itfelf (or correction, as the perfons I have in view choofe to call it) will effect a reformation, betrays great inattention to the mature of that evil which it is thought capable of removing. For we fhould con- fider j it as confifting, not in a pofitive infliction from the mere pleajure of Gop, as if any way oppofite to his infinite benevolence in general, or his reéforal benevolence to the fufferer in particular, but ina confcioufnefs of defect, of contrariety to rectitude, to holinefs, and to every perfection of Gop. To K 3 exprefs 134 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. exprefs this evil no images which nature can fur- nifh are fufficiently ftrong. And to prevent this inconceivably dreadful evil we muft look not to equity but fovereignty ; not to the benevolence of a ruler or a judge, but to that of a Being of abfolute fupremacy ; a fupremacy that has no other limits in its operations than the glory of the divine Effence, and the wifdom of its decrees. | § 11. We conclude, then, that ‘prior to (criptural evidence on either fide, the verdiét, in point of equi ty, is on the fide of perpetual fuffering. For the fame reafon that it appears there fhould be any punith- ment, (independent of fcripture evidence, ) it alfo appears there fhould be a perpetuity of it; feeing that punifhment is not founded on the dare will of Gop, but on the gui/t and depravity of the creature, which depravity and guilt if ever removed muft be done by a fovereign aét. But this can be no fur- ther known than it is revealed; therefore the queftion remains, Where is the evidence that God will by an adi of mere fovereignty, put a period to what mufe of itfelf continue, and re/cue ee! tte from fe fit nt and woe ? § 12. A full difcuffion of the fubjes 6 on oe sround, which is the only fair one, does not com- port with my plan in this Effay. Befides, it has been of late profeffedly handled in an elaborate manner by a writer of no inconfiderable name.* However, as there are fome things relating to the fubject, * Dr. Jonatnan Epwarops’s Anfwer to Dr. Cuauncy. \ Ch. II. A View of moral ‘Government, 135 fubjeét, which have been /ately advanced,+ that may appear to militate again{t what I have now afferted, I fhall take fome notice of them in the form of objections. § 13. 1. “ It is evident, from this view of the ‘¢ matter, that the Jews reject Chrift and his reli- “ gion, upon 4s good ground, as you reject the uni- ‘¢ verfal reftoration, and perhaps better; for you “* have nothing to plead againft the reftoration, but fome *¢ threatenings of punifhments, which are called ever- “* lafting, or eternal, in our tranflation; but they ‘« plead exprefs promifes of the everla/ting continu- ‘¢ ance of their church-ftate and worfhip, in oppo- ‘ fition to chriftianity.”* Nothing to plead againft the reftoration but threatenings.[ Yes; we plead guilt unpardoned, depravity unremoved, the finful impotence of the creature, the inefficacy of ai/ moral means whatever, and the operations of Equiry. — The Fews reject Chrit and his religion upon as good Rig ground “ + By Mr. Erpanan WINCHESTER, in his Treatife entitled, The Univerfal Reftoration, Exhibited in Four Dialogues between a Minifter and his Friend. Second Editicn, London, 1792. * The Univer. Reffor. p. 16. t “ Were there no promifes or intimations to the contrary in ‘¢ {cripture, I fhould not require it to be threatened in any ftronger “ terms than it is; J fhould believe it as a truth, though I might <¢ not be able, at prefent, to fee the propriety and equity thereof ; «¢ [ thould never fuffer my weak reafon to gainfay divine revela- “ tion: but my difficulty arifes from thefe exprefs promifes of «© Gop, which compofe fo great a part of that book which is «¢ given us as a rule of faith and practice, and which promifes « exprefsly aflert a future ftate of things, beyond fin, forrow, - *¢ pain and death of every kind.” ‘The Univer. Reffor. p. 24, 136 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ground, as you reje& the univerfal reftoration. Perhaps not; for there was no natural, infallible, and equitable | connection between the defign of the jewith church- fiate and the rejeétion of the Meffiah ; the conne@ion was of their own making, and had no exiftence but in their miftaken views of Mofes and his law, of Chrift and his gofpel. Whereas the connection that fubfifts between the fubjec& of guilt and fuf- fering is natural, infallible, and equitable; and there- fore can be removed only by a fovereign hand in a way which we may denominate miraculous. And confequently, the force of the serms expreffing the duration of both difpenfations being equal, the conclufion muft be as unequal as the connedions before mentioned, $14. 2. “ Your reafoning would be conclufive, ** upon the fuppofition that there are two eternal “* principles, viz. good and evil; if it can be proved, *¢ that evil is coexiftent with goodne(s, that it hath “* always been: then, the abfolute eternity of fin ‘* and mifery may be eafily inferred. This is the “* true foundation of endlefs mifery, and it came ‘“‘ from the pagan theology.”+ It feems, then, that evil may coexift with goodnefs for ages of ages, but may not any longer, without running into Manicheifm. ‘The queftion is not now, What is the fovereign good pleature of Gop refpecting the ter. mination of evil, but whether it is incon/jtent with the divine perfections to perpetuate the fufferings of . the guilty, If not inconfiftent to continue them | for tT Ibid. p. 30. Ch, II. A View of moral Government. 137) . for a thoufand years, by what rule can we draw the line as a boundary ? Is it by the rule of exactly proportioning the punifhment to the crime? * But this affumes what is not granted, that the demerit of fin is to be eftimated by the temporary duration of the fuffering, as well as the intenfene/s of degree. As it is not doubted, for good reafons, that there are numerous degrees on the {cale of happinefs, for the - fame reafons why fhould it be doubted that there degrees greatly varied on that of fufferings? The variation in degree, therefore, is adequate to pre- ferve an equitable proportion, irrefpective of the continuance. "The rights of what attribute would be infringed upon, the glory of what perfection would be eclipfed, by not liberating a guilty prifoner ? _lf continued fufferings be contrary to equity, there lies a ground of claim on deliverance, which the fufferer may plead as his due. But this is too im- pious to be admitted. If contrary to benevolence, then for a period called ages of ages, Gop in punifh- ing offenders, or leaving them to themfelves, acts in contrariety to his benevolence, which is equally impious to imagine. Is the fuppofition contrary _ to wifdom ? It is fufficient to fay, that we have no data, * «¢ 'To fuppofe a poor ignorant heathen, or a child of ten years « old, will remain in mifery as Jong as the moft perfecuting tyrant, “ or apoftate chriftian, feems to contradié all the ideas we have of * juftice and equity, as well as of goodnefs ; for in this cafe, who can fuppofe that each one is exaéfly rewarded according to. his “ works?” The Univer. Reffor. p. 74+ + «¢ The univerfal benevolence, or the love of Gop to his ‘* creatures, is one of the firft principles from which the general ‘© reftoration is deduced.” Ibid. p. 89. 138 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. data, in the prefent cafe, to determine what is or is not conformable to wifdom, but what Gop himfelf has revealed, which refers to another queftion. I therefore conclude that the inference in favour of endlefs mifery is fairly drawn, from the nature of fiz and the equity of Gop, without having recourfe to the abfurd notion of two eternal principles, § 15. 3. ‘ Another great principle, upon which ** the reftoration depends, is, that Chrift died for “* all.”* Tf, then, redemption is not univerfal, there is no inference to be drawn from it in favour of the reftoration. But fuppofe the truth of the pofi- tion; how does it imply the inference? His death muft be confidered either as making a proper pur- chafe, or an expedient on the part of Gop on account of which he beftows favours. If the former, why fhould Chrift fuffer the purchafed poffeffion to lie in torments for ages of ages? Does not his blood cleanfe from ail fin without the feverity of fo long a period of torments? If the /atter, why fhould this great expedient in the divine ceconomy imply a reftoration any more than other difplays of good. nefs and favour rejected and abufed? Chritt having died for all, therefore, can no more enfure a reftora- tion than a favour beftowed, but yet abufed, can promote friendfhip. § 16. 4. “ Another principle upon which the ‘¢ univerfal doctrine depends, is, the unchangeablenefs *¢ of Ged: whom he loves once, he always loves; 66 he * The Univer. Refior. p. gt. Ch.ll. 4 View of moral Government. 139 « he loved his creatures when he made them, as < none can well deny; their fins he never loved, “© nor ever will; he hath declared, that he loved us <¢ when finners, but never as finners. His eterna] << and conftant hatred of all fin, and his unchange- <¢ able love of all his creatures, are of the nature of ‘“¢ primary truths; from which the do@rine of the ‘< general reftoration may be eafily and plainly in- - “ ferred.” * Here we might afk, If punifhment for ages of ages be not inimical to: Gon’s unchange- able hatred of fin, and love of all his creatures, how: can.the unchangeablené/s of Deity prevent the pro- traction of that punifhment? Whom he loves once he ALWAYS /oves, Confequently, love is not incom- patible with punifhment. He loved his creatures when he made them; he loved us WHEN /finners, but never as Jinners. ‘Therefore, to love as creatures, though not -as finners, is perfectly confiftent with a ftate of punifhment. From whence it follows, that the un- changeablenefs of Gop contributes nothing to the doctrine of reftoration. § 17. 5. ‘ Another of the firft principles of the ‘ reftoration, is, the immutability of Goa’s counfels, *¢ which he hath confirmed by an oath, That by two “< immutable things, (viz. his word and oath) iz which “* at was impofible for God to lie, we might have a “* firong confolation, who have fled for refuge to lay ‘* hold upon the hope fet before us. Heb. vi, 17. 18,°? Who have fied for refuge. Is not here an evident implication, that thofe who have not fled for refuge are * The Univer. Refor. p. 96. F4@ EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. are debarred from confolation ? But we, not admit. ting the paflages adduced from the New Teftament, as expreflive of the divine counfel to tranflate any from hell to heaven, the immutability of thofe coun- fels can contribute nothing to eftablifh the argument, What I before aflerted, I now repeat, that my defign is not to enter into the great argument, Whether any promiffory intimations of {cripture may, Or may not, be pertinently pleaded in favour of the reftoration;, but to thew that endle/s punifite ment, in the fenfe before explained, is perfectly con- fiftent with, and fairly the refult of the equity of divine government. CHAP. Ch. II, AView of Sovertign Grace. 144 CHAP. Ils Containing a View of Sovereign Grace. S Hu Gobs ods Of the Sovereignty of Grace in propofing an ultimate End. § 1. The moral fyftem confidered in reference to end and means. § 2. Divine wifdom atting from defign requires the fixing of an ultimate end for a free faftem. § 3. Hence man the fulject of liberty and neceffity. § 4. The expediency of fixing an ultimate end from the defeciibility of free agents, and the dif- play of equity and mercy. § 5. Difplay of mercy the higher end, and what theultimate. § 6. The imme- diate enquiry is not, What is the chief end; becaufe ne alt of fovereignty. § 7. How sovEREIGNTY ap- pears in fixing on the praife of glorious grace in the falvation of the church as the ultimate end of our pftem. §1. FFAVING taken a view of divine moral government, and the perfect equity that reigns in eyery part; we now proceed to take a view of fovereign grace: and as every fyftem implies an ultimate end, and means of accomplifhment; we fhall 142 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fhall confider the moral fyftem in reference to thefe two general parts, beginning, as it is moft natural, with the former. § 2. Gop 1s infinitely wife. But it is the dif criminative character of ‘wifdlom not to ac without defign; and of infinite wifdom to propofe the def end to be accomplifhed in the def manner. If, there- fore, moral government be conducted with wifdom, it muft needs refer to fome ultimate end worthy of that wifdom. That is, the refult of free agency muft have been a. /ettled point before any creatures began to exercife their liberty. Prior to decretive choice every thing ftood in the rank of mere poffibles ; the adoption, then, of one hypothetical fyftem in preference to another muft have been an a@ of fovereignty, and confequently the ultimate point in which all the means terminate, § 3. This matter duly confidered, i¢ mutt follow, however paradoxical it may appear at firft view, that nan 1s at the fame time, but in different refpects, the fubject of kerty and necefity, As in the hand of the moral Governor he is free; but as in the _ hand of fovereign wifdom he is neceffitated. Liberty is effential to government, and neceflity is effential to wifdom. If not free he is not accountable, if the refult of his condué& be not fixed he is not /afe. ‘The creature’s ability not extending to aéfive good. nefs without fovereign aid, Hberty is fure to degene- - rate into /in if left in the hand of mere equity; if, then, Ch. ID. «=~ AView of Sovereign Grace. | 143 then, the fatal confequence be in any cafe avoided it is owing to neceffitating fovereignty. § 4. Infinite prefcience viewing the defectibility of free agents, and the moral fyftem inevitably falling if left in the hand of its own counfel, and tending to endlefs diforder, diftance, and mifery ; and feeing neither /trid? equity nor fovereign mercy could be dif- played without fuffering the introduétion of moral evil, wifdom interpofed to fix an ultimate end which every thing, however contingent in human eftimation, fhould infallibly fubferve. If the queftion be put, Why were free agents permitted to fall? The an{wer is, indirectly, If they are not /iadie to fall, they would not be free; but more directly, Becaufe it was good that the divine attribute of equity fhould be manifefted ad extra, which without leaving the creature to itfelf could not be done; and to leave the creature to itfelf is the fame thing as the fuffer- ance of moral evil. And if the queftion be put, Why are any redeemed from fia and mifery? The _anfwer 1s, principally, Becaufe it was good that the divine attribute of mercy fhould be difplayed ad extra, which without a plan of redemption could not be done; and, in a fecondary view, it was good to promote the happinefs of the creature as far as wifdom permitted, which could be effected only by mercy. § 5. From what has been faid it appears, that a difplay of mercy, or redeeming grace, is a higher end than the di/play of equity; the latter ferving as a {ubordinate 144 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fubordinate mean to the former. Behold, then, the goodne/s and feverity of God! Towards fome good- ne{s; towards others feverity. But the ultimate end that fovereign wifdom feems to have placed for the harmonious co-operation and tendency of all the parts of the human moral fyftem is, THe PRAISE OF REDEEMING GLORIOUS GRACE IN Jesus CuristT.* (Eph. i. 6.) § 6. The * «¢ Since Gon can act only for his own glory, and can find this no where but in himfelf; he could have no other defign in the creation of the world, than the eftablifhment of his church. — But joining Fe/us Chrift to his church, and the church to the reft of the world it is taken from, you raife to the glory of Gop a temple fo majeftic, magnificent and holy, that you will wonder perhaps he laid the foundations of it fo late. — Gon loving himfelf by the necellity of his being, and willing to procure an infinite glory, an honour on all hands worthy of himfelf, confults his wifdom for accomplifhing his defires. This divine Wifdom, filled with love for him from whom he receives his being, by an eternal and ineffable generation, feeing nothing in all poflible creatures worthy of the majefty of his Father, offers himfelf, to eftablifh to his honour an eternal worfhip, and to prefent him, as high prieft, a facrifice which, through the dignity of his perfon, fhould be capa- ble of contenting him. He reprefents to him infinite models for the temple to be raifed to his glory; and, at the fame time, all poflible ways to execute his defigns. — The holy {cripture teaches us, that it is Fe/us Chrif? who ought to make all the beauty, the fanctity, the grandeur, and magnificence of this work. IF hol writ compare it to a city, it is Fe/us Chri? who makes all the huftre ; it not being the fun and the moon, but the glory of Gop and the light of the Lamb that fhine upon it. When reprefenting it as a Living body, whereof all the parts have a wonderful propor- tion, it is Fe/us Chrif# who is the head of it. °Tis from him the | {pirit and life are communicated into all the members that compofe it. Speaking of it as a temple, Fefus Chrif? is the chief corner ftone, which is the foundation of the building. ’Tis he who is the Ch, III. A View of Sovereign Grace. 145 § 6. The attentive reader will obferve, that our immediate inquiry is not, What is the chief end in the great fyftem of the univerfe? or in that noble part of it, the plan of redeeming grace? This, I appre- hend, is not a matter of Big “and therefore is no act. of fovereignty. The reafons why I think fo are the following. Rectitude requires that the higheft va- lue fhould be placed on the higheft worth. Gop is poffeffed of infinite rectitude and infinite worth, and therefore muft xeceffarily place the higheft value on himielf. But, to place the higheft value on any _ given object, attainable in the profecution of any plan, is the fame as to make it fuch an end, din L -com- the high prieft and the facrifice of it. — That which makes the beauty of atemple, is the order and variety of ornaments that are found in it. Thus to render the 4ving temple of the divine majefty worthy of its inhabitant, and proportionate to the wifdom and infinite love of its author, all poflible beauties are to make it up. But it is not fo with this temple, raiféd to the glory of Gop, as with material ones. For that which conftitutes the beauty of the {piritual edifice of the church, is the infinite diverfity of graces, communicated from him who is the head of it, to all the conftitu- ent parts. ”Tis the order and admirable proportions among them, tis the various degrees of glory fhining and reflecting on all fides round about it. — Laflly, it was requifite that Gop alone fhould have all the glory of the beauty and perfection of the future world. This work, which infinitely excels all others, ought to bé a work of pure mercy. It was not for creatures to glory in having any other part in it, than that which the grace of Fe/us Chrif had given them. In a word, it was fit that Gop fhould fuffer all men to be involved in fin, that he might fhew them mercy in Fe/us Chriff.? F. Mas- BRANCHE, Concerning Nature and Grace, Difcourfé I. § 1, 3, 5, 6,24. See alfo Prefident Enwarps’s Hifory of Redemption, ' Dp. 363—368. Edinb. 1774. And Rouiin’s Ancient Hiftery, Vol. viii. Conclufron. 146 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. comparifon of which every other muft be deemed inferior. Wherefore, Gon’s chief end is himfelf, as far as he is capable of being fought and attained, not by mere choice but neceffarily. That is, to do otherwife would. feem inconfiftent with infinite rectitude.+ Thefe remarks, I conceive, clearly eftablith the diftinétion between an ultimate and a chief end. The former may be matter of choice and appointment, the latter not. Every chief is alfo an ultimate, but every ultimate is not a ‘chief end. What + ‘* When we are confidering with ourfelves, what would be ‘¢ moft fit and proper for Gop to have a chief refpect to, in his ** proceedings in general, with regard to the univerfality of *¢ things, it may help us to judge of the matter with the greater eafe and fatisfaction, to confider what we can fuppofe would be judged and determined by fome ¢hird being of perfect wifdom and reétitude, neither the Creator nor one of the creatures, * that fhould be perfectly indifferent and difinterefted: or if we make the fuppofition, that wifdom itfelf, or infinitely wife juftice and’ rectitude, were a diftinét difinterefted perfon, whofe office it was to determine how things fhall be moft fitly and properly ‘¢ ordered in the whole fyftem, or kingdom of exiftence, includ- ing king and fubjects, Gop and his creatures ; and upon a view of the whole, to decide what regard fhould prevail and govern in all proceedings. Now fuch a judge, in adjufting the proper meafures and kinds of regard that every part of exiftence is to have, would weigh things in an even balance; taking care, that ereater or more exiftence fhould have a greater fhare than lefs, ¢¢ that a greater part of the whole fhould be more looked at and refpeéted, than the lefler in proportion (other*things being . equal) to the meafure of exiftence, —that the more excellent ‘¢ fhould be more regarded than the lefs excellent : — fo that the _ %. degree of regard fhould always be in a proportion compounded of «¢ the proportion of exz/lence, and proportion of excellence, or ac- * cording to the degree of greatne/s and goodne/s confidered con- ; bh jundly, Ch, III. A View of Sovereign Grace. 147 What Gop ultimately aimed at in the human moral fyftem, was the praife of redeeming grace,* and what he chiefly aimed at was HimsELF in the difplays of his equity, and efpecially of his mercy. What is chief is determined by reéfitude, which is invariable ; but what is w/timate is determined by wifdom, which 1% z 1§ “* junétly, — Such an arbiter, in confidering the fyftem of created | * intelligent beings by itfelf, would determine, that the fyftem in ** general, confifting of many millions, was of greater importance, ** and worthy of a greater fhare of regard, than only one indi- “vidual. For however confiderable fome of the individuals “* might be, fo that they might be much greater and better, and ‘* have a greater fhare of the fum total of exiftence than another *¢ individual, yet no one exceeds others fo much as to countervail *¢ all the reft of the fyftem. And if this judge confider not only * the fyftem of created beings, but the fyftem of being in general, ** comprehending the fum total of univerfal exiftence, both creator *¢ and creature; ftill every part muft be confidered according to ‘¢ its weight and importance, or the meafure it has of exiltence a ** and excellence. ‘To determine then what proportion of regard .° €¢ is to be allotted to the Creator, ahd all his creatures taken ** together, both muft be as it were put in the balance; — the ** fupreme Being, with all in him that is great, confiderable, and ** excellent, is to be eftimated and compared with all that is to be *¢ found in the whole creation: and according as the former is “< found to outweigh, in fuch proportion is he to have a greater “* fhare of regard. — And in this cafe, as the whole fyftem of “ created beings in comparifon of the Creator, would be found:as * the light duit of the balance, (which is taken notice of by him ‘* that weighs) and as nothing and vanity ; fo the arbiter muf <« determine accordingly with refpe& to the degree in which Gop _ fhould be regarded by all intelligent exiftence, and the degree *¢ in which he fhould be regarded in all that is done through the . ) ** whole * Tifa. lx. 21. Tei. 3... Jeraxiii.r1, 2 Theff i. 1o—12. ‘Phil.i. 10,11. 1 Pet. iv. 11. - 1 Cor.vi. 20. x. 30. 148 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. is no lefs diverfified in its divine fource than ate the poflible plans in all-fufficiency. § 7. It will now be afked, How fovereignty ap- pears in fixing upon the praife of glorious grace in the falvation of the church, as the ultimate end of our moral fyftem ? It appears from feveral confider. ations, Particularly, 1, The whole univerfal fyftem, in all aétions and proceedings, deter- minations and effects whatever, whether creating, preferving, ufing, difpofing, changing, or deltroying. And as the Creator is infinite, and has all poflible exiftence, perfection and excel- lence, fo he muft have all poflible regard. As he is every way the firft and fupreme, and as his excellency is in all refpetts the fupreme beauty and glory, the original good, and fountain of all good ; fo he muft have in all refpects the fupreme regard. And as he is Gop over all, to whom all are properly fubordin= ate, and on whom all depend, worthy to reign as fupreme head, with abfolute and univerfal dominion ; fo it is fit that he fhould be fo regarded by all, and in all proceedings and effects through the whole fyftem: that univerfality of things in their whole compafs and feries fhould look to him, and refpect him in fucha manner, as that refpeét to him fhould reign over all refpect to other things, and that regard to creatures fhould univerfally be fubordinate and fubject. «¢ When I {peak of regard to be thus adjufted in the univerfat fyftem, or fum total of exiftence, 1 mean the regard of the fum total; not only the regard of individual creatures, or all creatures, but of all intelligent exiftence, created and uncreated. For it is fit, that the regard of the Creator fhould be proportioned to the worthinefs of objets, as well as the regard of creatures. . Thus we muft conclude fuch an arbiter, as I have fuppofed would determine in this bufinefs, being about to. decide how matters fhould proceed moft fitly, properly, and according to the nature of things. He would therefore determine, that the s¢ whole Ch, Ill. A View of Sovereign Grace. 149 1. The ultimate end might have been a difplay of creating and preferving goodnefs, in the happi- nefs of the fyftem. But /overeignty determined, by leaving the creature in the hand of its own counfel, to manifeft the equitable and merciful perfections of Deity, rather than mere fupporting grace, 2. The ultimate end might have been a difplay of mere equity in the total and final deftruGtion of the fyftem. But a Jovereign hand fixed it otherwife ; by eftablifhing a plan of recovering grace, there is glory to Gop in the higheft, on earth peace, good- will towards men. Gop has a tribute of eternal | ee praife ¢¢ whole univerfe, including all creatures animate and inanimate, ‘* in all its actings, proceedings, revolutions, and entire feries of * events, fhould proceed from a regard and with a view to God, as ‘« the fupreme and laft end of all: that every wheel, both great “: and fmall, in all its rotations, fhould move in aconftant invari- *¢ able regard to him as the ultimate end of all ; as perfectly and ** uniformly as if the whole fyftem were animated by one common * foul: or, asif fuch an arbiter as I have before fuppofed, one *¢ poffeffed of perfeét wifdom and reétitude, became the common: “* foul of the univerfe, and actuated and governed it in all its “ motions. «* Thus have I gone upon the fuppofition of a third perfon, * neither Creator nor creature, but a difinterefted perfon, ftep- ‘* ping in to judge of the concerns of both, and ftate what is moft ** fit and proper between them. ‘The thing fuppofed is impofli- * ble; but the cafe is: neverthelefs juft the fame as to what is « moft fit and fuitable in itfelf. For it is mott certainly proper ** for Gop to att, according to the greateft fitne/s in his proceed. “* ings, and he knows what the greateft fitnels is, as much as if *¢ perfect rectitude were a diftiné&t perfon to direét him.” Ep- warps’s Difertation on Goa’s laft End in the Creation ofthe World, p- 16—19. Edinb. 1788. 150 eajctsi eas AND SOVEREIGNTY. praife from fallen but redeemed finners, while thefe have an eternal portion of happinefs and holy reft. 3. The ultimate end might have been greatly different in refpeé of the mumbers, and the iden- tical perfons to be faved. But fovereignty fays; ‘© The decree was wifely made —if fome are more “¢ favoured than others, none are injured.” Well may we exclaim on the brink of this ocean, O the depth !* | * «¢ However it be a foundation difallowed of men, every ob- ferving chriftian fhall find, that without acknowledging Divine fovereignty for the original, fupreme and unaccountable difpofer of perfons and things, he fhall want a principal means of fupporting his faith, and quieting his underftanding in the courfe of common providences ; much more of thofe myfterious occurrences, and Supernatural truths which he is eternally concerned about. — To “make of the fame lump one veffel to honour and another to dif- honour, is the fublimeft aét and moft apparent demonitration of fovereign power concerning men, ‘he reafon of which (and that to fatisfaftion) might have been given, and awould, had it befitted the greatne/s of Gop, or the truft and reverence we owe to him : but for the prefent he is pleafed to give none other but that of his right; He may do what he will with his own. Rom. ix. 18.” Coue’s Pradical. Di ae on God's inh p- 1,14. Edinb. 1788, : SECT. Ch. Ill. A View of Sovereign Grace. 151 SECT. Il. _Of the Sovereignty of Grace in the choice of MEANS to accomplifh the end propofed, § 1. How the propofed end is profecuted, and made in- fallibly certain. § 2. Firft, God conduéiing him/elf towards the creature in ftriét equity. § 3. Secondly, fixing on fome, rather than others, as vefféls of mercy. § 4. 4 third mean, the choice of a Mediator, § 5. Fourthly, the decretive fpectality of Chrifi’s mediation. §6. The inftances of fovereignty in the choice of means, numberlefs. § I. VERY fyftem may be confidered under '4 the twofold notion of end and means; and as we have confidered the moral fyftem in re- ference to an ultimate end, and the influence of -_ fovereignty in the choice of it, we now proceed to confider the fame exalted attribute in reference to the means adopted for accomplifhing that end. The ultimate point to which the whole fyftem is deftined to move, as we are affured from the higheft autho- rity, is the praife of glorious grace in the falvation of ihe church ; but how is this to be effected ? Redemp- tion or falvation, implies a being Jo; but what cer- tainty can there be of a free agent falling into a loft condition, from which mercy may extricate him ¢o the praife of glorious redeeming grace? If a perfeét free agent, how is the defection infalhbly certain? ? L 4 which 152 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. which it mu/t be in order to fecure the ultimate end of the human moral fyftem. — Hence, § 2. The jit inftance of fovereignty in the choice of means to accomplith the high end of fal-- vation, appears to be Gop’s refolution to condué himfelf towards our moral fyftem, for a time, in firici equity. Nothing elfe was neceflary to render our defection from rectitude infallibly certain, Every entity, whether being or act, is from Gop as its efficient caufe; all paffiive power, whether phyfical or moral, 1s from .the creature; confequently, fup- pofing a nonecommunication of the former, or, which is the fame thing, a non-prevention of the latter, on which we have no claim in equity, the creature’s act terminates in defection.* $3. A /econd inftance of fovereignty in the choice of means, is the defignation of fome of the fal- len human race as veflels of mercy, in preference to others. T'o fay that al/are alike chofen decretively, is to fay that there is xo eleéfion at all; which is to contradict the whole tenor of {cripture, and uni- verfal analogy. JBefides, if ail are in themfelves loft, and mone decretively chofen to falvation, then none are or can be faved, But the vindication of this point is referred to the next chapter, § 4. A third inftance of high fovereignty, in fub- ferviency to the fame end, is the choice and appoint- ment of a Mediator. Mankind, having deviated from : rectitude, * See the profeffed inveftigation of the above {entiments, | Chap. IV. Sect. i, § 5, &c. Ch. Ill. A View of Sovereign Grace. 153 rectitude, their equitable doom was the fuffering of na- tural evil in proportion to the defection, The dif. ficulty in the way of pardon and reftoration lay in the . honourable fufpenfion of the penal confequence. Wif- dom fixed on a mediatorial plan. By this method the divine law and equity were confulted and their glory fecured. Hereby Gop has declared his righteoufnefs, and fhewn himfelf to be juft while © the juftifier of him who is conftituted one with the Saviour, not by works but by fovereign grace, The mediation of Chrift is fo far from degrading the divine Jenevolence, that nothing can be con- ceived more expreflive of it. It includes. be- nevolence to the law, which is magnified and made honourable ; to equity, which hereby is declared ; and to every divine perfection, as well as to man. kind. Hereby God comMMENDETH HIS Love foward us, in that while we were yet finners, CHRIST DIED for us. fe sO LoveD the world that he gave his only begotten Son. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by oné; MUCH MORE they who receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of rightcoufne/s, fhall reign in life by one, Fefus Chrift. In the redeeming plan, accord- ing to the riches of his grace, he hath aBounvep toward us in all WISDOM and PRUDENCE; in all long-fuffer- ing and loving-kindnefs, mercy and faithfulnefs, as well as love. | _ §5. A fourth inftance appears in the decretive fpeciaty of Chrift’s mediation, whereby he not only procured fuitable means for all, but alfo be- came a furety for the application of efficacious 3 grace 154 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. grace to all eventually faved. The Meffiah while procuring the means of falvation appears partly as the meffenger of equitable government ; but while raifing the dead in fin, pouring light into the mind, Lt ition into the confcience, joy to the troubled heart, and vigour into the whole man, he feems to be folely the minifter of fovereign grace. In as much as atonement made for fin contains only a part of falvation, the fundamental part indeed , the difcriminative peculiarity of Chrift’s mediation in- cludes the certainty of his applying that atonement in all its divine virtue. Thus redemption eventually, and therefore from decretive intention, 1s PARTICU- EAR; and thus the fpeciality of the fubftitution flows from fovereign pleafure. § 6. Why fhould I multiply inftances of divine difcrimination in the choice of means to attain the ultimate end of the human fyftem? Time would fail to enlarge on the Saviour’s incarnation with all its attendant circumftances of time, place, and hum- ble appearance; his parentage, rank, and manner of life;-the miracles he wrought, and the fins he pardoned. Time would fail to enumerate the won- derful inftances of his imputation of righteoufnels, and impartance of life, to men who had been perfe- cutors, and women who had been proftitutes; to fhew where the fins of the vileft characters have abounded, and the grace of Chrift hath much more abounded. ‘Time would fail to declare in what wonderful inflances the righteous have been pre- ferved in fafety and happinefs, kept by the power of Gop, . Ch. III, A View 6f Sovereign Grace. gg Gop, and conducted triumphantly to glory. Ona review of JeHovan’s adorable fovereignty in his conduct toward his people, we may fay, as of old, “‘ There is none like the Gop of Jefhurun who _ rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his “< excellency on the fky. The eternal Gop is thy ‘< refuge, and underneath are the everlafting arms ; ‘“ and he fhall thruft out the enemy from before *€ thee ; and fhall fay, Deftroy them. Ifrael then <¢ fhall dwell in fafety alone: the fountain of Ja- ‘* cob fhall be upon a land of corn and wine ; alfo “‘ his heaven fhall drop down dew. Happy art ** thou, O Ifrael: who is like unto thee, O people ** faved by the Lord, the fhield of thy help, and ‘* who is the {word of thy excellency ! and thine * enemies fhall be found liars unto thee 3 and thou *¢ fhalt tread upon their high places,’’* Ae n * Deut. xxstil, 26—-29, CHAP, 156 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. CHAP. Iy. Containing an Examination of the funda-~ - mental principles of the Arminian System, particularly Dr. Watrsy’s Discourse on the Five Points, and Mr. Frercnen’s controversial Writings. — Bein. SIA DR OURG Wake Whether a perfect moral agent, in a ftate of original — probation, has INHERENT power, according to Equity, to preferve himfelf in a courfe of active * unfinning obedience. § 1. Introduction. § 2. Whitby’s Preface afoot Ori= ginal fin. § 3. Remarks onit, § 4. His condué in claffing the orthodox with the ancient Hereticks, and himfelf with the Fathers. § 5—8. The creature’s abfolute dependence. § 9, 10. The origin of evil, what. § 11. No creature has inherent power to heep lfelf per fed, if dealt with according to firié equity. §12——17. Objeétions anfwered. § 18, 19. Corollaries. § 20. Recapitulation. “ E. ee fy ftem depends on fome fundamental fupport, and the Arminzan fyftem feems _ to me to be fupported principally ze three pillars. (1) That Ch. IV. Arminiani{m exainined, 167 (x) That a moral agent, at leaft when perfect, has a power to do good as well.as evil of himfelf. (2) That the antiremonitrant or Calviniftic fide of the difputed points is inconfiftent with equity. (3) That the certainly, (or, as they choofe to exprefs it, the necefity) of future events is not confiftent with that freedom which is effential to morat agency. If thefe pillars are fhaken, the anti- calviniftic fyftem falls. Let us now, by im- partial inveftigation and fair argument, try their ftrensth. | § 2. In the firft of thefe pillars (which is the fub- ject of the prefent Se@ion) Dr. Wurtsy mut have placed great confidence, becaufe, though he does not fo much defend it in form, a great part of his book is built upon it. And I own it appears to me not a little furprifing that the learned Dr. Griix, in all his voluminous anfwer to Wuitey, does not once attempt to examine the fentiment, but rather takes it for granted that Adam (though not his fallen potterity) had * power to love, fear, and obey Gop,” in an unqualified fenfe. Let us hear how Dr. Wuirsy prefaces his work: ‘* They who have known my education - ** may remember, that I was bred up feven years ** in the Univerfity under men of the Calvini/ti- ‘© cal perfuafion, and fo could hear no other ‘© doctrine or receive no other inftructions from iF the men of thofe times, and therefore had once ‘* firmly 158 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. “¢ firmly entertained all their doétrines.” By the bye, we may remark that, independently of the illiberal infinuation that the univerfity men of thofe times confined their learned inftru@ions and debates to one fide of the queftion, fo as to keep the other out of fight, we may juftly gueftion the former Calvinifm of the Dr. from the reafon he affiens for it. Becaufe he had no other inftruction, therefore he firmly enter- tained it. It may be fairly fufpeced that the orthodoxy of many other Doétors and Mafters, who afterwards* quitted it, was no more than opinion taken upon truft, in a fimilar way, of fubjects they never underftood. He procceds: “© Now that which firft moved me to fearch into ‘* the foundation of thefe doétrines, viz. The. *< imputation of Adam’s sin to all his pofterity, “* was the ftrange confequences of it; this made “‘'me fearch more exaély into that matter. * —-After fome years ftudy I met with one “* who feemed to be a deift, and telling him that there were arguments fufficient to ‘prove ‘€ the truth of chriftian faith, and of the holy ‘« {criptures, he fcornfully replied, Yes; and ‘© you will prove your dodrine of the imputa- ‘< tion of original fin from the fame feripture; in- “« timating that he thought that doétrine, if con- ‘* tained in it, fufficient to invalidate the truth and ' the authority of the feripture. And by a little ‘« reflection I found the ftrength of his argument ‘« ran thus: That the truth of holy f{cripture could ‘* no otherwife be proved to any man that doubted Olae Ch. IV. _ riinianifin examined. 159 “it, but by reducing him to fome abfurdity or << the denial of fome avowed principle of reafon, “< Now this imputation of Adam’s fin to his pof- ** terity, fo as to render them obnoxious to Gop’s ‘¢ wrath, and to eternal damnation, only becaufe they were born of the race of Adam, feemed to ‘“¢ him as contradi&ory to the common reafon of ** mankind, as any thing could be, and fo contained ** as ftrong an argument againft the truth of {crip- “« ture, if that doctrine was contained in it, as any ** could be offered for it. And upon this account ‘¢ [ again fearched into the places ufually alledged *¢ to confirm that doctrine, and found them fairly ‘< capable of other interpretations.” + § 3. One cannot help wondering that a perfon of Dr. Wuitsy’s abilities fhould be at a lofs to anfwer this deiftical objection, without giving up the doctrine of original fin. What is there in revela- tion, and peculiar to it, that the Door himfelf would call an important_article, to which a Deift would not raife an objection equally plaufible ? To anfwer objections by difcarding every thing objected to by Deifts, is not the way to defend but rather to betray the truth. The objection of 4 Deift, therefore, (cet. par.) to the doctrine of original fin, or any other fcriptural doétrine, js impertinently adduced againft it. Who would ever expect that perfons of deiftical principles fhould + Dr. Wuirey’s Difcourfe on the Five Points. Pref, Pally iis N, B. I always refer in this Work to the Second Edition. \ 160 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fhould give their fuffrage in favour of fentiments becaufe maintained in feripture ? The above ftatement implies, that if the orthodox doftrine of original fin be not true, the jive points which are maintained in that difcourfe are effential- ly befriended. The critical confideration of that doétrine operated as the main {pring to the Doctor’s laborious refearches, and produced one confiderable part of his celebrated performance; while the /up- pofition of its falfehood emboldens the Arminian champion to infult Calvinifm as zndefenfible. But as the Author on-whom I animadvert has not, in the treatife before me, thought proper to attack that doc- trine in form, however advantageous to his caufe the demolition of it might be; neither fhall I, in replying to the fundamental principles of the Ar- minian fyftem; attempt a profefled defence of it.* If by a fair inveftigation it will be found a truth, that Adam in a ftate of perfection had no power to do good without /overeign aid, our Author’s triumph on difcarding original fin, and Gop’s decree, ** De ‘¢ non dando auxilium neceflarium ad vitandum <¢ peccatum,” of not affording help necefary to avoid fin to Adam’s potterity, is premature and empty. If the fate of Adam himfelf, before the fall, was fuch as to favour our doGrine of fovereign grace, much more is it inferible from that of his pofterity in every inftance of converfion and final happinefs. § 4. Pafling * The inquifitive reader will find this done, in a very matterly manner, by Prefident Epwarps, in his book entitled, Thegreat Chriflian Doétrine of Original Sin defended, &C. in reply to Dr. Joun Taytor. 4 Ch, IV. Ar minianifin examined, 161 . § 4. Pafling by the Doétor’s ungenerous endea. vour to clafs the orthodox with the « Valentinians, “‘“Marcionites, Bafilidians, Manichees, Prifcillianifts, and “* other /Zereticks,” while he modeftly places himfelf with the Fathers* who wrote againft them, as equal- ly deftitute of propriety, of candour, and of per- tinency to the queftion in difpute, we fhall proceed to a point of more radical importance. For what the primitive churches and Fathers did believe, is no ftandard to us of what we ought to believe. It is at beft but ergumentum ad verecundiam, an argument fit only to overawe children, not areumentum ad veri- tatem, an appeal to the truth itfelf, | § 5. Our pofition, then, is, that “¢ a moral agent “¢ in a flate of probation, according to equity, how« ** ever perfect he may be, has no inherent power to “* preferve himfelf ina courfe of obedience ;” from which, if eftablifhed, it will plainly follow, that great numbers of thofe objections formed by Ar. minian writers, and Dr. Wairey in particular, again{t the doctrines of grace as held by the reform= ed, muft fall pointlefs to the ground, or elf recoil upon themfelves. One might think that a clofe, impartial attention to one felf-evident principle, would foon lead us to M the _™* In anfwer to that part of Dr. Wuirey’s elaborate Treatife which relates to the Judgment of the Antient Chriftian.Church, or the fenfe of the chriftian writers. of the firt four centuries after Chrift, and before Austin, concerning Predeftination, Redemp- tion, Original Sin, Free-will, Efficacious Grace, and The Perfe- verance of the Saints; fee Dr, Giix’s Caufe of God and Truth, Part IV. paffim, 162 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the conclufion we mean to eftablifh; that iS, “¢ every creature is abfolutely, univerfally, and “ neceflarily dependent on the Creator.” Thus the great FENELON, who was no enemy to freedom: < J ama dependent being. Independency is the fupreme perfection. That which is by itfelf, mutt carry within itfelf the fource and {pring of its own being; or, which is the fame thing, it muft borrow or derive nothing from any other being different from itfelf. Suppofea being which collects in itfelf all the perfections you can conceive, but which, at the fame time, has a borrowed and dependent exift- ence, you will ftill find it to be lefs than another being, of which you have only the fingle idea of bare independency. For there is no comparifon to be made betwixt a being that exifts by itfelf, and a being which has nothing of its own, nothing but what it borrows; and which poflefles itfelf, as it were, only upon truft.— The will, or capacity of willing, is doubtlefs a degree of exiftence, and of goodnefs, or perfection. But good will, or volition to good, and defire after it, is another degree of fuperior good. For one may abufe the faculty of willing, by willing that which is evil ; as to deceive, hurt, or do injuftice : whereas good will is the good or right ufe of the will itfelf, which cannot but be good. There is nothing therefore fo precious in man, as this good will, benevolence, or volition to good. It is this which fets a value upon all his other faculties. — We have already feen that my will does not exift by itfelf, fince it is fubjeét to lofe, and to receive degrees of good, or perfection. We , have Ch, [V. Arminianifin examined. 163 have feen, that it is a good inferior to good will; becaufe it is better to will that which is good, than barely to have a will fufceptible both of good and evil. How is it poffible to believe that I, a weak, imperfect, borrowed, and dependent being, can beftow on myfelf the higheft degree of perfection, while it is evident, that the inferior degree i is de- rived to me froma firft exiftence? Can | i imagine that Gop gives me the leffer good, and that with. - out him I give myfelf the greater? Where fhould I obtain that high degree of perfection, in order to beftow it on myfelf? Could I procure it from no- thing, which is the whole of my own ftock? Shall I fay, that other {pirits equally imperfect with mine, communicate it unto me? But fince thofe limited and ‘dependent beings cannot, any more than my felf, give to themfelves any one thing; much lefs can they beftow any thing on another. Not being felf-exiftent, they have not of themfelves any true power, either over me, over thofe things that are imperfect in me, or over themfelves, It is neceflary therefore, without ftaying to look at them, to afcend higher, and find out a firft, all-prolific, all- powerful caufe, who is able to beftow on my foul that good volition which fhe has not in herfelf. <* Let us here add another reflection. That firft being is the caufe of all the modifications of his crea- tures. The operation, to {peak in the language of philofophers, follows the exiftence. A being i in its - own nature dependent, mutt be fo in all its operati- ons. That which is acceflory, is a confequence of the principal. The author of their effence, therefore, is | M 2 alfo 164 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. alfo the author of all the modifications or modes of exiftences in his creatures. Thus Gop is the real and immediate caufe of all the configurations, com- binations, and motions of all the bodies in the uni- verfe. He hath fet one body in motion, and by means of that he gives motion to another, It is he who. created all things, and whofe power fill operates in all his works. Now volition is the modification of the will, juft as motion is the modi- fication of bodies. Shall we affirm, that Gop is the real, immediate, and entire caufe of the motion of all bodies, and deny that he is equally the real and immediate caufe which actuates the will to what is good? Shall this modification, the moft excellent of all, be the only one not wrought by Gop in his own work? Shall the work beftow this on itfelf, independently of its Author? Who can entertain fuch a thought? My volition to good, which I had not yefterday, and which, I have to-day, is not therefore a thing which I beftow on myfelf, It came from him who gave me the faculty of willing, and even my very exiftence. As volition is a greater perfection than bare exiftence; fo to will that which is good, is a greater perfection than . fimply to will. The confequent operation of power, when it proceeds to a virtuous act, is the oreateft of all human perfections. Power is only a balance, a beam in equilibre betwixt virtue and vice, a mere fufpenfion betwixt good and evil. The _ progrefs or paflage to the att, is a determination to the fide of good, and confequently to that sood which is fuperior. The power fufceptible of good | and Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined. 165 and evil proceeds from Gop: this 1s what we have proved beyond all poflibility of a doubt. Shall we now affirm, that the decifive ftroke, the operation that determines to the greater good, does not pro- ceed from him, or proceeds lefs from him than the bare power? All that we have faid evidently con- curs with thofe words of the apoftle, that God works in us both to will and to do of his own good plea- fure. — The image of the divine independence, is not really that independency which it only repre- fents, My liberty is but a thadow of the liberty of the firft being, by whom I exift, and by whom I aét. On the one hand, the power I have of willing what is evil, is not fo much a true power, asa weaknefs and frailty infeparable from my will: for it is only a power to fall, to degrade myfelf, and to diminifh my degree of perfection and exiftence. On the other hand, the power I have to will what is good, is not an abfolute power, fince I have it not of myfelf. Therefore, as liberty is nothing more than power, a borrowed power can conftitute only a borrowed and dependent liberty. A being fo im- perfect, and fo little his own, cannot be otherwife than dependent.” * § 6. If this reafoning be juft, and I have no doubt that to every impartial mind it muft appear {o, it is obvious to remark, that it is applicable, not merely to man in his prefent ftate, but alfo in his flate of primeval rectitude; and indeed to every created being however exalted. Creation is a tranfit from M 3 nothing * Demonftration of the Exiftence of Gop. Set, Ixiiimlxv, lxix. 166 ~EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. nothing to a degree of pofitive good, Yet every creature, it is almoft felf-evident, has, in ftric&t pro- ~ priety of fpeech, only a paffive power, and participates _ more of nothing than of any thing pofitive and” active. And fuch is the univerfality of this truth that it applies no lefs to the moft glorious feraph - than to the meaneft reptile. The dependence of the creature on the Creator is abfolute and univerfal in its effence and being, in all its good properties and qualities, defires and volitions. It is to Gop the creature owes its will to good, which is natural ;. but much moré its virtuous volitions, becaufe a higher degree of excellence. The creature’s power. to act is from Gop; even all its natural actions proceed from his efficiency; how much more all — ‘virtuous and holy actions! Should any fay that the actions of an infect are from Gop, but thofe of an _exalted intelligence from himfelf, he would but render the abfurdity more glaring, and increafe the contradiction. We may fafely and: unrefervedly aflert, that Adam never exercifed a good volition, defire, or thought, but as Gop immediately enabled — him. This being a point of the greateft. import- ance in Theology, we fhould not flightly pafs it over ; and left my fentiments fhould appear novel to thofe who have read but little on the fubject, or whofe reading has been partial, I fhall make no. apology for exprefling my thoughts again in the Janguage of others, § 7. Thus then the eminently learned and pious THEOPHILUS GaLe: “ Dependence on God for | being, ChiIV. Arminianifin examined. 169 being, life, and motion, is effential to every creature as fuch: for all creatures receiving whatever they have by participation from God, it thence neceflarily follows, that they depend on him for all. — An in- dependent being, is that which needs not any other being effentially precedent to itfelf, as the caufe of its being and operation. — Whatever is dependent is Ens or being by participation, finite, potential, contingent, and defectible. Every dependent is ens by participation. For whatever is not being by | eflence and independently, muft neceffarily be fuch by participation: where there is not felf-being, there muft be a reception of being from fome other, which connotes participation. Whatever 1s de- pendent is alfo fixite and limited, both in being, virtue, and operation. Whatever is dependent is finite in being; becaufe its being is by participation, — and according to communication of the fuperior caufe. Every dependent is alfo finite in virtue and efficacy: for whatever is limited in its efeace mutt neceflarily alfo be limited in its virtue and efficacy. Hence every dependent is alfo finite in its operation : for the {phere of aéfivity cannot be larger than the fphere of effence: if the principle be limited, the operation cannot but be limited. Whatever is de- pendent is alfo potential. ‘To explicate and demon- ftrate this attribute of a dependent being we muft confider, that nothing is pure ad, but the firft moft fimple independent being : no creature is pure actua- lity : where there is dependence, there is fomewhat of potentiality or pafive power, either phyfic or metaphyfic. All matter hath a phy/ic paflive power, M «4 or 168 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. or natural poflibility of being corrupted: fpirits have not a phy/ic paflive power, or natural principle of corruption, yet they have a metaphyfic paflive power of being annihilated, or caft back into their primitive nothing. Befides the naiural power, which a dependent being has, there is an obediential power appendant to its nature. For the explication of which we are to know, that it is effential to.a created being to be fubje& and fubordinate to the firft, in- created and independent Being fo far, as to obey it in receiving all impreffions, and acting under it whatfoever implies not a contradidion. — Hence, every dependent being is contingent, For whatever has any paflive or obediential power, is obnoxious to the fovereign pleafure and concourfe of its firft — caufe, to which it owes abfolute obedience, even te annihilation, Hence, every dependent being is defeciible. For as it is eflential to the firft independ- ent Being to be indefectible; fo alfo to all fecond dependent beings to be defectible. The fupreme Gop being (cwJowy xou evleonys,) felf-being, and felf-fugficient, a pure fimple a&, without the leaft matter or paflive power, it is impoffible that he fhould ever fail in any thing: but every creature being ens, or being, by participation, and fo compofed of fomething and sella or of act and paflive power, it cannot be but that it fhould be defecible, or ape to fail, which is the root of its dependence, _* The root and origin of all creatural depend- ence is the creature’s paflive power, and Gon’s abfolute dominion over it : , 1. Lhe Chil¥, Arminianifin examined. 169 . 1. % The creature’s pafive power. For the expli- cation whereof we are to confider, that all creatures, being educed by Gop out of nothing, ftill retain a tincture or mixture of their primitive nothing: fo that no creature can be faid to be pure being: for this is an attribute peculiar to the firft independent being. — Every creature has fomething of nothing contempered with its emg; yea more of nothing than of being, which makes it obnoxious to limita- tion, contingence, mutability, defeciibility, and dependence. — This xihility or nothingnefs of the creature is the fame with its pafive power either phyfic or meta- phyfic ; natural orobediential ; whereby it is limited, and confined to fuch or fuch a degree of entity, exi/t ence, and operation. — So that all dependence arifeth from nihility, paflive power, and limitation of the creature, 2. God’s abfolute dominion. For all creatures hay- ing been educed, by the omnipotent power of Gop, out of nothing, and invefted only with a finite, limited being, compofed of fomething and nothing, or act and paflive power, hence it neceflarily follows, that all are fubje& to the abfolute dominion of their Creator, and impedible, according to his pleafure, Wherever there is paflive power, there 1s impedi- bility: there is nothing (evzrrodw]os) unimpedible but Gop, who is pure aft and Lord of all. Gop has abfolute dominion over his creature for all ufes that imply not a contradiétion. This plenary and abfo- lute dominion of Gop appertains to his infinite omnipotence and fupremacy, as the firft caufe of all things: for ao dominion is complete and perfect, unlefs 170° EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. unlefs it include a power of all poflible ufe. May’ we efteem that a perfect dominion, which has not an abfolute difpofal of all under its dominion? And to this abfolute dominion of Gop muft there not cor- tefpond an abfolute {ubjection in the creature ? Are not thefe two correlates ? And doth not this abfolute _ fabjection of the creature to Gop, fpeak its abfolute dependence on Gop? Is it poffible that any creature — made by Gop fhould be exempted from his abfolute dominion? And doth not abfolute dependence on Gop neceflarily follow hence? Neither doth this abfolute dependence on Gop regard only the Effence and confervation of the creature, but alfo all its operations: for otherwife the creature were (cveprodiolos) unimpedible, which is againft the law of creation and dependence. ‘Thus every created being is under the abfolute dominion of Gop, both as to its effence, exifrence, aélivity, and operation: Gop can deprive it of each of thefe as he pleafeth, yea, reduce it to its firft nothing. Hence dependence on Gop as to each of thefe is e/fential to every crea- ture. “© Is not every creature multiform, mutable, and defeftible? And mutt not every multiform, mutable, and defectible being ‘be reduced to fome uniform, immutable, and indefectible Being, as the original prin- ciple of its dependence? Is there not a natural levity and vanity in every creature, which renders it fluxible, variable and inconftant ? Was it nota great and moft true faying of HeRracuitus, that all things ere in fiux or motion? Do not all this then need fome frft being and caufe to fw their beings and motions ? Again, \ Ch, IV. Arminianifm examined. 171 Again, doth not every potential being need fome pure aéf, to actuate the fame? And is not every creature a potential being which needs Gop, the mott fimple pure afi, to actuate the fame? Doth not every recipient, as recipient, need the active influx of that principle from which it receives all? And is not every creature a mere paflive recipient as to Gop, who is the firft influential caufe. of its existence, motion, and all? Yea, is not every creature a mere paflive infrument in regard of the divine influx? Can it fulfjft or ad without divine concourfe ? — Creatural dependence is not really diftiné& from the effence of the creature. That the creature’s dependence is not really diftinét from its effence is evident; becaufe every creature being ens by participation, it muft neceflarily follow, that dependence on the firft _caufe, from whom it participates of being, is moft effential to it. As it is effential fo the firft caufe to be Being by effence, and fo independent; fo it is alfo effential to the fecond caufe to be being by par- ticipation, and {o dependent: fo that the very notion and idea of a creature doth znfeparably, effentially, and formally include.dependence on Gop, as that which is really not diitinct therefrom. ‘¢ Every creature cepends on Gop as to operasion. — For operation is the ivdex of the effence s: what is dependent in effence cannot be independent in operation. lLetus confider the {eries of caufes, and we fhall find that every inferior is obedient and fub- ordinate to its fuperior in acting, What is an aéiion but that fpecial dependence, which the effect has on its efficient caufe? And is not Gop the prime Efficient 872 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Efficient of all things ? No virtue or efficacy of any fecond caufe can actuate itfelf, but neceffarily re- quires for its actuation the divine concourfe, which gives all virtue, as alfo the confervation and actuation of the faid virtue. The virtue of the inferior agent ‘always depends on the virtue of the fuperior, inaf- . much as the fuperior gives virtue to the inferior, as alfo the confervation and actuation of the fame virtie. Whatever is Hmited in its effence is alfo limited in its aétivity and operation: and where there is limitation there is fubordination and depend- ence, as well in ‘operation as in effence. If every fecond caufe depend not on its firft for all its opera. tions, then it is impoffible that the firft caufe fhould hinder fuch operations, for the exerting of which the fecond caufe depends not on him.’ * § 8. From this profound and very valuable writer much more to the fame purpofe might be added, but the above may fuffice. I fhall next produce, in reference to the fame point, the fenti- ments of one who certainly was not averfe to Lberty and moderation. lear, then, Mr. Ricuarp Baxter: «¢ As all being is originally from Gop, fo there is a continued divine caufation of them, [the crea. tures] without which they would all ceafe, or be an- nihilated: which fome call a continued creation, and fome an emanation, and fome a continued action, or operation ad rerum eff. And it is an intolerable error to hold that Gop hath made the world, or any part of it, felt-{ufiicient, or independent as to him. felf, * Court of the Gentiles, Part IV. Book IL. ch. ii. pafiar Ch. IV. Arminianifin. examined. 173 | felf, as to deing, attion, or perfection. We grant therefore that all the world is fo far united to Gon, as to depend on his continued caufality: and that the beams do not more depend on the fun, or light, heat, and motion on the fun and other fire, nor the branches, fruit, and leaves more depend on the tree, than the creature on Gop. -—~ But yet thefe are no parts of Gop, as the fruit and leaves are of the tree, andas the beams are of the fun: but they are . creatures, becaufe Gop’s emanation or cau/fation is creative, caufing the whole being of the effect.*— It is confeffed that there is no fubftance which Gop is not the maker of (befides himfelf) ; nor any action of which he is not the jit caufe.. Gop may well be called the perfect firft caufe of human actions, in that he giveth man all his natural faculties, and a power to a? or not ad at this time, or to choofe this or that, and as the fountain of nature and life and motion, doth afford his infux neceflary to this free agency. So that whenever any act is done, as an act ia genere, Gop is the firft caufe of it: for it is done by the power which he giveth and continueth, and by his vital influx; and there is no power ufed to produce it which is not given by God. + *¢ Ffuman (and all created) power is dependent, and. Is not properly a power to do .any thing, but on fuppofition of Gon’s emanant fupport and concourfe, as he is the firft caufe of nature. { I conclude with this repeated profeffion, that I am fully fatisfied, that all the reft of the controverfies, about grace and na * Chatholic Theology, Part IIT. p. 113. | Lbid. Part I. p, 27. t Lid, p. 37: a 174 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ture, predeftination and redemption, as they ftand between the fynod of Dort and the Avminians, are of no greater moment than I have oft expreffed in this , hook —and that the TRUE Lirz of all the remaining difficulties} is, in this controverfy, between the de- fenders of neceffary predetermination, and [thofe] of free-will; that is, (not, What free will fzners have left, but) Whether ever in angels or innocent man, there was fuch a thing, as a will that can and ever did DETERMINE ITSELF 40 @ Volition or nolition in fpecie morali, without the predetermining, efficient, neceffitating PRE- MOTION Of God as the firft caufe 2” * The reader will obferve that I have not, in the. above quotations, availed myfelf of Aucustine and the Fathers, Aquinas and the Schoolnen, Cat- vin and the Reformers, Hartvey and modern Meta- phyficians and divines ; but the authors I have fixed upon are perhaps the leaft exceptionable that could be felected; being not only eminent in piety, dif tinguifhed for their acutenefs and zeal in the invefti- gation of divine truth, and their extenfive acquain- ° tance with the metaphyfical fentiments of others. that went before them, but alfo of different religious perfuafions. However, I produce them not as’ authorities; 1 only exprefs myfelf in the words of men who were thus qualified to form their opinions, © who were at the head of no party, who apparently had no intereft to ferve but that of truth, but whofe. learning and moderation are univerfally acknow= ledged. ; | | With * Ibid, p. 118, Ch. IV. ) Arminianifin examined. i75 With the concluding remark of the laft of thefe writers I fully accord. The true life of the difficulty in thofe controverfies that have fo long fubfifted in the church, and which go now under the names of Calvimftic and Arminian fentiments, is this: viz. What is the REAL power of a perfe& accountable creature, as diftinguifhed from a dorrowed or coucur- ring power? To fay, that Adam’s power confitted in the iverty of choofing what appeared to his un-_ derftanding to be good, and refufing what appeared evil, and of acting accordingly; does not /olve the difficulty, but rather change the fituation of it, For the power here afcribed to Adam is only a dorrowed power; the refult of a fixed Jaw, that the will thould follow the dictates of the underftanding, which is as much the effect of a Lorrowed power as any thing done by man can be. Granting, then, that man has the fixed invariable cozcurrence of divine power, (which is the utmoft he can have in this matter, ) to choofe or to refufe what the intellect reprefents as good or evil; the difficulty fill returns, How came the intellect of a perfec creature to make an erroneous reprefentation of any object? In other words, What is the on1Gin of moral evil ? ay In anfwer to a queftion of fuch difficulty and importance, I defire not only to preferve all due reverence towards my Maker, but alfo to fubmit to the intelligent reader the refult of my_ in- quiries with becoming deference, My conclu- fion then is, that ‘¢ she ornicin of all moral evil muft be referred to shat perzcTiBitity which is effential 176 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. effential to every created nature, when left in the hand of frritd equity to the exclufion of all fovereign preventing ais? Or, * moral evil flows infallibly from the HYPOTHETICAL NATURE OF THINGS, if not fovereignly prevented.” And it appears to me that the truth of my conclufion is fupported by fufficient reafons — deduced both @ priori and a pofteriori. ‘To begin with the former, let it be obferved ; — ; 1. There is but one zzdependent Being in the unt- verfe ; who is pure aé?, unimpedible, and indefecti- ble. This Being, whom we call Gop, is the firf Caufe, and the Jat end of all created exiftence. Whereas it is effential to every creature to have an imperfeét exiftence compared with his; which imper- fection includes, among other things, ab/olute de- pendence, in effence, exiftence, good qualities, (for bad ones have no efficient caufe) activity, and ope- ration; and confequently fuch a dependent being exifts and acts only by participation. From whence it follows that all the good it pofiefles, the good of exiftence, of virtuous and happy exiftence, of trué conceptions, of commendable volitions, and a holy difpofition, proceed entirely from the firft caufe. That is, al/ good proceeds from God. 2. All that is requifite to conftitute any perfect being accountable is, a capacity to enjoy the chief good, fuitable means for fecuring it, with freedom to fin or not to fin. If you require any thing more, you require indefectibility, and therefore independ- ence; which is abfurd and impoflible. Adam, therefore, had a capacity to enjoy Gop in rectitude, which eapacity implies an #elled? to reprefent, and a | will | Chiles Arminianifm examined. ©9797 _ willto choofe good. But though the will follows the reprefentation made, by a fixed law infeparable from intelligent beings, yet the intellect itfelf nei. ther is nor can be made indefectible in its own nature; for that would be the fame as to make an independent creature, which is a contradiction. If the will did not a/ways choofe the greateft apparent good, then it may happen that evil may fometimes be chofen as evil, which would lead to confequences © too abfurd and monftrous to be mentioned. And yet, becaufe the zutelled is not by any fixed law in- fallibly connected with the truth, or exactly pro- portioned real good of the objects prefented to it, (for if it were fo connected it would be indefectible, which is abfurd in its principle 5 and moral evil would be impoffible, which is contrary to fac,) it follows, that though Adam had fuitable mEans of happinefs, they could not poffibly exfure his perfec- tion. When therefore I fay that Adam was Free not only ¢o fia, but alfo not to fin, my meaning is, that he was uot impelled by any decree, concurrence, phyfical or moral influence of Gop to commit fin. In Adam’s firft finful 2é7 (as in every finful a& what- ever) there was fomething of entity, fomething to which Gop concurred, of which he was the efficient caufe; and there was a fomething which was Sinful, to which Gop did not concur, and of which he was not the efficient. Sin therefore, if traced to its ultimate and true origin, muft appear to proceed (not from Gop in any refpect, but) from the "spothe- tical nature of things... Adam’s defection, in its | IN : formal. 1782 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. formal zature, was a tranfgreffion of the law, the line of rectitude ; but the /ource of it was a tendency to defection effential to “every created nature, and which mere equity could not prevent. From hence it follows, that a/l evil is from our/elves. § 10. I fhall next offer an argument in fupport of my conclufion, deduced a pofteriori. I will not appeal to fcripture language which afcribes all good to Gop as its original, and all fin to ourfelves; to the fentiments of angels who never finned, or the. inhabitants of defpair; I appeal to the reader him- felf when in his moft thoughtful and ferious mos ments. Ifa perfon of found mind, and a virtuous difpofition, he will undoubtedly acquiefce in the following language: “* 1 am what Jam by un- ‘© merited favour. Whatever good Adam poffeffed ‘¢ or performed I afcribe to Gop, and not to him; <¢ except as. Gop’s inftrument. Much more dol «¢ refer all the good found in, and done by any of << his pofterity to that fource. I am nothing, I «¢ have nothing, I did nothing ¢ruly good but as << actuated or fupplied by fovereign favour. Not <¢ unto me, O Gop, not unto me, but to thy great <¢ and glorious name be all the praife. Thou, and ‘¢ thou alone, art worthy to receive the glory and ‘¢ honour and thanks. Worthy is the Lamb that “¢ was flain, but not myfelf, to receive power, and «¢ riches, and wifdom, and ftrength, and -honour, <¢ and glory, and blefling. I would join with every <¢ creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, ¢> and under the earth, and fuch as are in the fea, «© and ~ Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined, 179 66 and all that are in them, faying, Blefling, and ‘honour, and glory, and power (not to my/eif in any degree, but) unto him that fitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever. —On the other hand, Gop never impelled any to fh. If angels and men fell, they have them- felves alone to blame. Gop could have prevented their fall, without deftroying their liberty, by fovereign phyfical acts on their atures, whereby — the intellect might be conftantly enlightened, and the will cleave with delight to the good fo re- prefented; this he does to vanbels and glorified faints, and what he does to them he could have done to others, Butif thofe who ftand, ftand by favour’, thofe who fell, fell by equity. Behold the fovereign goodnefs and the equitable feverity of Gop! As the fall of angels and our firft “parents was of themfelves, fo every fin I ever committed was /olely from myfelf. Gon has given me a capacity of enjoying himfelf, an un- derflanding to know, and a will to love him; but in many inftances I‘have departed from the ae tain of living waters, and hewn to myfelf broken cifterns that can hold no. water; exchanged the chief for a partial and inferior good. I take the blame always to my/e/f; to mylelf it entirely belongs. Were I cut down and caft off to fuffer the torments of hell, and that forever, it would, be but equitable; that I am not there zow, is the effect of fovereign grace; and if I am ever placed in a ftate of permanent happinefs in heaven, I fhall afcribe it wholly and eternally to N 2 . ** the i8o EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. << the fame bleffed adorable caufe.” If this is the language of truth and foberne(s, the real experience of a well-informed and well-affected mind, my con- clufion is juftified by it, that while 2// good is from God, all fin is from the creature, that is, from its own effential defeétibility, and therefore the hypothetical nature of things, permitted to operate without a fovereign prevention. : § 11. From the premifes it follows, that the creature’s power to fin is properly and really sts own, as oppofed to Gop’s concurrence; for when every thing which is Gon’s is abftracted from the finful act, the remainder (which is only fin) is the crea- ture’s own. And italfo follows, that the creature’s power to af well is not properly and really its own but borrowed. Without Gop’s immediate act upon the creature to fupport its nature and difpofi- tion from moral defection, its intellect and will from mifimproving means, as well as its exiftence from recurring to nihility, it can do nothing morally good. Properly fpeaking, therefore, Adam was not the author of his perfection and continuance therein but the isftrument of Gop ; whereas he was in the ftricteft fenfe the author of his defection, there being no caufe whatever out of himfelf for its exiftence. To refer fin to Gop as its author or efficient caufe is abfolutely impoffible, if by fin we mean any thing that is bad; but fin is truly bad, becaufe the very oppofite to holinefs. As the latter is the greateft beauty, fo the former is the greateft deformity in the univerfe. The one is pure light, the other foul darknefs; the one is health and the fource Ch. IV. Arminianifim examined. 18k fource of happinefs, the other is difeafe and the fource of mifery; the one leads to heaven and the other to hell. To fay therefore that Gop is the author of fin, is the fame as to fay it is not fin; for were he the author of it, in the fame fenfe that he is the author of holinefs, it would ceafe to be evil, which is contradictory. By this account it muft appear, that fince Adam’s . power to fin was really his ow#, and his power of aéting well was borrowed his power of not finning 1s, if | may fo exprefs myfelf, a certain mere point, an even balance, a medium or neutrality between a phyfical impulfe to fin, and a power of acting well. And the power of not receding from this point, of not preponderating to moral evil, of not deviating from this medium or neutrality to the fide of dif- obedience, is in reality Jorrowed, and poflefied during the fovereign pleafure of Gop; and it is ours in no higher fenfe than as it is not infringed upon by any pofitive act on Gon’s part. Thus our exifience, as creatures only, is a power, not real but derived; to continue it requires perpetual caufa- tion from Gop, but to annihilate it requires no _ pofitive act. And thus the perfec? exiftence of Adam, as accountable, was a power, not real but derived; to continue it required a perpetual caufation trom Gop, but in order to lofe it no pofitive act on the part of Gop was neceflary. § 12. But “ if Adam had no real power, which may be called properly 47s ows, how can it be faid that he was under obligation to love God with all his N 3 heart ?°* 182 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. heart??? He had all that could in equity be required ; he had a capacity of enjoying the chief good, and was put in abfolute pofleffion of it; he had means both fuitable and fufficient to preferve that poffeffion, . obligations and means being correlates; and he had freedom on the one hand to tranfgrefs, when fet on the exact balance of trial, and on the other he was not impelled to tranfgrefs by any thing on the part of God; by any decree, active will, interference, pre- motion, influence, concurrence, or any caufe what- ever. What elfe can an accountable creature claim as its due? To Jove God with all his heart, was to keep poffeffion of the good he enjoyed, and to this end he had all neceflary moral means (the only ones that could be equitably demanded) to induce him. lf he had no aéive power of himfelf to enfure his perfection, it was becaufe he was not an independent being. And yet, he had not only a pafive power. of defection and tranfgreffion, but alfo ah obediential power, whereby he was capacitated to receive ability from fovereign favour to obey the law. § 13. Again, if addive power be incompatible with abfolute dependence, which is effential to every creature, with what propriety may any good adis be called curs?” Theadét itfelf, confidered in its formal nature, may very well be called ours, becaufe we’ love, fear, repent, or believe; though Gop’s pre- motion be the efficient caufe. An act (and the fame remark applies to the flate of the mind) is good or bad, not from its caufe, but its formal ‘nature. Therefore, to love Gon is good irre{pective of Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined. 183 of the efficient caufation ; and vice verfa. Yet, the free agent is under obligation of gratitude not to himfelf but to the efficient caufe. ‘Though the a& be fis, it was Gop enabled him both to will and do of his own good pleajure. | On the contrary, if he a amis, the act itfelf i iS morally bad, irrefpectively of the caufe ; the caufe is a deficient one, originating in himfelf alone. ‘There- fore to fay, that it is a hard/hip for one to luffer natural evil (the neceffary effe% of moral evil) be- caufe he has no real active power of his own to keep the line of re@titude, is to rebel,againft the hypothe- tical nature of things, and to deftroy the diftinction between Creator and creature. To vindicate the divine character, it is enough that the probationer.is not forced to tranfgrefs. How much more becoming a created exiftence is this language, <* Hold thou me up and I fhall be fafe!”? Proud diffatisfadtion with’ the nature of things is the very effence of rebellion, and was probably ‘ the condemnation of the devil.”’ To fay, that in the cafe of a perfect probationer there was a chance of his continuing to ad aright as well as to a& amifs, is an attempt to hide our ignorance under the veil of unmeaning words; for to aé well, is no more the effect of chance than the agent himfelf is the effec of it. And to afcribe fuch a good effect to any thing fhort of Gop as the original premotive unmerited caufe, 1s contrary to all juft conceptions of creaturely dependence. § 14. Some may be ready to object: “If a moral | New fyftem 184 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. {yftem can exift on no other condition, what is there defirable in fuch a fyftem 2?” Nay but, O man, who art thou that replieft againft God ? Shall the thing Formed fay to him that formed it, Why haft thou made methus ? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the fame lump to make one veffel unto honour, und another unto comparative difhonour ? If there were no moral fyftem, the glorious attribute of eguity could never be exercifed. And yet, if the attribute _ of mere equity be exercifed and made manifeft, {uch © is. the creature’s paflive power, that the fyftem mutt needs be deranged.* If therefore equity bea glori- ous attribute, and if moral imperfection be the certain confequence of its difplay, goodnefs and wifdom feem to require, in fome inftances, the interpofition of fovereignty : for it appears ‘repugnant to our beft ideas of goodnefs and wifdom (which, if we form any fentiments at all, we muft follow) to f{uppofe, that the difplay of one attribute fhould inevitably terminate, as that of mere equity would, in the mifery of the creature, without any po/fbility of preventing its operation: but this prevention, it is demonftrable, can be effected only by fovereign grace. Whence it muft appear to every unprejudiced mind, that a moral fy{tem exifting on this condition and in thefe circum= * “ Without having recourse to any ill genius or demon, we may fairly and solidly account for the origin of evil, from the possibility ofa various use or application of our liberty; even as that capacity or possibility itself is ultimately founded on the dcfectibility and finiteness of a created nature.” Ditvon, on the Resurrection, p. 427, Edit. 1727. Ch, IV. Arminianifm examined. 184 circumftances, is the moft wonderful and glorious part of all creation. § 15. “* Might not the inconvenience of moral evil have been prevented by a pofitive decree to the contrary =” No decree could alter the ab/traa nature of things, becaufe no decree could alter the nature of God on which they are founded; and the following hypothetical nature of things, or connection of caufes and effects, in reference to the prefent fubjea, | apprehend amounts to a plain demonftration: If Gop create any being, that being muft be abfolutely dependent; if he fhew his equity ad extra, unat- tended with fovereign aids, the creature muft fail to produce actions morally good; if this deviation from rectitude take place, natural evil (confifting in the /ofs of the chief good, and a con/cioufnefs of that Jois) muft enfue, without a miraculous prevention ; if this being, having once offended, be reftored, it mutt be effected by fovereign mercy and grace, So that, in effect, the import Ae the objection is, whe- ther the fame thing can de and uot be at the fame time ? It was undoubtedly a matter of fovereign pleafure with Gon either to form a fyftem or not, and one fyftem rather than another; but to fup-. pofe that mere pleafure and appointment could conftitute and effect a contradiction is abfurd. Howe ever, we mutt fay that the exiftence of moral evil is only hypothetically neceflary, If equity and mercy be difplayed, moral evil muft not be prevented. It is therefore granted that moral evil might have been prevented by a potitive decree to the contrary; but at 186 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. at the expenfe of eternally concealing the glorious attributes juft mentioned, and the plan of redeem- ing grace, which in its contrivance, execution, and effects, will be the fubject of everlafting admiration. Our bufinefs fhould be not to cavil at the ways of Jenovan, as if they were not equal, but to humble . ourfelves under his mighty hand; to thirft after the water of the river of life, that iffues from under the throne of mercy. This would cure our fever; fet our hearts at eafe; enlighten our eyes, and flay our enmity. If fin abounds, grace doth much more abound. § 16. It may be again objected, “ If Adam was not impelled to fin, and had no power of himfelf to act, how came he to fin at all??? Why he aéted at all was not mero cafu, but by the law of his nature as an agent, it being a good and wife conftitution that the will fhould follow the dictates of the under- flanding.* This: zmpule to act is good, becaufe it iS * « The efablifhed order of nature is, That the willfhould always act in a jult and regular fubordination to the dictates of the under-- ftanding: That the mind, as a fure guide, fhould go before, de- termining which is fit to be done and purfued, or omitted and avoided; and by that means direét and lead on the operations of this faculty, which ought to choofe or refufe accordingly. And the underftanding being fuppofed to be rightly informed, we always act rationally and well, when things go on in this courfe ; the mind duly prefcribing, and the will fweetly yielding to its preferiptions, each power keeping its proper place and office. But whether the mind be duly informed or no, the fame law of nature mutt always take place. Some fort of eonclufions muf? be made, whether they be juft or unjuft ones, whether plain and exprefs, or only tacit and by confequence, before the will formally confents, and gives orders to the executive powers to exert themfelves. | Otherwife Ch. IV. _ Ayminianifin examined. 184 is animpulfe towards the chief good ; and to a is in itfelf indifferent; to act well is good, and the effeé of divine favour; but to act z// is the confe- quence of a limited view of objects, from which the choice muft be made; which limitation itfelf is eflential to every created nature, as is the evil of imperfect exiftence, § 17. Once more: ‘ If the fin of Adam was a wrong action, and finning in every inftance implies the fame, how can we account for the finfulnefs of amiffions ?? Sinning confifts in a perfon’s engage. ment to fome object that ftands in competition with another; to felf, to fenfual pleafure, indulgence, in- dolence, or the like; whereby the line of rectitude is tranfgreffed. If therefore a perfon does not love God, for inftance, it is becaufe he loves ome other ob- jecé with that affection which is due to him, So that, ftrictly fpeaking, to /7z, even in thofe inftan. ces that go under the name of omiffions, is to af wrong. Elowever, it is proper enough to fay, that not to love God is highly criminal in every creature that is capable of loving him, becaufe the inference is infallible that he is criminally employed while not loving him. Man was made fo love God above all; but when he loves created good, himfelf, pleafure, eafe, indulgence, or any thing elfe more than Gon, there lies his criminality. To pray isa duty, but the { Otherwife the will of man were not anoble rational appetite, but a blind irrational one. For therefore we call it appetitus rationals, becaufe it is made to act /ub duu rationis.” Dirron, ut fupra, p- 89. 188 PREY, AND SOVEREIGNTY. the formal nature of the prayerlefs perfon’s crime is, that he is attached to, or engaged i in fomething elfe which is lefs proper, at the time, all circum- {tances confidered, § 18. From the premifes we may draw the fol- lowing Corollaries : 1 Coroll, The angels who never fell, and the {pirits of juft men made perfect, as well as the heirs of falvation in this world, owe their ftanding in purity and happinefs, not to any virtue or inherent power of their own, but to the /overeign grace of Gop, For the fame reafon that our firft parents did fall, thefe would fall if left in ftridt equity to rifk the con- fequence of probation, 2 Coroll, The excellency and fuitablenefs of moral means are no fecurity to a free agent in a ftate of probation, For, {urely, Adam had a full and clear exhibition of means, the moft fuitable and excellent conceivable, and yet he fell. How extremely futile is the following objection of Dr. Wuirsy? “¢ Either thefe means are fufficient to render them “* truly willing to believe and repent, or they are “6 nots either they are fufficient to remove the de. «© fectivenefs and difability of will they have cone ‘“* tracted by the fall of Adam to thefe faving “¢ actions, or they are not: if they are not, howare he they means fuficient for the attainment of the fal- ** vation which belongs only to the believer and the ‘¢ penitent, or the ie that damnation which “¢ neceffarily follows upon the difability and defe& , ant Chi-ly: Ariminianifin examined. 189 ‘¢ for which no fufficient remedy is by grace pro. ‘© vided ???++ Not only in this paflage, but through all his book does the Doctor confound moral means with efficient caufe. Means are objective inftru- ments, rational inducements, or good things exhib- ited ; to fuppofe, therefore, that /ufficiency of means muft infer fecurity and happinefs, is to fuppofe, either that Adam himfelf had not a fufficiency of means, or that neither he nor his pofterity were in a ftate of probation, But as Adam had fufficient means, and yet fell, much more his pofterity, in their degenerate ftate, are not fecured from perdition by mere fufficiency of means. . 3 Coroll, As the defection of Adam, or the origin of moral evil, have no pofitive efficient caufe, Re- probation, according to Dr. WuitBy’s definition of it, can have no exiftence. ‘* Abfolute reprobation is ‘© an abfolute infallible decree, That v. g. Judas thall ‘¢ unavoidably fail of obtaining life eternal; that this ** event fhall be fo certain, that he fhall never fail “to run himfelf wilfully upon his damuation.” * This ts a definition which has nothing to an{wer it in the nature of things, Whether any of the ortho- dox have given fuch a reprefentation of that ftate of things which is oppofite to abfolute election, or not, is not my bufinefs to enquire. But if the dotrine of the preceding pages be true, and the reafoning con- clufive, the following remark is erroneous: «* What- ‘* foever argument holds good againft an abfolute | ‘¢ decree of reprobation, muit certainly deftroy the ** oppofite decree of abfolute election.’ ¢ Sia cannot poflibly + Difcourfe, p. 4. * Ibid, p. 6, 1 leis pets 190 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. poffibly be the objeét of pofitive appointment, or _ abfolute decree, becaufe it has no efficient caufe; it is the creature’s own fault, without amy aid or con- currence of Gop whatever: fo that if Judas, or any’ one elfe, /hall never fail to run himfelf wilfully upon his damnation, it is not owing to any aét or purpofe of _ Gop; it arifes from the wature of things that a crea- ture, if left to itfelf without preventing grace, muft fall. And all the hardfhip (if any mind can be found profane enough to call it a hardfhip) lies in this, that there are fome properties of the Creator not communicable to the creature. One of thefe is dndependence, whence arifes indefeciibility. On the’ contrary, grace requires divine operation, and-con- fequently divine purpofe or abfolute decree. Thefe’ conclufions are fairly connected with this axiom: All evil is from ourfelves, but all good-is from God, § 19. Dr. Wuitsy contends that the decree ofrepro- bation hath no foundation in the holy fcriptures, and’ that itis contrary to the plain declarations of feripture. According to his account of reprobation this is very true; and therefore ail he fays on that head is to'no purpofe.* What he quotes'from Bp. Davenant does by no means imply what he infers from it. The Bifhop fays: ‘* No medium can be affigned, either: ‘on Gop’s part, betwixt’ the decrees of predeft- ‘‘ inating fome men, and not predeftinating fome “¢ others ; or on men’s part, betwixt men abfolutely <¢ predeftinated to the attainment of life eternal, and «¢ abfolutely pretermitted, and left infallibly to fail’ . ‘© of the obtainment of eternal life; which we call "CEP tome * Dife. 1, chap: 1,2, pafim. Ch. IV. Ariminianifin examined. IQE * reprobation.” * The propriety. of the expref- fions in this quotation can not be defended; for a “* decree of not predeftinating,” is T believe what no man can form juft conceptions of, What Gop has decreed he certainly effects, and what he effects he certainly decreed; but as he does not effect fin, fo-neither has he decreed it. Sin is a privation, in which Gop has no hand; how can it therefore be decreed? And the propriety of faying, that any are predeftinated to fuffer punifhment; is the fame as if Pfhould fay; that man has voluntarily wounded himfelf, therefore his fuffering was decreed. As the one is a neceffary confequence according to the laws of nature, fo the other is a neceffary effect of finning, while the operation of ftri&@ equity continues. But though I do not defend the manner of expreffion, the fentiment itfelf, shat men left to themfelves will infallibly fail of the attainment of eternal life, is both true and important.; The denial of it leads to the monftrous abfurdity, already expofed in the preced- ing pages, of a creature at once accountable and in- .dependent. The Doétor’s parade, therefore, about edoxiyu0c, fometimes rendered reprobate’, and lama- _ anhy, Goo made for himfelf all things ; is altogether befide the true purpofe, even fuppofing his criti- cifms were admitted to be juft. It is again urged: ‘¢ Every exhortation to doa “¢ thing we know men cannot do, muft be vain; ‘¢ and he who by it feems to be defirous we fhould <¢ do that which he knows we cannot, mutt delude Sus; and if he knows that Gop by fome antece- “6 deht * Animad, on Horn, p, 205. 192 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. *¢ dent purpofe, will, or decree, refolved to with- ‘ hold that aid by which alone we can be in a ‘¢ capacity to do it, it mutt alfo be an exhortation “¢ repugnant to the will of Gop; it being in event, ‘<< and in effect the fame, to will that any perfon’ © fhould not do the thing which he requires, ‘and “* to will he fhould not have the means by which “¢ alone he can perform it. Now it is blafphemy “¢ to fay the exhortations of the Son Gop were “‘ vain, delufory, and contrary to his Father’s ‘¢ will.’ * This reafoning is adopted in many parts of the work before me; and is founded entirely on fuppofitions which I have fhewn to be totally incon- fiftent with truth. It fuppofes, that men’s obliga. tions arife from their efficient power of doing what is commanded, rather than from the moral means afforded them, If, added to a capacity of enjoy- ment, and the /iverty of choofing what appears to us preferable, any thing more be required for a ground of obligation than moral means adapted in their own nature to make us happy, to /7 would be impoffible. Join ability to means, and actual defection is effectually prevented. But to fay, that Gop is obliged in equity to prevent fuch defection, is the fame as to fay, that he has no right to make ac- countable, defectible, dependent beings; no right to give laws which may be broken, to govern crea- tures which may rebel, or to judge creatures who may involve themfelves in guilt; in a word, that to conftitute a moral fyftem is impoflible, Which is a confequence at once juft, from our Author’s prin- ciples of reafoning, and yet too impious for any T heift A“ * Difcourfe, p. 12 Ch, IV. Ayminianifn examined, 193 Theift to maintain in its naked form. Befide, our author fuppofes that the dodtrine of the orthodox denies to the reprobates a fufficiency of means for fecuring happinefs, and implies a decree of withhold- ing neceflary aid ; both which are plainly erroneous, No one can juftly fay that he has not /uitable means of falvation while he has exhibited before him the precepts and promifes of the facred oracles; nor is it maintained that any are condemned but for the abufe of fuch means as they really enjoy. And as to a decree of withholding aids, it is no lefs abfard than a decree not to decrees or, a decree to decree nothing. : But ‘‘ Gon’s foreknowledge, fayings, and pre- dictions have no fuch influence on the will of man, as to lay on him a neceffity to do what he foreknows, and hath foretold he will do.”* Granted; and a formal proof of a propofition fo plain was needlefs, However, if Gop actually does foreknow the event of things, there muft be fome reafon or caufe of it, whether we know that caufe or not; and to call this contingence or felf-determination is but to cover our ignorance with barbarous unmeaning words, If Gop foreknows the refult of all poffdle fyftems, whether natural or moral, there muft be an infale lible ground of that foreknowledge; which I hum- bly conceive may be fufficiently accounted for by afcribing all entity and goodnefs, whether a@ual or hypothetical, natural and moral, to Gop as the caufe, which his infinite knowledge muft needs per- fectly comprehend, and confequently every thing, O In * Ibid. p. 14. 194. EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. in every poflible degree, which may be called evil or defective. He who knows precifely, as being the proper caufe thereof, every degree of pleafure, beauty, and light; muft with equal precifion know the pain, deformity, and darknefs that ftand oppofed to thefe. If the omnifcient Gop foreknows all the good which he may caufe, he being the only fource of all good; for the fame reafon he fore- tnows all the evif which may take place, and of which he cannot be the caufe, by its being a per- fe& contraft to the caufed good. If we can form fome adequate knowledge of the degrees of priva- tion, by knowing previoufly the ftandard and de- grees of pofitive good; if we can know the dimen- fons of a fhadow by knowing the dimenfions and pofitions of a body that intercepts the rays of light 5 with what infinite exactnefs does Gop, all-knowing and all-wife, forefee moral evil in all poffible cir- cumftances, degrees, and confequences, without any decree or caufation of it whatever. § 20. Thus we have endeavoured to fhew, that - a perfect moral agent in a ftate of original probation has no inherent power to preferve himfelf in a courfe of active obedience ; becaufe of the creature’s abfolute dependence on Gop as to effence, being, and operation: and feeing Adam himfelf had not that power, which Dr. Wuirsy fuppofes the ortho- dox deny to his pofterity merely on account of original fin, which he affects to regard as the root of the points he oppofes, it follows that one main pillar of Arminianifin is bafelefs and rotten, how- ever Chi BYV¢ Arminianifin’ examined. 195 ever gaudily ornamented with learned fophiftry. And among other inferences juftly deducible from the premifes, this is one, that our Author’s reafon. ing again{t reprobation in his two fir/t chapters is like a formal attack ona man of ftraw of his own fabri- cation; as if an abfolute decree of what is good, | implied an abfolute decree of what is bad. O 2 SE CT 196 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Shy red, Gas Oa ae BF Whether the Calviniftic explanations of the Five § Points in difpute be inconfiftent with EquiITY. 1. Introduction. § 2. (1) Abjolute nLectTion. The queftion fated. § 3—9. Dr. WHITBY’s principal - objeétions anfwered. § 10—12. (11) Particular § REDEMPTION. The queftion flated. § 13—16. That Chrift died only for all conditionally, anfwered. § 17—20. . Other objeltions anfwered. § 21—25. (IIS) Special Grace. § 26—29. (IV) The WILL determined by grace. § 30—35.(V) Perjeverance of faints. § 36. Recapitulation. r SECOND pillar of Arminianifim is this, { \ that the Calviniftic fide of the difputed points is not confiftent with equity. While examin- ing the ftrength of this pillar I fhall follow the fame order obferved by Dr. Wuirsy in his Difcourfe, beginning with the divine decrees. And under each head it will be proper, firft of all, to give the true ftate of the queftion, and then to enquire whe- ther it ftands on equitable grounds. | to § 2. (1.) Abjolute Election, ‘* This with refpect the end, is an abfolute decree and purpofe of bringing Ch. IV. Arwinianifin examined. 197 bringing a certain number of perfons to eternal life, without refpect to their forefeen faith or per- feverance,” as the ground of divine choice. ‘ As it refpects the means, it is an eternal decree and purpofe of giving to thefe men, and thefe alone, that effectual grace which fhall infallibly, and in- fruftrably, produce in them faith, fanctification, and perfeverance to the end.”* To this definition I am not inclined to object; but againft the following note upon it 1 muft put acaveat. ‘* Here note, fays our Author, That this election or predeftination confidereth all men in the fame condition, alike miferable and damnable, alike impotent, and want- ing effectual grace; fo that as in two apples of equal goodnefs, no reafon can be given why I fhould choofe one rather than the other, fo neither can any reafon be affigned why all or any of thefe perfons are thus elected to falvation, rather than all, or any that are not elected.” + If thefe words imply, that there are not in mankind various degrees of depravity and wickednefs, whereby fome are in a wor/e con- dition than others through the different flages of life; if they fuggeft, that no reafon can be affigned by DIVINE WISDOM why any are elected to falvation rather than others, the orthodox do¢trine is mifre- prefented. What we hold ts, that all men without exception, but not to the /ame degree, are, in the view of equity, condemnable, impotent, and expofed to mifery ; fo that not one of them would be faved O 3 were * Difcourfe, p. 35. - bid, 198 - EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. were there no predeftination or abfolute election of fome particular perfons to eternal life. And we further maintain, that, notwithftanding Auman pene- tration is incapable of afligning rea/ons why fome are predeftinated to happinefs rather than others, to God there muft be reafons adequate to the difcri- mination. No one can jufly urge a claim, why a preference fhould be fhewn to him rather than his _ neighbour, in refpect of happinefs as the end, or grace as the mean; much lefs can any one plead merit, or worthinefs properly his ow, as the fore- — feen reafon of his eleétion: however, it by no means follows that Gop fees no ground of preference. Were it poffible for us to view Gop’s reafons of choofing, as they ftand in his all-comprehenfive — mind, there is no doubt but they would produce a conviction of their propriety in proportion as our minds were virtuoufly difpofed, or affimilated to Gop. § 3. “* In oppofition to this doctrine I affert, fays our Author, fr, That the election mention- ed inthe holy fcriptures is not that of particular perfons, but only of churches and nations. Secondly, ‘That this election doth import rather their being chofen to the enjoyment of the means of grace, than to acertainty of being faved by thofe means; that it is only that which puts them in a capacity of having all the privileges and bleffings which Gop hath promifed to his church and people, rather than under any abfolute aflurance of their falvation, or of any fuch grace as fliall infallibly, and without "any | Chilis Arminianifin examined, 199 any poffibility of fruftration, procure their falva- tion. Thirdly, That the election to falvation men- tioned in the holy feriptures is only through faith joined with holine/s, according to thofe words of St. Paul, God hath eleéted you (Theffalcnians) to falva- tion ey eyiarud, by the fanéiification of the Spirit, and the belief of the truth. ‘That it is only a condétional election upon our perfeverance in a life of holinefs, and is to be made fure unto us by good works. Again; ‘ Confider whether he conceives more truly and honourably of Gon, who thinks he chog/es his favourites without reafon, and rewards them without any qualifications but thofe he irrefiftibly works in them; or he who looks upon him as one who dealeth with all men, not according to fis but their own works, as they are willing and obedient, as they render them/élves fit objects of his love, and ‘rewards them as they ufe duly, or receive his grace in vain, as they improve the talents he hath given them, or hide them in a napkin ?”?-+ Once more: «© Could he hope to manifeft the Eguitp-of his ways by faying, All fouls are mine, if he was not only like the oftrich to the greatet part of them, hardening himfelf againft his own offspring, made after his own image, as if they were not his, but even mak- ing the moff of them, after the fall of Adam, under that previous a@ of preterition, which rendered their damnation unavoidable? Is he fo concerned to juftify the Equity of his proceedings by declar- ing that the fon fhall not die a temporal death for the iniquity of his father, but the foul that perfon- O 4 | ally * Tbid. po 35> 30. + Ibid. p. 29. we 200° EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ally finneth he fhall die; when this more obvious exception lay againft the Equity of his proceedings with the fons of men, that moft of the fons of Adam Jay under death eternal by his peremptory decree for the fin of their foreefathers, committed long before they had a being, and fo before they were in a capacity of any perfonal offence,” * § 4. My prefent purpofe does not require, that I fhould produce the /criptural evidence and arguments by which I conceive the doétrine of predeffination, or the abfolute election of fome particular perfons to eternal life, is taught and fupported ; this the inquifitive reader may find in Bodies of Divinity, or common-place Treatifes, which are innumerable; and fome in a more praéfical manner :+ what I defign is to vindicate the dodtrine againft Arminian exceptions, and particularly thofe which refleé upon it as inequitable. It may be remarked, how- ever, that moft of the texts of {cripture produced by Dr. Wuirsy to prove that there is an ele@ion of churches and nations, are taken by the Calvinifts in the fame latitude; but how can the citing of a num. ber of paflages out of the Old and New Teftament for this purpofe prove that there is no predetina- tion of particular perfons? A few f{pecimens will fnew the abfurdity of his plan. “ Deut. iv. 37. Becaufe he loved thy fathers, therefore eEerigéalo to omsppice elas he chofe their feed after them, and | brought were.) Daas + Particularly Conzs’s Prattical Difcourfe of God’s Sove- rcignty ; and Mr. Boorn’s Reign of Grace. Ch, IV. Arminianifin examined. 205 brought them out of Egypt by his mighty power; where it is evident that the whole feed of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, even all that came out of Egypt, are the elect.” * Who ever denied it? “ 1 Pet. li. g. Ye are yevog exAatov, an eleét generation, a royal priefthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye might fhew forth the praifes of him that hath called you from dark- ne[s into lus marvellous light ; all which are the very titles given to the whole jewifh nation in the Old Teftament. Now fince St. Peter could not affirm of all thefe chriftians, without a revelation, that they were elect, according to that fenfe of the word, which makes it to import, men abfolutely defigned for eternal happinefs, he muft affirm this of them all, becaufe they all profeffed chriftianity, and fo were vifible members of the church of Chrift.”-+ Suppofe we admit all that is here contended for, by what rule of reafoning does it follow that, becaufe Gop chofe the Jews and Chriftians as a people, there is no perfonal election ? § 5. How many texts of {cripture are perverted, and to what degree, in our Author’s enumeration and critical explications of them, makes no part of my plan; this has been done already, in a very ample manner, by Dr. Git, in his Caufe of Gop and Truth; let us therefore attend to what he urges under the /econd head of oppofition, as before quoted. The election of fcripture imports a being chofen to the ene jovment of the MEANS of grace rather than to a certainty of being saven by thofe means. It feems then if we have * Difcourfe, Pp. 37. + bid. p. 39, 49> . 202 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. have the means we can fave ourfelves. The quef- tion is not, whether or not Gop choofes mento enjoy the means of grace, for this is allowed by all; but whether Gop or the finner himfelf renders thefe means efficacious for falvation? If it be faid free will, or our own choice and refolution, then the creature has power to quit its dependence - on Gop inits operations, contrary to what was de- monftrated in the laft Section; or if it be owned that divine grace gives efficacy to the means, then the point is virtually given up. For whatever is done by grace is done by a fovereign act, and con- fequently implies abfolute election; except we fhould fay, contrary to all reafon, that Gon’s atts of grace were not foreknown. § 6. The third part of the oppofition is, that the eleétion of fcripture is only through faith joined with holinefs, on condition of perfeverauce and good works. It is readily granted, that faith and holinefs, perfe. werance and good works, are connected with pre- deftination, as the way appointed for adults in order ' to obtain the promifed falvation: but this is not the point of difference. The main queftion here is, What is the primary caufe of election? or, in other words, Is the performance of the conditions required the primary caufe of perfonal election? We fay itis not; becaufe this would be to put {alvation on a condition that would never in fact be perform- ed, however confonant with equity fach a requifi- tion might be found. If Adam when upright failed in preferving his purity and happinefs, what rational profpect is there that his fallen pofterity will emerge from guilt, corruption, and evil habits, to ~ innocence, ~ Ghai. Arminianifm examined. 203 innocence, purity, and goodnefs, by the ufe of any moral means whatever? Faith in its principle is the gift of God, and holinefs is begun by our being born of the Spirit; but if faith and holinefs are imme- diately from Gop, how can they be immediately from ourfelves, or the primary caufe of election? Gop worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleafure ; ; but what he wills and does in time he undoubtedly predetermined to do, and there-_ fore the fubjeéts of fuch gracious volitions and operations (for no other are intended by the apof- tle) were thereunto predeftinated. If it is Gop only who begins the good work of holinefs and all true religion, which may be well called a new crea- tion; he alone muft carry on that work, which may with equal propriety be called a divine prefervation. § 7. We are again told in effect that Gon choofeth his favourites as they render themfelves fit objects of his love, and not according to qualifications which he works irrefiftibly in them. | find it not very eafy to guard my pen from affixing fome bad name to the fenti- ment here exprefled, and were I difpofed to feek for an epithet expreflive of its dejert, 1t would be difficult to procure one. We cannot be chofen it feems, in order to be made good and happy by divine grace, but muft make ourfelves fo in order to be chofen. Adam’s defcendants, with all their im- perfections, mutt do that which it is demonftrable Adam himfelf could not do, before they can be ele&ted and faved! What a comfortable, hopeful doctrine! For a finner to render himfélf a fit object of 204 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. of Gon’s love, taken in the fenfe here intended, excites an idea fo monftrous, that I am perfuaded no truly virtuous mind can think on it ferioufly, and without violent prejudice, but with horror, deteft- ation and grief. Duties are undoubtedly required by the moral Governor proportionable to the means he affords; but yet we are faved by grace, not-of works left any man fhould boaft; no, not by any works of righteoufnefs which we have done, but by the _ wafhing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghoft. There is no falvation without regeneration ; and to fay that we regenerate ourfelves, is equally unfcriptural and abfurd. Suppofing, for argument? fake, that this initial fanctification is the condition. al ground of juftification, and confequently of elec- tion; even then, the condition would be fuch that no one would ever be elected while the world ftands. But if, as we hold with the apoftle, Gop juftifieth the ungodly, and in virtue of that fovereign act, which regards the furety and the finner one in law, flays the enmity, opens the eyes of the under- ftanding, and fhines into the mind to give the knowledge of his glory, creates a clean heart and renews a right fpirit; then our conclufion acquires double ftrength.— Difhonourable to God to reward his favourites without any qualifications but thofe he irrefift- ibly works in them, Rather, how honourable in Gop, how deferving of eternal praife, that, when all men had gone out of the way of peace and fafety, when all deferved to be left in darknefs, diftance, and endlefs woe, he ftops the progrefs of the plague of fin, refcues the finner from danger, and by fove- reign { Ch. IV. Arininianifin examined. 205 reign grace, which knows no eventual refiftance, begets him to a lively hope! Does it reflect honour on the divine character to fuppofe that none of the human race ought to be chofen and rewarded but fuch as qualify themfelves by the ufe of moral means ? The language of fome people leads us to think that it is as eafy to fecure the divine favour and obtain heaven by our own efforts, as it is for a man of competent fortune to carry a fowling-piece in a - Jegal manner. Would it have been honourable in Gop (though not unjuft) to exclude from hope all but thofe who make them/felves fit, or who qualify themfelves for Gon’s favour and choice; while it is demonftrable that no one ever did, in the fenfe here implied, or ever will perform fuch a condition? This pillar is fo rotten that were it not artfully propped by the enemies of grace, it would foon fall of itfelf. That part of the objection which refers to the propriety of rewarding all according to the manner in which means are improved in a ftate of probation, the reader will find anfwered in a former part of this volume.* § 8. The objeftion which follows deferves par- ticular attention. <“¢ Could he manifeft the equity of his ways by faying, 4] fouls are mine, if making moft of them under a previous act of preterition, before they were in a capacity of any perfonal offence?” It is granted by all that Gop is equitable, effentially difpofed to render unto all the utmoft of their jut claim; and it is alfo granted that al/ fouls | are ® Chap, I. Sacr. VU. 206 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. are his, his property, his dependent creatures. Now, if the hypothetical nature of things, and the effential nature of creatural dependence, imply the neceflity of grace to fecure happinefs and rectitude, even to a perfect creature as before proved; + how can it be inequitable to pafs by guilty creatures? If men are, in fact, /inful, it ftands perfectly confiftent with equity to pafs them by, or not fecuring their fal- vation by efficacious grace; and if this be the ftate of all the children of Adam, of what ufe is it to cavil about the manner in which they are brought to that condition. To deny the fact, becaufe our weak ficht does not perceive the equity of the meafure, is not unlike denying the exiftence of a material world becaufe we have no clear perception of the manner in which the Almighty created it. If the infinitely wife Gop acts for a final end, he muft defgn what he actually effects; he effects the falvation of fome, by the agency of his Holy Spirit, helping their in- firmities, and exabling them to improve the means of falvation, confequently he muft have defigned this effe&t. Whatever in the event appears to be the work of Gop, mutt alfo appear to have been pur-— pofed by him; therefore all who are eventually faved were defigned or predeftinated for that event. But if Gop was obliged in equity to do this to fome, the fame obligation muft extend to all others, (for all — the difference between them, on the fuppofition, is made by grace, otherwife mone would be faved;) the confequence of which is, that Gop is bound in eainity to fave thofe whom he actually fuffers to perifh. ~ Chap. IV. Sect. 1. Ch. IV. Arininianifim. examined. 207 perifh. That is to fay, he is bound in equity to do what he does not! Such is the abfurdity of the principle I am oppofing —If it he faid, They who perith have /fufficient means to be faved, but they abufe them; we fay fo too, and contend that this — is the true and only reafon of their perdition, When our Author accufes the Decreralifis, as he contemptuoufly calls his opponents, he finds it ne- ceflary to reprefent them as denying /ufficient means to thofe who perifh, becaufe in fact they run to damnation. Thefe are his words: “ If they have fufficient means to convert their wicked wills from the love of fin to a prevailing love to Gop, the pravity of thofe wills can never be the caufe why they are left infallibly to fail of life eternal, or why they never fail of running on wilfully to their own damnation; feeing they have means fufficient to rectify the pravity of their wills.’* It feems, then, means are not fufficient except the effect be produced; the gofpel is not a fufficient mean of falvation to any who are not actually faved by it; that is, in a word, means are no means except they act mechanically, which is to affert that moral means have no exiftence! It is eafy to retort, if fome fail of falvation, which is no part of the difpute, what is the reafon of that failure? If the means are fuf- ficient, how is it poffible for any to be loft? But itis an acknowledged faé that fome go to perdition, and it is equally a fad that they do not come to this end for want of fufficient means of avoiding it, (elfe how fhall Gop judge the world?) hence we ! 3 mutt *® Difeourfey p. 4 ee 208 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. mutt infer that their perdition is equitable. But if fo, no doubt can remain that the falvation of others which Gop effeé?s, and therefore muft have predeter- mined, is perfectly equitable, except we fay, that the exercife of grace is inconfiftent with -equity; an abfurdity at which no one can hefitate. § 9. To bring into one view the evidence of this truth, that Gon’s decree of predeftination is not inconfiftent with divine equity, let the following particulars be obferved : 1. If the creature, as a creature, is abfolutely — dependent upon Gop for its effence, exiftence, pro- perties, good qualities, and operations; if the crea- ture, as accountable, has no further claim in equity than a capacity of enjoying the chief good, fuitable means for fecuring that enjoyment, with freedom to fin or not to fin; if moreover the creature has deviated from rectitude by any means whatever ; it plainly follows that fuch a finner is not wronged by Gop’s preterition,; or when /eft in that ftate into which he has brought himfelf. But, 2. If it is not inconfiftent with equity to leave the finner, whofe mifery and fin are of him/élf, to the naturally infeparable confequences of his defection ; if in that cafe nothing which is due to him is with- held from him; it muft appear with fuperior evi- dence that no one 1s wronged by being chofen to. honour. There are but three cafes that can be put in reference to this matter. Granting what the {cripture and experience abundantly teftify, that all mankind are 77 fad in a finful flate, (how they came into | Ch. IV. Arminianifn examined, 209 into that ftate refers to another queftion ;) granting moreover, what has been already in part and will be further proved, that no finner will ever emerge from fin to purity, or caz rife from guilt to inno- cence, without fovereign aid; either al mankind muft continue in fin and mifery, or a// muft be faved by fovereign grace, or elfe only a part be faved, The fir? of thefe three fuppofitions would indeed be confiftent with exacteft equity, if it be fo to make a being free and to give him a law with penal fanc- tions; but it would exclude the exercife of mercy, The fecond fuppofition would not, it is true, be in- confiftent with equity, for if Gop exercifed mercy towards every finner without exception we could not fay that this attribute would be injured; but then it does not appear in fact, even to thofe I am oppof- ing, to be the divine plan; for I have not now to do - profeffedly with fuch as plead for univerfal reftora- tion. The shird fuppofition, therefore, is that which we acknowledge to be the real ftate of things. Some perifh, and fome are faved. But is it poffible to conceive that any one is wronged, or inequitably dealt with, by being chofen to honour and happinefs ? Is the clay, which had no demand on the potter, any way wronged when appointed to form a beauti- ful veffel ? If its neighbour-clay is not injured by not being more honourably ufed, much lefs is itfelf Anjured, 3. Whatever all-wife reafons Gop may have in choofing fome and not others, whereby the end he propofes may be beft anfwered, it is plain from the premifes that there lies no ground of complaint | againft 210 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. againft the procedure, Prelérition is a mere nepa- tive idea, which implies neither an actual privation, nor a pofitive decree; nor is reprobation, in the acknowledged and fctiptural acceptation of it, any abjolute decree, being properly nothing more than the hypothetical purpofe of Gop to leave the finner under the influence and expofed to the natural con- fequences of his own demerit. Its true language ts, If fuch a finner deferves to fuffer, he /hall fuffer. But abfolute election is from grace, and {peaks to this effect, Though the finner in ftrict juftice de- ‘ferves to fuffer, yet mercy in this inftance will fo order it that he all not fuffer. Reprobation, then, fprings from demerit, but election from grace. Now if equity cannot fave, as of itfelf it certainly cannot, is there any reafon why fovereignty thould be bound? How juftly may Gop fay to fuch an objector to abfolute election, Becaufe mine eye is good, 1s thine evil ? Befides, | | 4. The defection of all was forefeen as poflible, and hypothetically certain, irrefpective of any de- cree, and therefore not inequitable. Of all poffible plans, both phyfical and moral, wifdom chofe the beft; that which had the greateft advantages and feweft inconveniences to anfwer the end propofed by ‘infinite intelligence and confummate wifdom. The fource of all poffibles is the divine all-fufficiency, the arrangement of all poffibles into hypothetical fyftems relates to the divine intellect, but the decree refers, riot to the fource or the arrangement of its objects, but to the ab/olute certainty of what was already hypothetically certain. And as it is ae gS impoflible Ch.1V. © = Arminianifm examined. Qt impoffible to conceive of Gop decreeing moral evif, or undeferved fuffering, it inevitably follows that xo decree can be inconfiftent with equity, and therefore abfolute election is perfectly confiftent with it; which was to be proved.. § Io. (II) Particular Redemption, The difpute upon this queftion is confiderably narrowed if we take into the account what has been already ad- — vanced, on the reéforal intention of the fupreme Governor, and the odiigations of men to receive the gofpel.* In ftating the queftion Dr. Wuitsy ob- ferves: “ [ reject that objection as abfurd, which “* faith, Chrift died fufficiently for all; but intention- ** ally only for the elect.” +- But the reader mutt re- member that this is not my diftinétion; for I have allowed that Gop intended the death of Chrift to extend reéorally to all; but what I now contend for is that it extends decretively to {ome more than to others, and that this difcrimination is perfectly confiftent with equity. In oppofition to this our author {tates his notion of the univerfality of re- demption as follows: ** When I fay Chrift died ** for all, I mean that he died equally for all. “© This will be evident if we confider, that he ** offered the fame facrifice; fuffered one and the “© fame death; fhed the fame blood for all for “© whom he died.— Moreover, it is certain that ** the fufferings of Chrift and his blood fhed, ** cannot be diftributed into parts, fo that one “© fhould have one fhare of it, another a fecond, Fie “¢ and * Chap. I, Secr.v.vi.° = f+ Difcourfe, p. 102. ~—. 212 EQUITY AND SOV EREIGNTY. “© and another a third, — When we fay Chrift died “© for all, we do not mean that he died for all, or “ any ab/olutely, or without any conditions to be ‘¢ performed on their part to intereit them in.the “ bleffings of his paflion; but only that he died <¢ for all conditionally, or fo as that they fhould be “« made partakers of the bleflings of his falutary “¢ paffion upon condition of their faith, repentance, “‘ and fincere obedience to the laws of the New “< Covenant. — He died not with intention to con- ‘¢ fer the bleffings of his falutary paflion on any but ‘¢ true believers,-true penitents, and fuch as would ‘° obey the laws of his new covenant.” * 3 § x1. It is faid; * Chrift died nquatry for all, “¢ becaufe he offered the fame facrifice, fuffered the << fame death, fhed the fame blood for all for whom «¢ he died, and his blood cannot be diftinguifhed “‘ into parts.”. I readily grant, that the reéforal Gntention extended equally to all, for the reafons here mentioned, among others; but how can it thence follow that there is no decretive purpofe to favour fome rather than others, with refpect to its application? Can it be uyuft to favour fome, while no one can claim that favour? But it is urged “¢ that Chrift died for all conditionally, i. e. if they « believe, repent, and obey ; but for none ab/olutely.” To avoid the rafhnefs of oppofition, and to re- move as much as poffible, a mifunderftanding of the {tate of the queftion in reference to the orthodox, let the following diftin@tions be candidly noticed: | “ My | * Ibid. p. 104, 105. Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined, 213 «*« My fcope here is to fhew, That the body or church of Chrift are e/pecially concerned and in- terefted in redemption. And in order thereto, I would confider two other of the divine works, both which refpect the world univer/ally, as redemption doth, and yet have a /peciality in them, as redemp- tion alfo hath, wz. creation and providence. “; Firft, Creation: One Gop was the Maker of all; but all were not made for the fame ufeand end. _ He had a peculiar {cope in the making of /ome, which was not common to the whole; yea, the whole was made for the fake of that fome. Asin a great houfe are many veffels, all of one mafter’s providing, and all for his own fervice, fome to {more} honour, and fome to [lefs honour, or com- parative] difhonour: fo in the world, fome Gop raifed up to be monuments of his power and juf- tice * [or equitable feverity.] “© Secondly, Providence: This alfo extends to all, and to each individual. He hath power over all, and governs them in their moft rebellious defigns and actions, But as touching his church, the people of his holinefs,+ he holds a peculiar kind of govern- — ment over them, and fteers their concerns: and this fo far exceeds the other, that, in comparifon, *tis faid, He never bore rule over them; { and, which is ftill to be remarked, the others’ concerns are made fubfervient to theirs; Ae is head over all to the church. § |i ae ou * Exod.ix.-16. Jude 4. Rom. ix. 22. 1 Pet. ii. 8. + Ifa. Ixiii. 18. t ¥er, 19. eho i. 22, 214 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. “In like manner Redemption may be faid to be general, and yet to have a Speciality in it. It is general, [both] in refpect of perfons, [and] in re- {pect of things. Both which are true apart, though not conjunctly: it purchafeth /ome good things for all; and all good things for some. | 1. “ As it refpects perfons, it obtains a general reprieve, extenfive to all the fons of Adam. The fin of the world was fo far expiated, that venge- ance was not prefently executed; which muft have been, had not the Son of Gop interpofed himfelf. His being flain from the foundation of the world, was the foundation of the world’s ftanding, and of all the good things which the world in general are partakers of. All that order and ufefulnefs which yet furvive among the creatures, with all the ye- mains of our primitive ftate, were preferved, of - rather reftored, by redemption, Chrift is that light which lighteth every one that cometh into the world: 4. ¢. fale light and bleflings which any man’ hath, he has them mo Chrift as a Redeemer 5 by him all things confift.* <¢ But let us not omit, that all this had a ecial refpect to the church eleét: for them it was that the world was made; they are the fubftance of it; + and but for them it had been diffolved or turned — into a lake of fire, What the prophet {peaks of Iftael, was true of the univerfe, Except the Lord of hofts had left us a remnant, we had been as Sodom.{— As thofe days of tribulation were fhortened for the elect? fake (not yet in being); fo, for shem it was, that * Col, i. 17. + Wa. vi. 13. { If.i. 9. Ch.IV. ——s Arminianifin examined, 2165 that when fin came in, deftruction was warded off, —It had been a light thing for Chrift, and not worthy his fufferings, to raife up the ruins made by Adam to fuch a degree of reftorement, as would only have fet him in his former ftate, and that upon terms more unlikely to fucceed. This had been to give a greater value for things of leer moment 5 for it needs muft be a happier ftate, to be made up- right, without bias to evil, than to be moved by all ‘manner of motives, while fettered by unbelief, and a natural bent to revolt further. For notwith- ftanding all thofe motives or means, not the ma- jority only, but the wxiverfality of mankind might have perifhed and gone to hell; which would in no wife have anfwered Gon’s end in making the world, much lefsin redeeming it. ’Twas therefore neceflary redemption fhould have a farther reach than to bring men into a mere falvable tate; and that could not be lefs than a ftate of certain falvation, And, in order to this, 3 2. ‘© Redemption was general as to ¢hings, even all that pertaineth to life and godlinefs ; eternal life, and whatever conduceth thereto. — This is that redemption we are treating of; and this is the fenfe of the prefent pofition, viz. That Redemption shus qualified is peculiar to the church ; and that election is the pattern by which [this peculiarity of | redemp- tion is to be meafured: The Son can do nothing but what he feeth the. Farner do, John v. 19.* _§12. Having made thefe lenient conciliatory remarks, from a writer who is clafled among the Bes moft * Coxr’s Practical Difcourfe of Redemption, p, 117-120. 216 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY, moft rigid Calvinifts, I fhall endeavour, after ftating my own views with all the precifion in my power, to combat the principal differing pofitions in Dr. Wuirsy’s Difcourfe on this point, and finally to fhew, that there is nothing in the orthodox account of the doétrine inconfiftent with any principle of equity. Subfervient to this defign let it be noticed, 1. That, Adam having loft his reétitude and in- ~nocence, without a Redeemer neither he nor any of his pofterity could be /aved, becaufe the claims of equity could not be furrendered,without the execution of a penal fanction proportionable to the violations of law and rectitude. Had fovereignty fufpended the fentence, pardoned the crime, and reftored to favour, without a Mediator in whom, acting and fuffering, the honours of law and juftice might be retrieved; wherein would have appeared either the -wifdom or the authority of legiflation, when viewed by other probationers? To fin with impunity, or to pardon without manifefting difpleafure at fin, how contrary to all ideas of wifdom, legiflation, and even benevolence! A fuppofed benevolence which flows to finful men through any other channel than the blood of the crofs, is an idea that has no exifting archetype; and indicates in its votaries an im- pious attempt to fet up the haughty precarious wif- dom of the world in oppofition to that of Gop. 2. Chrift being made a propitiation for fin, the honours of government are fecure, whether a few finners only were faved or hundreds of thoufands. Nothing lefs was fufficient for one, nothing more was neceflary for millions, The great atoning facrifice . Ch, IV. Arminianifin examined, 217 facrifice knows no limits to its efficacy but thofe affigned it by the decretive rule of application. If applied to all, it would be efficacious to all. A new and living way is confecrated, nor is there any bar of hindrance laid acrofs it. Spiritual and eternal bleffings are exhibited, recommended, enforced; fo that the only obftruction which remains is " our felves.—= Yet, 3. Such is our apoftate condition, that a fpiritual — renovation alone, effected by the Holy Spirit, en- fures an appropriation of faving benefits. ‘+ Paul may plant and Apollos water, but Gop giveth the increafe.* The bare difcovery of truth, whatever be the means, will not fecure the converfion of one | foul. When, therefore, the truth is received in the love thereof, it is God that worketh in us both to will and to do of his own good pleafure. ‘The divine oper- ation is the infallible index of the decree. What. is effedted, was intended to be effected.- Thofe who are actually redeemed from fin and hell, were appointed fo to be; except we fay, either, that man is his own faviour, or that fome are faved who were not intended, which none will affert. — The way is now Clear for examining the principal pofition, § 13. “ Chrift died for all conditionally, i. e. if they believe, repent, and obey ; but for none abjo- lutely”? This tenet fuppofes, that the adiiity to believe, repent, and obey, originates in ourfelves, though involved in calamities of which our inability, morally confidered, 1s among the chief, It fup- pofes that it is not Gop who worketh in us to will and “218 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. and to do of his own good pleafure; that it is not given us on the behalf of Chrift to believe on him; ‘that it is not an exalted Saviour who gives repentance ‘as well as remiffion ; that obedience is not the fruit of the fpirit, and the confequence of redemption. Its of no avail to fay, that Gop affords to us the means, but that we are to give them efficiency ourfelves; for this is to renounce that abfolute dependence of the creature upon the Creator which is demonftrably » — effential to it.* Means without a difpofition can effe@ nothing ; for moral means operate according to their excellency, only as connected with the ftate of the moral agent. Let therefore the force and aptitude of means be accumulated and multiplied to any given degree, they will contain no efficient power to meliorate the mind. The very fuppofition is totally abfurd, that moral means have a mechanical effec, irrefpective of the previous difpofition; and it is equally abfurd to imagine that the difpofition itfelf is the mechanical effect of fuch means. In fhort, the condition {uppofed by our author is an impofible condition; a guilty, polluted, impotent, inimical, rebellious creature, becoming faithful, penitent, and obedient, before the merits of Chrift are applied ! The doctrine of the gofpel is, that Chrift redeems us from all imquity, but our author teaches, that we do in fact dekiver ourfelves from the iniquity of un- belief, impenitence, and difobedience, defore we fhare in the benefits of redemption! The fac& is, — he every where confounds men’s moral adilities with their obligations, That we are obliged to be holy and good, univerfally obedient and conformed to | rectitude, ¢* Seer. 1. of this Chapter. Ch, IV. Arminianifin examined. — 219 re@itude, is one thing, and an awakening inflexible truth; but that we, being tranfgreffors, have actual, inherent adility to difcharge the obligation, an ability for which we are not beholden to fovereign grace and difcriminating influence, is a falfehood of the greateft magnitude, ruinous to the prefumptuous finner, and highly affronting to the divine majefty. Chrift and eternal life are propofed to finners under a conditional form, itis granted ; for otherwife - man would not be dealt with as an accountable being: elieve, and you fhall be faved from guilt; repent, and your fins fhall be blotted out 5 obey, and you fhall be for ever bleffed, is the language of moral government. ‘The declaration, that God gives to finners eternal life in Jefus Chrift, is adjolute, ‘«¢ whether they will hear, or whether they will for- bear ;”? as abfolute and free a proffer as ever was made of a benefit by one being to another; other- wife falvation muft begin with ourfelves, and therefore there would be no falvation at all. The propofal, as originating in fovereign grace, is ab/o- lute; as proceeding from the moral Governor, it 1s conditional. Sovereignty viewing men as /iaful crea- tures, totally helplefs and hopelefs, makes ab/olute overtures of mercy to pardon, grace to help, Chrift and his righteoufnefs, the Holy Spirit and his influ- ences, life and eternal happinefs; thus he grves grace and glory, and /hews man what is good: but the Governor viewing men as accountable beings addreffes them under a conditional form. In this propofal, however, whether we confider it ina con- ditional or an abfolute form, there appears nothing of 220 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. of a difcriminating nature; al/ alike are addreffed. And now the queftion returns, Was it not the defign of Grace to render the appointed means aéfually available to fome of mankind? If not, what cers tainty, nay, what probability, or even poffibility is there left that any one will in faG@ delieve, repent, and obey ? Is not the heart of man deceitful above all things? Is it not a heart of ftone? Who but Gop can remove the finful petrifa€tion, and fub- ftitute a principle of godly fincerity? Who of old commanded the light to fhine out of darknefs? What power was it that raifed Jefus Chrift from the dead ? Sinner! bluth, be confounded, be alarm- ed at the dangerous, the impious thought of afcrib- ing to thy/élf what Gop claims as his own exalted, fovereign prerogative. § 14. In treating on the obligations of men to receive the gofpel, and the univerfality of the rectoral defign of redemption therewith connected, I took occafion to produce from a refpectable writer fome exprefs arguments on that fide of the queftion. It is but fair that he fhould now be heard on the other fide; as it is exactly conducive to my defign. Thus, then, Mr. PoLyitt: “ Gop eter- nally refolved with himfelf that he would have a church anda peculiar people, and Chri? gave him- Self for it, THAT he might fanétify and cleanfe it with the wafhing of water by the word, THaT he might prefent tt to himfelf a glorious church without {pot or wrinkle, Eph. v. 25—27. He gave him/elf for us THAT he might redecm us from all iniquity and purify to. Ch. IV. Arininianifin examined. 221 to himfelf a peculiar people zealous of good works, Tit. ii.14. If Chrifthad given himfelf shus far for all, all would have been his church and people. You will fay, Unbelief is the only obftacle, I anfwer, that if Chrift had given him/e/f for all, rHat he might wafh them as he wafhes the church, and re- deem them from all iniquity as he redeems his peculiar ones, there would have been no fuch thing as unbelief left among men; that Chrift, who | washes out EVERY {pot and wrinkle, would not have left unbelief. — Hence, proportionably to their elec- tion, they are faid to be redeemed from among men, Rev. xiv. 4. And redeemed out of every kin- dred and tongue and people and nation, chap. v. 9. Now how 1s it pofible that all men fhould be thus redeemed? Chrift’s death as it refpects all men, redeems them (as I may fo fay) from among devils, for that it renders them capable of mercy which devils are not; but Chrift’s death as it ref{pects the elect redeems them even from among men, for that it procures faith for them, and thereby pulls them out of the unbelieving world; and what is peculiar re- demption if this be not? <¢'You will fay, He would have fulfilled them {the /pectal abfolute promifes] in all, but that men themfelves will not: But what a ftrange word is this — they will not! Will they not, if Gop give them a will, a new heart and a new fpirit? Will they not, if Gop take away the nilling and re. fifting principle, the heart of ftone? Will they not, if Gop write his laws in their hearts and inward parts? O what is this, but an abfurd blafphemy to change Gon’s truth intoa lie, his omnipotence into weaknefs, 222 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. weaknefs, and his glory into the old broken idol of creature-freedom? Surely if Gop, who is truth and power,,engage to make a new heart, the’ old one cannot hinder it; if he promife to remove hardnefs, hardnefs cannot refift it.— The Father’s purpofe, as the fcriptures hold forth, clearly was, that his Son fhould be a king, a captain, a fhepherd, an hufband, an head and a father: and what is a king without fubjects, a captain without foldiers, a fhepherd without a flock, an hufband without a fpoufe, an head without a body, and a father without pofterity? Empty names are below him whofe name 75 above every name. Wherefore this King muft have a Sion, a mountain of holinefs to reign in, Pfalm ii. 6. This captain a militia, an army with banners to fight un- der him, Cant. vi. 4. This.fhepherd a flock to hear his voice and follow him, John x. 4. This hufband a {poufe, a queen in gold of Ophir married to him, Pfal, - xlv.9g. This head a body to be animated with his fpirit and filed with his life, Col. i. 18. And this fa- ther a numerous iffue, begotten and brought’ forth into the fpiritual world to honour and ferve him, Heb. ii. 13.—Indeed there is no man living on’the earth, but, if he did really believe, he fhould have the rivers of living water, the fpirit of holinefs flowing in his heart, John vii. 38. but the elect were deftined and chofen in Chrift to be holy, Eph. i. 4. and Chrift fanctified himfelf in a fpecial manner for them, that they might be fanétified, «v arnbac, in truth, actually and truly, John xvii. 19.—-Others may have heaven upon believing, but thefe /hall certainly arrive at it, thefe are the sheep, to which Chrift gives eternal Ch, IV. Arminianifim examined, 222 eternal life, John x. 28. thefe are the fons, which without fail fhall be brought to glory, Heb. ii. ro, — Some men do believe, when others draw back, and whence comes this diftinguifhing faith ? either it comes merely of man’s free will, or of Gop’s free grace; if we fay the firft, ’tis the very mire and dirt of Pelagianifm, ’tis to fet up free will as an idol to caft lots upon Chriit’s blood, whether any one perfon-in the world fhall be faved thereby or not: - if we fay the latter, then Gop and Chrift had a fpecial eye upon fome above others; for Gop or- dained, that Chrift fhould be the grand medium to falvation, and that faith fhould be the only way to Chrift: If then he gave Chrift for all, and faith but » to fome, it is becaufe he did in a /pecial way intend their falvation, and confequently Chrift (who came to do his Father’s will) had in his death a /pecial refpect to them. — Wherefore I will fhut up all with that of an ancient: though Chrift died for all, yet for us he fuffered in an ESPECIAL manner, becaufe for the church he fuffered.” * —§ 15. “* I demand,” fays Dr. Wuirsy, “ when s¢ they fay Chrift died for all, fo far as to procure ¢ pardon and falvation for them if they will believe ‘6 and repent, whether he died to procure pardon ‘© and falvation on a condition, which it was pof- « fe ble, upon that affiftance which he would vouch- ove ale ' * Potuitt onthe Divine Will, p. 322—346. Etfi Chriftus proomnibus mortuus eft, pro nobis tamen /pecialiter paffus eft, quis pro ecclefia paflus eft. Amsros. Lib, VI. Luc. cap. vil. 224 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. *¢ fafe them, to perform? or only upona condition ‘* which to them was impofible, for want of grace “< fufficient for them to perform? If the latter *¢ only, it is certain that he died not at all for them; ‘© for what is only done on an impoffible fuppofi- “© tion, is not done at all.2”? Were the dottrine contained in this objection admitted, a doétrine with which every part of our author’s book abounds, it would at once remove all juft views of moral obli- gation; and prove fubverfive. of religion both na- tural and revealed, Only refle@, if to love Gop fupremely, for inftance, be a duty incumbent on a rational being, as fuch, through every ftate of his exiftence; ifin every ftate he has capacity, means, and freedom {o to love him, as the ground of the obliga- tion, if the very idea of accountablenefs implies a liablenefs to break that obligation; and if, more- over, a moral aptitude to obey is weakened by difo- bedience, it irrefragably follows, that the obliga- tion of that being to love Gop is not in proportion to the degree of poffibility of performance. Befides, -at the very time that a wicked man hates Gop, is he not obliged to lovehim? And yet this is confeffedly > impofible. When a man is in a violent fit of paf- fion, is he not under obligation of being temperate, mild and meek, however impoffible the compliance ? Te, introduce the confideration of grace —** for want of grace fufficient for them,”—is totally im- pertinent; for to fay that a man is not obliged except he has grace, is little fhort of contradiction in terms. At this rate, the more indifpofed men are, through . cuftom in the practice of iniquity, the more excufe- able; Ch. IV. -— Arminianifin examined, 225 % able ; and without grace they are not obliged at all, That is, the more a man hates his Maker, the lefs obliged he is to love him ! “Tt hath been reprefented as a great abfurdity “* to think that Chrift died equally for Judas and “* for Peter; but without any fhew of reafon that I ** can difcern: for did not the foul of Judas as “* much proceed from the Father of Spirits, as the “¢ foul of Peter? Was it not equally made after . “* Gop’s image?”* But if Gop was bound in equity, that is, obliged at all, to thew favour to Judas as much as to Peter becaufe the offspring of Gop, and made after his image, we may fay, that Satan is entitled to an equal fhare. “* Did it {the foul of Judas] come out of his [Goo’s] hands more unworthy of mercy than the foul of Peter??? The phrafe “‘ unworthy of mercy,” if it has any meaning at all, conveys an abfurd meaning. That mercy, | which is a branch of grace, is conferred according to worthinefs, is contradictory language. « Were not both born in equal circumftances as to Gon’s favour, in equal need of ‘a Saviour, and equally capable of redemption 2?” Granted, in equal neéd, and equally capable; and equal alfo as to Gop’s favour in point of claim; but how does this imply that Gop is ound to thew no difference ag a Sovereign ? < Why therefore, antecedéntly to any ** good or evil they had done, fhould this Saviour ‘* die more, or rather for the one, than for the “* other?” It is granted that the Saviour died nej- ther more nor rather, for the one, than for the Q. ~- other, * Difcourfe, p. 105, he wee 226 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. | |) wy other, as a mean of falvation; as-a medium of moral government : but does it follow that this mean mujt not be rendered effectual to Peter rather than to Judas? If both alike refufe compliance with the “proffered mercy, is it inequitable that one fhould be ‘¢ made willing in the day of divine power ¢” ‘¢ To make Chrift procure both the promife and “‘ the condition, by the fame act and paffion, 1s to “© turn the conditional covenant into'one that is ab/o- ‘ Jute: For what is procured already for me, Gop ‘ is in equity Dound to give me without my doing “< any thing to procure it.” . This objection aly- furdly fuppofes that the chriftian covenant requires of us the performance of a condition without gra- cious: aids; otherwife, the objector mutt allow that the efficacy of the condition is procured, as all gra- cious aids are, which invalidates the objection. In reality, the fame covenant is abfolute in one refpect, while conditional in another. In virtue of Chriit’s “atonement an abjfolute tefiamentary grant is made to all who hear the gofpel; which is ‘‘ glad tidings of great joy to all people.” But the falutary poffefion of the bleffings themfelves, depends, as far as the equity of moral government is concerned, on the ‘condition of accepting the favours thus propofed. And yet, i faéi, if the condition itfelf were not made effectual by fovereign grace, not one foul would ever be faved. Thus Chriit as Mediator _procures means of falvation for all; but as afurety : befows the grace of faith and repentance. He thed his d/ood,with the rectoral defign of faving fnners 5 he beftows his quickening /pirit on e/eé? finners only, who ca] a te! Ch. IV. . Arminianifin examined, 227 who alfo were the objects efpecially regarded in his atoning death. —What is procured for me, God is in equity bound to give me. Yes, Gop is bound to execute his wife and gracious purpofes, without my leave! Or, he gracioufly appointed a propitiatory facrifice, by virtue of which the Prieft who offered it might claim the application of that facrifice, with refpec&t to me for whom he became furety, without waiting fer my fulfilment of the condition in my own ftrength! A glorious truth this, in the belief of which every one who has made even but a> {mall proficiency in felf-knowledge will exule, “Tf Chrift hath abfolutely: procured this: faith: 6 and repentance for the ele&, they cannot be con “¢ ditions to be performed on their part, but to be <<“ given on’°Gop’s_ part.”? * > This objection - is founded on a great fallacy, viz. that the fame thing cannot be, in different refpe@s, both a fifhand a duty. Chrift is exalted to give repentance unto: Ifrael as well as the remiffion of fins ; but to repent 18 theirs, whether we confider it under the notion of a duty or a condition. Weare faid to bédaved by grace, through faith, and thaf not. of ourfelves, but the gift of Gop; neverthelefs the a@ of Jelien. ing is ours, ‘whether you-call it a duty or-a condi. tion. The ability, or gracious principle, is from. Gop; but the cf itfelf, whether it be repenting,! believing, hoping, rejoicing, or any other gracious) — act, is ours. Were not the former true, who could: be faved? And without the: latter, there would-be e241 BO Sib (ne * Ibid. p. 109. | ” ~ rf i 223 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. e no moral character in actions; and how fhould Gap. judge the world ? is § 16. Either Gop gives this fuppofed. pur-» « chafe of faith and repentance to the elect bya <¢ peculiar, divine, and irrefiftible affiftance, or only “¢ by fueh aid and grace as 1s common to them with «¢ others who are not elected; if by the latter only,., «© then is there nothing purchafed more for them, «« than for others with them, becaufe nothing more. “< js given to them than what is common to them! <¢ with others; if by an affiftance which is peculiar: “¢ to them, and cannot be refifted: by them, then ‘s are not any others to be charged with guilt for» ‘© not repenting and believing, becaufe. it is im- <¢ poffible that they thould do fo without that {pe- ce cial and irrefiftible ‘affiftance which, Gop will not: © youchfafe unto them: and fo they do. not. be-, <6 lieve and ‘repent, not becaufe they qwill not do. <¢ what they could do, but becaufe they cannot do <¢ it were they never fo willing.” * I his is but a; fpecimen of paflages unnumbered to the fame pur-, pofe in our Author's bool before me; a fpecimen, however of extreme mifreprefentation. if by an affiftance which 1s peculiar, then others ave not charge- able with guilt, This inference, urged fo frequently,; has been refuted before and ftands om the gratut-) tous affumption, that in the prefent cafe the. ground of obligation is the moral ability and, not, the moral. means for the performance of duty. ‘Strange | that) none are chargeable with guilt, if they have not pecultar _* [bid. p. 109. \ CHET: Arminianifn examined. 229 peculiar grace. But why are they not chargeable with guilt? Becaufe it is impoffible that they fhould repent and believe without fpecial affifance. How in- puffible? not becaufe they wit wot, but bLecaufe they CANNOT were they never fo willing. Abhorred be the thought by me, which is here falfely a(cribed to Calvinifm, J believe it is pretty uniformly main- tained by Calvinifts, that there is a very important — diftinction to be made between moral and natural in- ability ; and that the moral only is culpable. The very reverfe therefore is the true flatement: go¢ Je. caufe they CANNOT were they never fo willing, but becaufe they WiLL NoT. * Thy people thall be will- ing in the day of thy power.” «“ For it is Gop who worketh in us fo will” what is good. The immediate influence of grace is on the di/pofition, the fource of all voluntary ations ; were shis there- ‘fore always good there would be no miftake in thofe - actions. So far are we from {uppofing that the im. pojibility of believing and repenting fhould be re- folved into a “ CANNOT, were they never fo willing ,”? that we fuppofe what is diametrically oppofite, viz, that the only effect of gracious peculiar influence is the removal of a moral inablity and not a natural, a will not more properly than a cannot, If any grace Snort of what is peculiar to fome, or {pecial, were iz Jatt fafficient, even in any one inftance, to effet a , willingne/s of mind, that is, a mind willing in pro- portion to its zatural ability; there would be fome force in our Author’s objection: but as neither fcripture nor right reafon do juftify fuch an infere ence, to deny /pecial grace is the fame as to deny ne Cling that 230 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. that there are fuch things as repenting and beleving in the world, Who ever could or can produce an inflance of a finner aétually repenting and believing for falvation without peculiar influence? What ferip- ture, what reafon, can encourage fuch a conclufion? — However it is added: ‘« Faith being an affent to a iditing teftimony upon igieient evidence, without which evidence we cannot affent to it; and when we have it, we ‘‘ cannot but affent; to fay this faith requires on “© Gop’s part a fpecial, divine, and irrefiftible aflitt- ‘ance proper to the elect, is to excufe all others from believing, as having no fufficient evidence to do fo, although the gofpel is as well revealed ‘© to them as it is to the elect.” * What fophittical quibbling upon the terms ‘ fufficient evidence.” Faith is indeed ‘an affent to a divine teftimony upon /ufficient evidence, without which evidence we cannot aflent to it;”? but the evidence itfelf, and the Sufficiency of: ie care objective only in this definition, elfe 1t has no meaning but what is moft abGira: | That evidence which is infufficient for faith, and by reafon of which man is excufeadle,.is an objective de- fe, concerning which a man may truly fay: “* I cannot believe if 1 would, for I have no rational ground of belief; the thing I am required to be. lieve is not credivle.”’ But if he declares only what he thinks to be infufficient evidence, when to a mote upright mind it appears to be fufficient, as it yéally is; who can fuppofe that his shiking it to be infufficient will excufe him? What can be plainer, than G6 6s GG 66 €& * Tbid, p. 11m Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined, 230 than that our Lord’s miracles were a “* fufficient evi dence” objeéfively, for the conviétion of the Jews who believed not; though /udjeffively, or. as evi- dince exifting in their minds, they were infufficient ? But could they juftly plead excu/e for want of the Jatter ? How abfurd to Imagine it. — When we have’ fufficient evidence, we cannot but affent. Tere the terms ‘ fufficient evidence” muft needs be taken in a quite different fenfe from that which they occupied® a little before. When we have fufficient /ubjeéfive evidence, it is‘true we cannot but affent; but the want of this is no excufe, elfe there could be no fuch thing as criminal infidelity, The idea of Special grace being conferred on fome, excufing others, is too im- pertinent to deferve a refutation. Pardon and life are propofed to all; all are of themfelves averfe to. the: propofal; but if fome are made willing by an operation peculiar to them; in the name of every thing logical, and every thing facred, how can this be 2 ground of excufe for the averfion or unwilling - nefs of the others ? § 17. It 1s urged: ‘© When the kindnefs de- ** frgned by Chrift’s death to all upon the condi- ‘« tions of the gofpel is expreffed, it is faid Chrift ** died for all; fo when the effect and benefit of it. “« is exprefled, the word many is moft proper; for ‘¢ his blood fhed: procures remiffion of fins only to ¢ penitent behevers, and in this fenfe Chritt gave *« his life aranfom only for many, even as many as would believe and obey his gofpel.””* Not to io ON A - — infitt # lhidop. 113, “ baal 232 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. infift on the apparent impropriety of fuppofing that the word ** many” expreffes— not the objects whofe peculiar advantages were decretively intended by the death of Chrift, but --- thofe who performed certain conditions, and thereby partook of its effects; as if the extent of the ranfom depended on an after condi+ tion; the chief queftion here is, From what fource proceeds the light and Jove, the fubjective evidence: and willingnef’, in virtue of which the required condition is fulfilled ? Of what ufe is it to contend for a condition, which, though not xaturally impofli- ble, it is morally certain no one ever did or will perform, but as influenced fupernaturally ? Je is demonftrable, from confiderations that need not now be adduced, that if the condition of believing, repenting, and obeying be performed at all, it is by divine affftance, and feeing that affiftance 1s not cal- culated to remove any zatural but only a moral ime becility, the fuppofed affiftance of what our Author ftiles “¢ common grace” which does not produce the moral efeé?, does not appear to have any exiftence, for, de non apparentibus et de non exiftentibus eadem valet raiio. Af the genuine effects of a principle do not appear (and while no infallible teftimony to the fact can be urged,) we are fairly authorized to con- clude that no fuch principle exifts. ‘© ‘Though it be certain that Chrift died intentions ** ally for all, 1. e. defigning the benefits of his falu- “ tary paffion for them, upon their pexformance of s* the conditions of the new covenant, eftablithed in ‘ his blood; yet is it alfo true that he eventually ts “ the Saviour of his body, and died only for his 66 fheep ea Ch. IV. Arminianif~in examined. 232 *< fheep and friends, becaufe they only do perform << the conditions of the new covenant; and there- ‘¢ fore to them only can this righteous Judge at ‘s Jaft aflign the bleflings promifed in that cove- *¢ nant.” * It is granted that Chrift’s intention, recorally, was to die for all; and it is alfo agreed, that he eventually, (and therefore, I conclude, de- cretively, becaufe the event in all cafes, as far as it participates of goodnefs and entity, is an exact in- dication of a corre{ponding decree ;) Chrift eventu- ally is the Saviour of his body, and died avy for his fheep and friends; who, i# fad, perform the condi- tions of the new. covenant, and to whom only the righteous Judge will aflign the promifed blefiings. ‘The remaining but very important difference there- fore is, that the one fide of the queftion afcribes the diftinguifhing effect to peculiar diftinguifhing grace; that is, to a caufe which is adequate to the effect; while the ether fide afcribes it to a fuppofed grace that is not peculiar; that is, to an inadequate caufe. In a word, the latter makes the greatett good and happinefs of man, that which makes him immediately to differ from another, to originate in himfelf; but the latter afcribes all valuable differ. ence to Ged, whether ultimately or immediately, that which infallibly enfures the right determination of the will not excepted. But it is again afferted: ‘* If falvation by Chrift ** can be obtained only by the elect, the refidue of * thofe to whom the gofpel 1s revealed can have no ‘s means fufficient for falvation.” And, ‘ if men have. * lhid, Pp. Ti ge 234 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. have not fufficient means to be faved by the ** covenant of grace, then have they only means *¢ ‘given them to increafé their condemnation, yea ** fuch means which they cannot but u/e to their ** greater and more heavy punifhment.” * On the contrary, we infift that the anmunciation and propofal of Chrift, the bleffings of redemption, and the completion thereof in life eternal, are /ufficient-means for falvation ; and if we admit of the language — “« they cannot but ufe them to their condemnation,” — itis precifely in the fame fenfe as ‘ they will not.” If a man were of him/elf but willing to improve the means, in that cafe, I acknowledge, a peculiar in- fluence would be unneceflary ; if he were well dif. pofed to repent, believe,. obey, and actually per- formed the conditions required, then fpecial grace would be ufelefs; but fcripture rightly underftood, ° and the foundeft principles of reafon, -are un- acquainted with any fuch’ power in the human mind, We confider men as avable only in a moral fenfe, whichis their crime; it is the inability of an atheiftical {coffer, who fzys in his heart there is no Gop; of a refolute deift, who pretends he has no {uffictent evidence of the truth of revealed religion ; of an obttinate Jew, who rejeéts with paflionate ab- horrence the religion and meffiahthip of Jefus; ofa man who fincerely loves the world in its maxims, cuftoms, manners and enjoyments, but caznot find itin hits heart to love Gon, that is, zw net love him. - In a word, it is the inability of 2 man to love his neighbour.as himfelf, when he has all the reafons con- * Ibid, p.. 161. r Ch. 1V. © 9 Arminianifin examined. 235 conceiveable for doing it: he has underftanding and will, or the capacity of intellect and volition; he has commands and encouragements, the authority of Gop in the Old and New Teftaments; he has every profpect of fuperior advantage by complying rather than refufing ; he has every inducement from the character and conduct of his neighbour, a good, benevolent, generous man who has conferred upon him many undeferved favours; in fhort, he has moral means both fuitable and fufficient for loving his neighbour as himfelf; and withal he poffefleth full freedom to hate him or not; but notwithftanding cannot love him, that is, the envy, hatred, malice, and uncharitablenefs of his heart are fo ftrong that he will not, finds no inclination to compliance with duty, much lefs pleafure and delight in it. Is this man criminal, or is he not? If not, there is no fuch thing exifting as a crime or a moral fyitem ; if he is, we afk no more, the objection is annihilated, Ifthis cordemnation is increafed by the gofpel, 1s it not alfo increafed if i.e perfifts in acts of immorality ~ againft the remonftrances of confcience and reafon ? If a benevolent man undertakes to rcafon with his neighbour about the finfulnefs, dangerous confe- 4jucnces, and numerous inconveniences of drunken- nefs; but this neighbour, notwithftanding, does not fubmit to the evidence produced, nor abandon his evil courfes: but it is plain that, on the one hand, the benevolence of the Suatet is not leflened by the ill fuccefs that followed his endeavours; and, on the other, the condemnation of the obftinate offend- er is increafed. In no other fenfe do we confider the 236 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the inability of a man to repent and believe; an in ability which the greater it is, the more means, motives or inducements it is capable of refifting, the more criminal. — But one of the moft plaufible ob- JgMiohe is the following: y 18. «© Sure it is no fin in the creature not to «© do that which can alone be done by the almighty ‘¢ power of Gop, and which cannot be done with- «¢ out that proper act of Gop he never would afford ¢¢ to them; for then it muft be the fin of man not «< to be Gop — for not being equal in power with ‘¢ Gop himfelf. ‘lhen muft every impenitent and ¢ unbelieving perfon have a juft excufe, and a fuf- ‘« ficient plea why he fhould not be punifhed, or «¢ condemned for his iniquity and unbelief; and ‘¢ they might cry to Gop as did the officers of the “© Jews to Pharaoh,Wherefore dealeft thou thus with thy “¢ fervants ? There is no firaw, and thou fayeft to us, « Make bricks; no fpecial grace, no divine energy «< afforded us, and thou fayeft to us, Do that, which * can no more be done without it than men can «« make bricks without flraw, and ¢Ay /fervants are «¢ ho aten, but the fault is in him who denies us ftraw, ‘¢ and yet requires bricks; yea, who requires that faith and that repentance which he never would afford us means fufficient to perform.” * However plaufible this objection may appear to the unwary, it is neverthelefs fraught with genuine abfurdities. 1. It is involved in that very abfurd confequence which it would unjuftly fix on the doctrine of {pe- cial ry a ~~ eS * hide p. 163. Chit Ar miniantfin examined. 237 cial grace, wz.) that man muft be equal in power with Gop himfelf, It has been before demonttrated that a power of doing good in the creature is not. inherent but darrewed; which arifes from our abfo- lute dependence upon Gop in operation as well as being, But the objection fuppofes that we have fome power which is xot borrowed, otherwife all power. and the caufe of every good would be afcribed to. him.. Real power belongs anly to the independent. Gop,, Whereas teiolae univerfal dependence, paffive, power tending ta defection and nihility, on the one hand, and an obediential power. adapted to receive any divine impreffion, on the other, is effential to acreature. Therefore to require in mana four ce. of power to believe, repent, &c. without the immediate influence and efficiency of Gop; 1s to require that i in him which. is peculiar to Gop ; thatd iS, equality i in posts with Gon himfelf. ie a. The objection fuppofes that in P hedes to, render man, accountable, he fhould poffefs i in Aimfelf an, exe pedient whereby he may avoid the i inconveniences attending paft tranfgreflion. It feems, if by fin he has brought upon: himfelf fach a moral i impotence.as prevents his believing’ and repenting, he. is not chargeable with, unbelief and: impenitence ! What is this but to fay, Men may fin with impunity ; or, Men are not accountable except Gop removes their moral impotence by his grace! This is in effect to cavil at), not fo. nach. fome particular tenets of chriftianity, as the right of Gop to form a ftriGly equitable moral fyftem, For to, fach a, fyftem, liablenefs to fin is effential; and to fin belongs cuilt, 238 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. guilt, moral impotence and natural evil, but to fay, as the objection implies, that a man is not culpable in not loving Gop, for inftance, without grace to remove his moral depravity, 1 is an abfurdity beneath contempt. 3. Not lefs futile is the comparifon berspaln Gon’s conduct, on our hypothefis, toward finners,. and that of Pharaoh towards the oppreffed Ifraelites. Our Author is peculiarly fond of this allufion, forhe elfewhere fays: ‘ Gon’s grace they fay is free, and «< he is not obliged to give it. I anfwer, this is ‘“¢ true, if he doth not require that which cannot be “¢ performed without it; but to exact what I’can “« never do without it under the moft dreadfal © penalties, and yet deny that grace, 1s'to act like ‘ thofe Egyptian tafkmafters, who called for brick, ‘ when they allowed no ftraw.’?* ~The’ objection intended by this comparifon fuppofes, that Gob té-) quires of finners what he gives them no /fuficient means of performing. But how glaring is the mif- reprefentation here made of our hypothefis |: Do our fentiments, fairly flated, imply any deficiency of moral means to thofe who are not the fubjeats of fpecial grace? No fuch thing.’ They are. equally sartabers of moral inducements ; equally the ob- jects of commands and threatenings, invitations and promifes ; ; to them as well as others are reprefenta-. tions made of heaven and hell, blefling and curfing, happinefs and woe, - Surely, if a man perfifts 1 in his. unbelief and impenitence after being told plainly, reafoned with, encouraged, warned, and threatened, concerning “~ a we * Sbid. p. 1900. Ch. IV. -*: “Arminianifiat examined.” 22) concerning his prefent danger and future fate,) is iz not mot equitable that he>fhould fuffer: what he {@ difregarded ?) Does not confcience witnefS) that he deferves to be miferable?> Can he. exped to .be fpared who does not {pare himlelf? or to. be faved, who neglects. fo great falvation ? Can he juftly hope for heaven whofe confcience tettifies that he bei light of it, when propofed to hin? 4. If the plea of the objection were valid, ihc abfurd confequence would follow; viz.) That the damned in hell’ might have it an’ their power. to juftify all their hatred of Gop aad their blafpkemies, Gop requires of thera the contrary tempers; 5 other. wife there would be no crimes. that is, there would be no bad tempers in hell, no ftate an{wering to that name. But if there are thefe odious tempers in dévils and human fpirits who people the regions of defpair; and if Gop requires the oppofite tempers of all the fubjeéts of his moral’government, as he cer: tainly does, what a pity they do not appoint a dele- gate to prefent the following declaration: «| Where: ‘* fore dealeft thou thus with thy fervants? there is ‘no ftraw given us, and ‘thou fayett to us, Make “bricks ; no {pecial grace, no divine energy afford- ** ed us, and thou fayeft to us, Do that, which can *© no more be done without it than men can make ‘s bricks without firaw, and thy fervants are beaten, © but the fault is in Aim who denies us ftraw, and ** yet requires bricks.” On reflestion I am. per. fuaded there is not a demon in hell (whatever liber- ties we mortals take) that could venture to prefent it as the dictate of his rea! feelings, = § 19. Not 240 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. § 19. Not much better is the following plea: « Should a phyfician come to a patient, whole « ftomach was fo weakened through his intempér« «“ ance or luft, that it could bear no ftrong meat, “‘ and his feet fo enfeebled that he could fearce « walk from his couch to his bed-fide, and profefs “ an earneft defire to cure his diftempers, and pro- «¢ mife him recovery, provided he would follow his ‘ prefcriptions, might it not reafonably be expect- «ed he fhould prefcribe fuch means for his re- “© covery that it was po/ible for him in this condition «¢ to make ule of ? If then he fhould enjoin him to “ eat, and to digeft the flrongeit mieats, and walk « {ome hours in the fields, becaufe he formerly « could do fo before he fell into this difability and « feeblenefs, would not all men pronounce him a deluding cheat, and one that hypocritically and s¢ infincerely pretended his recovery, and promifed ‘¢ it with equal vanity and folly, intending only to < infult over his prefent mifery: And yet this is the ‘¢ reprefentation of our gracious Gop in this affair << which thefe men offer to us.”* So then Gop and his righteous law, fubmiffive, muft bow to the depraved inclination of the tranfgreflor! According to this wonderfully complaifant doétrine, Pharaoh, Judas; Demas, &c. were obliged, no further than they were well difpofed to. obey ; and because pride; covetoufnefs, and love of the world had aifabled them, it was quite wrong to'require of them faith in Gop’s teftimony, and repentance: for their crimes’; for why ? this was to * enjoin them to eat, and. to ) -digett * Ibid, p. 167. Ch, IV. Arimintanifin examined. 241 digeft the ftrongeft meats,” which they were anabie, that is, indifpofed or unwilling to do. The real fact is, that our Author here, as every where elfe, moft injudicioufly and unfairly confounds natural and moral impotence, and then argues from the one to the other; not reflecting, that corporeal - difeafes deferve our pity, as what the patient can- not avoid if he would; but mental difeafes, as pride, unbelief, impenitence, hatred of Gop, and _ the love of fin, deferve our deteftation, becaufe if ‘they would men might avoid them. Chrift has died, and the Spirit is offered to them through his mediation, but they out of deliberate choice obfti- nately refufe the kindly intended benefits; who/e damnation is juft. § 20. It is again urged: ** We find our bleffed ‘¢ Saviour marvelling at the unbelief of his own ‘* people; for he marvelled at their unbelief. Now, ** can he who knows they could not believe by “‘ reafon of the difability they had contracted by << the fin of Adam, wonder that they did not what “¢ it was impofible for them to do? Again, when-he ‘* heard the anfwer of the centurion, he marvelled, << faying, Verily I have not found fo great faith, no noé << in Ifrael, but if this faith, whenever it is wrought Sin any, is the effec? of an almighty power, what ‘¢ reafon could he have to marvel, that it was found ‘¢ where that almighty power was exerted, or that _ © it was wot found where the fame power was with- “¢ held?” Of all the abfurd objections contained in this magazine of genuine Arminianifm, none need ott e 242 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. . need be more fo than the prefent. According to this objection, miracles are not to be marvelled at; but fhould be regarded with an eye of indifference! In reply to this objection, obferve: 1. We confider faith, as a branch of the divine life, or as a gift, in the clafs of thofe interpofitions of Gop that may well be termed miraculous; but as a duty, or the voluntary exertion of that life, it may naturally be expected where the divine teftimony is moft explicit, and the means of grace moft abun- dant. Thus Gop of old: Now, O inhabitants of Yerufalem and men of tudah, judge, I pray you betwixt sme and my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it ? wherefore cvhen I looked that it fhould bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes ?* Thus the fruits of righteouf- nefs were not according to the means afforded, which was the proper ground of criminality, That | the daughter of Zion, who had been betrothed unto the Lord in righteoufnefs, and in judgment, and in loving kindnefs, and in mercies, fhould go after Baalim, burn incenfe to them, and forget — Jenovan, was a fact comparatively marvellous. So | here, it was a thing greatly to be marvelled at that the Fews, to whom were committed the oracles of Gop, who were Ifraelites, to whom pertained the. adoption, and the glory, and the teffaments, and the giving of the law, and the fervice of Gop and the promifes ; whofe were the Fathers, and of whom as concerning the flefh Chrift came, who is over all, Gop bleffed forever; that shefe people, fo highly privileged, fhould di/believe a teftimony fupported | * Tfaiah v. 3, 4+ Ch. FV: , Arminianifin examined, 243 by fuch evidence: while the centurion, a heathen foldier who had no fuch privileges, exhibited a faa no lefs marvellous in receiving with humble readi- nefs what they haughtily rejected. 2. ‘The objection is founded on the unfcriptural, unreafonable, we may add, ungrateful notion, That faith as a grace, or the life of Gop in the foul, is not the effect of an almighty power. What can be more oppofite to the whole current of revealed | truth! The true chriftian temper, which is the toot of faith, is (xew7 xJiic) @ new creation; * a new birth, a dirth from heaven, the effe& of fave- reign almighty energy;+ the produce of (; ‘ursp Bory THs Ouvecyusws) the excellency of power ; £ a power fimilar to that which created the world, and caufed the light to fhine out of darknefs ; a power not lefs miraculous, or faperior to the common laws of na- ture and unaided influence of moral means, than the refurrection from the dead. || It appears to me not a little parodoxical, that any fhould admit of an almighty power to be exerted in raifing the Zody to future life; an exertion totally different from that which preferves and gives energy to the » mechanifm of the univerfe, or eftablithed general laws of matter and motion, caufes and effeds; and yet deny the need of fuch a power to raife the foul to fpiritual life and happinefs. They who ) cavil at the doctrines of grace, as explained by the orthodox, and yet believe the refurreGion of the body, may well be faid to jirain out a gnat | R 2 and eecor, v.37. + John iii. 3, ¢, 8. Pecan, iv. 7: | John vy. 27—27, 244 EQUITY AND. SOVEREIGNTY. and [wallow down a camel. But a fuller difcuffion of this point belongs to the next head of difcourfe ; to which we now proceed. § 21. (IIL) Special Grace. Notwithftanding the contemptuous manner in which Dr. Warrsy {peaks of faith as “the effect of an almighty powers” when treating of fufficient and effectual, common and pecial grace, he makes the following conceffion : ‘© Befides this calling of men to the profeflion of «¢ the chriftian faith, and this vouchfafement of ‘¢ the gofpel to them as a rule of life; it feems “© neceflary to affert that Gop vouchfafes /ome ina << ayard operations or affiftances to incline them to what << is good, and work converfion in them ;” * and, what is (till more extraordinary, he produceth feveral paflages of {cripture in favour of that affertion, But alas! all this parade of conceflions and proofs is - followed by numberlefs flagrant contradictions. What he builds with one hand he pulls down with the other; and that with violence. What he be- fore called ‘‘ inward operations’ are now nothing — more than Gon’s exhortations, One while it is con- ceded that there is a divine illumination, a divine — impreffion on the mind, and Gop fpeaking inwardly to man; but before you are aware, all is converted into moral perfuafion. Let us hear his own words: << T affert that the manner in which Gon’s grace and «¢ Holy Spirit aéts upon the minds and hearts of men ‘© for production of the fruits of the good Spirit, and ‘© the preparatory difpofitions of the foul towards them, * Difcourfe, p. 206. Ch.IV. == Arminianifin examined. 245 ** them, may reafonably be conceived to be fuch ** as is futtable to the reafon and faculties of men, ‘“* the under{tanding and the will.”? Granted; for who would plead for a mode of operation which is unfuitable? <* Now it is certain that what natural- <4 £4 6 ly makes the underftanding to perceive, is evidence proposed and apprehended, confidered or adverted to;”? but who makes the blind to fee or the dull to apprehend? “ for nothing elfe can be requifite é¢ to make us come to the knowledge of the truth —and fo be wife to falvation. — Again, what makes the will choofe, is fomething approved by the underftanding, and confequently appearing to the foul as good; and whatfoever it refu/eth, is fomething reprefented by the underftanding, and fo appearing to the will, as evil: whence all that Gop requires of us is, and can be only this, to refufe the evil and to choofe the good. — It there- fore can be only requifite, in order to thefe ends, that the good Spirit fhould /o illuminate our underftandings, that we attending to, and con- fidering what lies before us, fhould apprehend, ‘ and be convinced of our duty ; and that the bleff- ings of the gofpel fhould be /o propounded to us, as that we may difcern them to be cur chiefeit good, and the miferies it threateneth, fo as we may be convinced they are the worft of evils, that we may choofe the one and refufe the other.” * But obferve what follows: ‘ Is it not a great difparagement to the word of God to fay, or think, that all his perfuafions, admonitions, R 3 «* exhort- ¥- bid, Dy BRO StI 5/212, ve 246 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ‘“¢ exhortations, promifes, and threats, fhould be “ infufficient to prevail with us to turn from our finful courfes, and turn to him, when men who “ ufe thefe methods towards their children, fer- cal n < yants, friends, or relations, do it in hopes that» “ they fhall be faccefsful by thefe means?” * <“ If <«¢ beyond all this, there be fome phyfical and un- “© fruftrable operation on God’s part requifite to make “© men know, and knowing choofe the good and “< refufe the evil; this being not vouchfafed to, or “© wrought in them who are not born anew, why ts “© the want of this new birth, and this fpiritual re- << generation fo often imputed to the voluntary want of ‘¢ their confideration, and their not laying to heart ‘© the things propounded to them ? +—I therefore << humbly conceive that inward operation of the «¢ Holy Spirit to confift in thefe two things : 1ft. “ In reprefenting the divine truths which — « holy {criptures do contain, and prefs upon us, *¢ more clearly to our underftandings, that we may «¢ have a fuller evidence, ftronger conviction, and <¢ affurance of them. adly, ‘In bringing thefe truths to our remem- s¢ brance, that fo they may be prefent with us «¢ when this is requifite to enable us to refift temp- ‘<¢ tations, and to encourage us to the performance © of our duty.” The above cited extracts, contain a fummary of the Arminian fyftem of grace, which is hardly any thing different from the Pelagian ; I fhall now pre- fent the reader with aconcife account of the orthodox doctrine * J} , Ibid. Ps 214. + Ibid, p, 218. t Ibid. p 220, Ch. IV. Ariminianifin examined. 2 17° do&rine on the fame point, that he may the more eafily compare their pretenfions. ‘* Effectual call- *< ing is the work of Gop’s almighty power and “* grace; whereby, out of his free and efpecial love “¢ to his elect, and from nothing in them moving << him thereunto, he doth, in his accepted time, ‘¢ invite and draw them to Jefus Chrift by his word “and Spirit; favingly enlightening their minds, ‘© renewing, and powerfully determining their wills ; “¢ foas they, although in themfelves dead in fin, “© are hereby made willing and able, freely to ** anfwer his call, and to accept and embrace the ** grace offered and conveyed therein.” * It can- not help occuring to the attentive intelligent reader, that the former fummary is ultimately to this pofi- tion, viz. What grace effects in a finner’s converfion is nothing more than to reprefent to the mind divine truths, by way of moral perfuafion, while the difpofition itfelf, or the ability to apprehend, confider, and ad- vert to the truths objectively prefented, is left unin- fluenced. Whereas the Jatter, allowing the ufe but denying the fufficiency of moral means, maintains the abfolute need of a phy/ical influence of the Holy Spirit on the difpofition itfelf, whereby it is made {piritual and holy, in its meafure conformable to the holy nature of Gop; and without which no reprefentation of truth, no moral perfuafion whatever, will terminate in that change which is connected with falvation. TAar, after abftracting what is common to the converted and unconverted, 1s reducible to the elf /ufficiency of the human will; this, to the fpecial influence and Re 4, fovereign * Larger Catechi/m of the Affembly, Axs. to Quest. LXVIL, 248 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fovereign pleafure of Gop. The wind bloweth where it lifteth, without confulting thy pleafure, and thou heareft the found thereof, the effects are fenfibly known, Sut canft not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth, its manner of operation is not perceived by thee; fo is every one that is born of the Spirit.*— Having thus given the true ftate of the queftion in difpute, what now remains is to examine Dr. Wuitsy’s principal objections againft the Calvin- iftic fide, efpecially in reference to any thing that might appear inconfiftent with equity. § 22. “* It muft be granted, that in raifing an ¢¢ idea in my brain by the Holy Spirit, and the ‘¢ impreflion made upon it there, the action is *¢ truly phyfical,—-that in thofe actions I am ‘¢ wholly paffive; that is, I myfelf do nothing for- “¢ mally to produce thefe ideas, but the good Spirit, << without my operation, doth produce them in «© me; —and that thefe operations mutt be irrefifti- «¢ blein their production, becaufe they are immedi- ‘“¢ ately produced in us without our knowledge of «¢ them, and without our will, and fo without thofe » ‘¢ faculties by which we are enabled to act. But «¢ then I add, that as far as they are fo, they can- ‘“‘ not be imputed to us; that is, it cannot be ‘¢ praife-worthy in us, or rewardable, that we have ‘¢ fuch ideas raifed in us, but only that when they are ‘«¢ thus raifed in us we attend to them, comply with « them, and imprave them to the ends for which ‘< they were ie by the Holy Spirit. — Thofe — “<< ideas * John iii. 8. Ch, IV. Arminianifm examined. 249 «« ideas which are objectively good being thus raifed in us, cannot be imputed to us for reward, “© nor can Gop be well pleafed with us for them till “* we co-operate with them, becaufe the raifing of ‘“¢ them is properly Gop’s, not our own action, and “© we are purely paffive in it, nor is it in our power “< to prevent or refift them ; but then Gop having “« planted in usa principle of reafon and difcretion, “¢ we can attend to them when they are raifed in us, ‘¢ and fo improve them to the illumination of our ** underftandings, and to the approbation of them in ‘© our minds: healfo having given usa will to choofe “© the good, and to refufe the evil, we may confent “« to the good fuggeftions and purfue the good «© motions thus raifed in us; for to what other ends “‘ can they be raifed in us by the Holy Spirit 2? * In reply to this very fingular paflage, I obferve the following things : 1. If this account be any thing different from the mechanifm of nature, or the doctrine of affocia- tions, it 1s not only unfcriptural but alfo highly unphilofophical. He cannot mean ¢hat doétrine, © becaufe he treats of grace, a divine impulfe fuperior | to the courfe of nature effected by the Holy Spirit, Befides, it would have been abfurd to introduce the doétrine of common providence (of which affociations make a part) under the title of /ufficient grace. And yet, if any thing be intended by our Author more than common providence, the fentiment is unphilo» fophical as well as unfcriptural, and wholly defti- tute of all probability. It fuppofes innumerable — fupernatural interpofitions, and fo multiplies princi- ples, “a an * Difcourse, ps 2216 aie EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. _ ples, which the propofed effect does mot require. What is the propofed effect? To give us ideas of truths. And what are ideas but repre/entations in the mind of objeétive archetypes 2 But to fuppofe that any other truths or objective archetypes are now neceflary, than what the fcriptures of the Old and New Teftaments contain, is to run into a labyrinth of myfticifm and extravagance, If what we call our ideas of religious truths are not reprefentations of objects exhibited in the holy {criptures, they are unworthy of the name, as being either the deduc- tions of unaffifted reafon or the reveries of fancy, When Dr. Wuirtsy, therefore, talked of an idea raifed in his brain by the Holy Spirit, and the impreffion made upon it there, he talked of a figment of his own creation, and created for no other purpofe than to throw it as duft into weak eyes. 2. Seeing it is fomething different from a natural and providential law that he fpeaks of, the fenti- ment fuppofes millions of miracles, daily and hourly, without anfwering any valuable end. No other end is pretended to be anfwered but that of giving each perfon an opportunity of exerting his. freedom ; but this he has by attending to the holy {criptures, which are fufficient archetypes of all ideas relating to falvation, and without which he has no authority to conclude that his ideas are from Gop. Ifthe revealed word exhibits life and im- mortality, grace and glory, to every foul that hears or perufes it, and this renders men inexcufable, nay is a fuficient mean of falvation, what need ‘is there 2. Tap i Ch. [V. Arminianifm examined. 25% there of compafling the very {nie end by millions of miracles ? 3. The above doctrine confounds revelation and the divine unétion. The prophets and apoftles, it is true, muft have had reprefentations made in their minds of things not contained in preceding {crip- tures ; but the unction from the Holy One teacheth us all things by changing the difpofition only. Nothing more, is neceflary ; nothing lefs, isa caufe adequate to the effect. Befide, if the ne plus ultra of © grace be only to imprefs ideas (which is a mode of operation, I believe, perfectly unintelligible, when fupernatural revelation is not intended) it is poffible that not one finner would be faved; for, on the fuppofition, the Holy Spirit engages to do nothing © more to one finner than another, and as one fails of falvation, for the fame reafon al/ might. And who can tell but the prophets and apoftles have /up- preffed innumerable ideas given them by the Holy Spirit to be revealed to us? For on our Author’s principles it would not be juf to engage their wills refpecting any ideas. Such is the genuine but wretched refult of his novel cerebrofian hypothefis ! 4. The above dodtrine, moreover, 1s very un- charitable in its confequences. If all that the Holy Spirit does towards our falvation is merely “ to raife ideas in the brain,’? what becomes of little children? Are none of them faved? If they are, does not the divine Spirit prepare them for glory ? But how ? Is it by ratfng ideas in their brains, leav- ing them to choofe or to refufe, to improve them and 4 or to neglect them and perifh : ? And, indeed, with 252 " EQUITY. AND SOVEREIGNTY. with ‘tefpec& to adults, the confequence would be equally deplorable, though not fo glaringly ridicu- lous. If man in his beft eftate on earth is not fupernaturally influenced in his di/pofition, no fup- pofed objective light in the underftanding, no ‘* ideas raifed in the brain,” no perfuafion, will effect a new birth unto righteoufnefs. Without more affiftance from the Holy Spirit than our Author is willing to allow, and fuppofing too that a right ufe of ideas is neceflary to falvation, all men muft perifh; for there is no willing that which is truly fpiritual without fuch affiftance. He worketh in you both to will and to do of his own good pleafure. We are not fufficient of ourfelves to think agood thought, much lefs to will, improve ideas, to love and em- brace the truth reprefented. No one of himéfelf is difpofed to co-operate with Gop, be the objective light and means ever fo great, for this reafon, that the mind being depraved, (as none can deny, how- ever they may differ about the caufe) the real good, in whatever light it is reprefented, will not appear to be fo. The cure, therefore, mutt be more inward and radical, Befides, if Gop is bound in equity to deal alike with all his creatures dy impreffing their brains, it might be afked, on our Author’s own principles, how come fuch numbers to fall fhort of converfion? - Tf it be faid, the impreffion was not {trong enough to counteract their ftronger depravity, how can they be blamed? Are they not left under the fad necefity of perifhing becaufe the impreffion was not /uperior - tothe oppofing principle. That there is an oppof- A: Ch. IV. | Arminianifn examined. 253 tion made is. plain hence, that the fcriptures are not fufficient of themfelves, Dr. Wuitsy being judge, without the Holy Spirit performing ‘* an aéfion truly phyfical’? on the brain in order to converfion, Gop, it feems, would not be ju? in condemning men without this unintelligible operation ! In a word, to fay that Gop is bound in equity to perform on men a fupernatural action truly phydcal, is equally defti- tute of truth and fenfe; whereas it is expreflive of both to fay, that if men are converted and faved, there muft be a phyfical change of the difpofition by an act of fovereign favour, whereby the foul is enabled to improve its knowledge and all the means of falvation. go7ihe annenute am oppofing TT Be a oreat miftake about what is rewardable and praife-worthy, and what is not. It fuppofes that aétions alone are fo; whereas the truth is, that the fate, the di/pofition, and inclination of the mind are not lefs rewardable or blameable than our actions. Nay, actions are no further praife-worthy than as they proceed from fuch ftate of mind. Were it otherwife, how can we account for Gop’s blaming men for hardnefs of heart, carnality of mind, flupidity of confcience, fenfuality, and the like ? And why promife to change the heart, and write his law there? In confideration of what praife-worthy and rewardable aéions are in- fants admitted into everlafting blifs? Is it more difficult for omnipotence to meliorate the heart of a finner, whether young or old, than to raife ideas in his brain? Or muft we fay, that it would be inequit- eble? The former none can aflert. The latter is what 254 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. what none who admit of any gracious influence at all can confiftently plead. 6. To conclude, in a few words; our Author’s hypothefis is a wretched limitation of divine grace, © which muft not proceed to the Aearts of finners; a pillar to fupport pride, which difdains to afcribe to Gop what it fancies itfelf equal to; an edifice erected on a miftaken idea of moral obligation, as if a phyfical act of grace were neceflary for its bafis ; and finally contains a contradiction in terms —-Gop cannot be ju/f in condemning finners, except he give them grace, the grace of certain ideas imprefled upon their brains ! § 23. ‘* Some remonftrants by granting this ‘< neceflity of /upernatural and infufed habits, feem _ ¢ to have run themfelves into this dilemma, that “¢ ejther thefe {upernatural habits, wiz. of faith and ‘¢ charity, may be wrought in men, and yet they << may not be converted; or elfe that all who are <¢ not converted are therefore not converted, he- caufe Gon’s Spirit hath not wrought thefe habits << in them, which is the very abfurdity they labour “ to avoid.’ * Who thefe Remonftrants referred to are it is needlefs to enquire; but why this dilemma, as itis called, fhould appear formidable to any, or its laft horn be ftudioufly avoided, I know not, What can be more reafonable than to allow, that Gon’s aéz. of grace upon a finner is an infufed fuper- yatural habit 2 Surely this is language more intel- ligible, and a work far more worthy of Gop than what “~ ¢ PEA Pie Zee Chi TVs Arniinianifin examined. 255 what our opponent has advanced. And who would fcruple to fay, that ‘* all who are not converted, are therefore not converted, decaufe Gop’s Spirit hath not wrought thefe habits in them?’? Becaufe Gop does not work upon a finner by a fupernatural act of grace, is he therefore umjuft in condemning him for his fins 2 Is our moral obligation wholly founded on grace? Are men not bound to love Gop, and make him their chief end, except they have fupernatural aids? Have they not underflandings, wills, moral means (the holy fcriptures, divine inftitutions, &c.) and unconftrained freedom ? ‘© That any fupernatural habits muft be infufed ‘¢ into us in an inftant, and not produced by frequent “ aiions —is that which my hypothefis by no means <¢ will allow. The ideas which he raifes in us, ' though they are raifed by a phyfical operation, ¢¢ yet are they moral in their operations: even as a “¢ man’s tongue in {peaking to perfuade, or to «< diffuade another, performs a phyfical operation, ‘© though the effect of it is only moral.”++ Here then is an hypothefis that maintains without blufh- ing, the ability of the atural man, of the carnal mind, not only to underfiand but alfo to receive the things of the Spirit of Gop; nay moreover, to pro- duce in himfelf a zew nature by his own actions! Oh rotten, wretched, proud Pelagiam/m, wilt thou not ceafe to pervert the good and gracious ways of the Lord? The ideas phyfically raifed are moral in their effects, ‘This, it fhould feem, is the great ad- vantage of the Arminian hypothefis. Who can avoid wn n ia) * bid, 256 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. avoid being prepofleffed in favour of it from a cire | cumftance fo important ? From the uncommon ftrefs that is laid on this idea, it might appear natural to infer, that the orthodox opinion is herein mifera- bly deficient. But impartiality well informed muft allow that our hypothefis, in this very point, has every advantage of which the other can boaftt. To illuftrate this matter let the following remarks be confidered : § 24. 1. The doétrine of infufed habits no more fuperfedes the ufe of means, than that of mere moral fuafion, The former includes the latter, though the latter excludes the former. ‘There is no argu- ment whatever of real weight that an Arminian can urge with men, in order to their converfion or edi- _ fication, but which a Calvinift may confiftenly ufe, By no legitimate confequence does it follow that, becaufe Gop aéts the part of a gracious Legiflator and equitable Judge, in his difpenfations and his word, he therefore cannot by an act of fovereign grace enable the finner to improve means ; efpecially” when we confider the ab/olute need there is of fuch an operation if any be aé?ually perfuaded to embrace the great falvation. The ufe of perfuafion fuppofes man as rational and accountable; beyond which Gop is not obliged in equity to go. Were any one to comply cordially with the divine call, his compliance would be accepted, though he had no infufed habit. Whence it follows, that when we plead for a phyfical influence on the mind, it is not merely a pleading - for an opinion which appears to be countenanced by reafon, Ch.1V. = Arminianifin examined. 257 reafon, and confirmed by {cripture, but it is more- over a queftion concerning faéis. We fay, with feripture and experience, that all the children of men are actually degenerate. From the very na- ture of moral means, in connection with moral depravity and guilt, we further conclude, that it is, in faé?, clearly impoffible for fuch means to effec& the change agreed to be neceffary, without a fepa-_ rate fovereign influence. And yet, if Gop treat with men as rational beings, accountable to him for their talents; if he do not altogether diffolve the moral fyftem of our world, moral means mnie be ufed. 2. Though moral fuafion (being, like the law, ‘© weak through the flefh,”) does not effe& a faving change without the Holy Spirit, yet the difpofition itfelf, being made good by a phyfical change, 1s moral in its operations. To judge, de- fire, and love fpiritually ; to repent, believe, and obey, are all moral operations, while yet effects of a phyfical change. Is the aé of any being, whether perfect or imperfect, /e/s moral becaufe the previous difpofition is the work of Gop? We may as well queftion, Whether the act of hearing is ours, becaufe Gop planted the ear; or the act of feeing ours, becaufe Gop formed the eye; that holy confidence is ours, becaufe ** the love of Gop fhed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghoft” is the previous infpiring caufe of that confidence. 3. All means, as far as they are operative, are, according to our principles, mora/ in their effects, Whatever object is prefented to the underftagging, Ss to 258 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. to the will, or any faculty of the mind, it operates morally and not phyfically, by perfuafion and not mechanijm, though the effect be not contingent as to” Gop. A certainty in the effec is perfe&ly confiftent with the morality of the operation. To afcertain the former it is enough to know the di/poftion, its exact degree of goodnefs or pravity. Does a pure ftream flow from a corrupt fountain? Does a good tree, continuing {uch, bear bad fruit? Does not the infinite goodnefs of Gop render it abfolutely certain that he will do nothing amifs? Or, is there any probability that infernal {pirits, confirmed in wick- ednefs, will perform benevolent deeds ? Is not the probability of any means being properly improved, and good actions performed, exactly in proportion to the di/pofition of the agent? Two perfons take up the facred volume, or hear its contents; to the one the divine teflimony is a favour of life, to the other of death; one deems what he reads or hears the higheft wifdom, the other uninterefting truth, or perhaps infipid folly.. Suppofing. alfo, with our author, that Gop does as much for the one as the other, by making fome equa/ impreflions, how fhall we be able rationally to account for the difference of the effec?, but by allowing a proportionable dif- ference of difpofition? Whena good and gracious effect therefore is intended to be produced, our author’s hypothefis of a phy/ical impre/s on the BRAIN is needlefs; a fupernatural agency on the mind, whereby it is made good, is alone wanted. If it be faid, that the mind being free ftill implies the means may be fruftrated ; and how can this confift - Ch. IV. Arminianifis examined, 259 confift with the certainty of the effect ? It is granted, that a ftate of probation, without the intervention of preferving grace, does imply, that all means whatever may be fruftrated; but from thence it does not follow, that infufed grace will not prevent finful acts, on the one hand, or will deftroy freedom on the other. Goodnefs of difpofition continued, will infallibly produce good acts, but if left in equity, the reverfe. And freedom in its own na- ture does not confift in an equal indifference to good and evil, elfe the goodnefs of Gop, and the grace of the bleffed in heaven, would be no advantage again{ft tranfgreflion. He who aés from rational motives without conftraint, is free; though there fhould be a million to one that his choice and action fhould be one way rather than another, owing to the ftate and difpofition of the agent; yea, by parity of reafon, an infinite number to one, fo as to afford him who fully underftands the cafe an ae certainty of the event. § 25. But it is apain urged: ‘* If fuch a divine ‘** unfruftrable operation is neceflary to the conver- ‘* fion of a finner, then the word read or preached “© can be no infirument of their converfion without * this divine unfruftrable impulfe, becaufe shat ** only aéts by moral fuafion—only this is not fo to ‘¢ be underftood as to exclude the co-operation of *¢ Gop with his word, or the affiftance of his Holy <¢ Spirit fetting it home upon our hearts; provided ‘< this be not by way of phyfical and not moral “© operation.”* Is this any thing more than a are S 2 bare * Difcourfe, p. 249. 260 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. bare affertion, that the inftrumentality of the word is of itfelf fafficient to convert a finner by way of moral fuafion, with a falvo apparently orthodox, but in reality without any determinate meaning, that the Spirit affifts in fetting it home upon our hearts. Pelagians and Arminians are not the only perfuns who exprefs themfelves in fimilar language; there are many others who, without any defign of degra- ding the glorious work of the fpirit, indulge a mode of expreflion not eafily reconciled with their princi- ples. This being the’ cafe, I could wih to offer fuch areply tothe objection of Arminians as at the fame time refutes the miftakes of thofe who are Calvinific in other points. . And this, I think, 1s done fatisfactorily in the language of a very refpec- table and judicious writer. Heis difcourfing of the principle of grace, concerning which he obferves, that ‘itis infufed and not acquired. The firft prin- ciple, or {pring of good actions, may, with equal reafon, be fuppofed to be infufed into us, as Chrif- tians, as it is undoubtedly true, that the prin- ciple of reafoning is infufed into us as men. None ever fuppofed that the natural power of reafoning inay be acquired; fo that power, whereby we are enabled to put forth fupernatural acts of grace, which we a call a principle of grace, mutt be fuppofed to be implanted in us; which, were it acquired, we could not, properly fpeaking, be faid to be born of Gon. . From hence I am obliged to infer, that the regenerating act, or implanting this principle of grace, which is at leaft in order of nature, antecedent to any act of grace put ‘¢ forth . 4 Bele oa Ch. [V. Arminianifin examined, 261 a“ ¢ a6 54 a“ “ “ a) oe n oe La) v ee “A no forth by us, isthe immediate effect of the power of Gop, which none, who fpeak of regeneration as a divine work, pretend to deny: and therefore I cannot but conclude, that it is wrought in us without the inftrumentality of the word, or any of the ordinary means of grace. My reafon for it is this; becaufe it is neceflary (from the nature of the thing) to our receiving, improving, or reap- ing any advantage by the word, that the Spirit fhould produce the principle of faith; and to fay, that this is done by the word, is, in effect, to affert that the word produces the principle, and the principle gives efficacy to the word; which feems to me little lefs than arguing in a circle, The word cannot profit unlefs it be mixed with faith; and faith cannot be put forth, unlefs it proceeds from a principle of grace implanted ; therefore this principle of grace 1s not produced by it. We may as well fuppofe that the pre- fenting of a beautiful picture before a man that is blind, can enable him to fee; or the violent motion of a withered hand produce ftrength for action, as we can fuppofe, that prefenting the word, in an objective way, is the inftrument whereby Gop produces that internal principle, by which we are enabled to embrace it.”’* There feem to be but two ways in which it can be fuppofed that the Spirit of God co-operates with his word; or, as Dr. Wuitsy exprefles it, ‘* fets it home upon our hearts.” The influence muft be ae, on * See Ripciey’s Body of Divinity, Vol. il. p. 21, &¢. ; 262. EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. on either the recipient or the inftrument, qualifying | the former to receive, or giving energy to the latter to operate. If ove of thefe be fufficient, to fuppofe both is unneceffary. As to the fuppofition of ad- ding force to the inftrument by fome phyfical im- pulfe, whether providential or fupernatural, befide what has been already mentioned, it labours under the great difadvantage of being inexplicable in point of analogy; fo that perhaps it is impoflible to form any. clear ideas of it by any operation in nature, without involving an abfurdity in its moral appli- cation. Muft we conceive of the word as a pro- jectile, a miffile weapon, or an inftrument of power producing the moral principle? The idea is abfurd ; for then a moral mean muft a&t mechanically, which involves a contradiction. Whereas if we fuppofe the phyfical influence to be on the recipient, pre- difpofing the mind to a right improvement of means, the certainty of the intended effect is eafily conceived, in perfec confiftency with the freedom of the mind, and the moral effec of the means. To this reprefentation it may be objected, that the {criptures often fpeak of the powerful efficacy of the word. ‘ Is not my word as fire, and as a hammer that breaketh the rocks in pieces??? « Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth. To which we reply in the words of the refpe@able author laft referred to, that fuch language of fcripture. ** does not fo much refpec& the implanting of the ** principle of grace, as it does our being enabled “* to a from that principle.—Regeneration may be _ ** taken, not only for our being made alive to God, Oe Gar TW Arminianifin examined. 263 “¢ or created unto good works, but for our putting “< forth living aétions, proceeding from that principle ‘« which is implanted in the foul.” * In fhort, the exercife of every grace, as faith, fear, hope, love, fuppofes a revealed objec? ; fo that the very exiftence of thefe graces, confidered as our aéts and duties, believing, fearing, hoping, or. loving, muft be owing to the word of truth, as a generating caufe. But, in treating of this branch of theologi- cal truth, it is of importance not to confound, as too often is done, thefe two forts of caufation. For, ferioufly to maintain the fentiment here oppofed, would be of the fame tendency as the following: That the real caufe why the waters of the red fea were divided, was Mofes’ hand ftretched over the fea, as God’s inftrument ; or, that the real caufe why Lazarus was quickened into life, was this fen- tence, “¢ Lazarus, come forth.” It is prefumed, that, from the arguments ad- vanced, and the objections obviated, it now appears evident, there is nothing in the orthodox doétrine of /pecial grace at all inconfiftent with divine equity. — We now proceed to another branch of the fub- ject; ‘viz. | § 26. (IV.) The Witt determined by grace. What has been already advanced precludes in fome mea-_ fure the neceflity of a full inveftigation of this point ; and is rendered, moreover, lefs neceflary to the inquifitive reader, by an incomparable treatife written on the fubjeé&t, with a profefied view to the | S 4 book * RIDGLEY, uf fupra, Pp. 22. 264 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. book on which I am animadverting mee mean, Prefident Epwarns’s * Inquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that Freedom of Will, which is {uppofed to be effential to moral agency, virtue and vice, reward and puntfhment, praife and blame.” The point of view in which we now confider the queftion, is, Whether the determination of the will _ by grace is inconfiftent with equity. Dr. Warrsy contends, as do all the Arminians, that it is incon- fiftent; but before | proceed to confute his argu- ments, it 1s proper he fhould fpeak for himéelf. Thus he ftates and reafons: ‘ For the due “* flating of this queftion concerning the liberty, or ‘* freedom of the will of man, let it be noted, ‘© That the fate of man in this world is a ftate of “* trial or probation— hence it follows, That the “* dberty belonging to this queftion, is only that of ‘¢ a lapfed man in a ftate of trial, probation, and *¢ temptation: whether he hath a freedom to choofe life or death, to anfwer or reject the calls and ‘“ invitations of Gop to do, by the affiftance of “* the grace afforded in the gofpel to him, what is “¢ {piritually good as well as evil, or whether he be “* determined to one, having only a freedom from “* coaction but not from neceflity, This liberty is ‘* indeed no perfection of human nature; for it ‘* fuppofes us imperfect, as being fubjeé& to fall ‘¢ by temptation, and when we are advanced to the _“* fpirits of juft men made perfect, or to a fixed ** ftate of happinefs, will, with cur other imper- “ fedtions, be done away; but yet it is a freedom “ abfolutely requifite, as we conceive, to render us “ capable Ch. IV. Ayminianifin examined, 265. ee La a a a e oe capable of trial or probation, and to render our actions worthy of praife or difpraife, and our perfons of rewards or punifhments.”’ Again, “ The freedom of the will in this fiate of trial and temptation, cannot confit with a determination to one—feeing this determinating operation puts him out of a ftate of trial, and makes him equal, when this divine impulfe comes upon him, to the ftate of angels; fince he who mutt certainly and without fail, do what the di- vine impulfe doth incite him to do, is as much determined to one, as they are. And this is further evident from the general determination of the fchools, and of all that 1 have read upon this fubjet, that the general will to be happy, and not to be, miferable, though it be voluntary, is not free; becaufe we cannot choofe either not to be happy, or to be miferable; and on the fame account, fay they, this will is not praife- worthy, or rewardable.” Moreover, * This av/séeciov, or free-will of man, being neither an ad, for that 1s an exercrfe of the will; nor an 4abit, for that only doth facilitate and incline to action; but a faculty of power; and the object of that power being in moral actions, fomething morally, in {piritual actions fomething fpiritually good to be chofen, or {pi- ritually evil to be avoided; that which di/adles any man from choofing what is {piritually good, or refufing what is.thus evil, and therefore is deftructive to his foul and {pirit, muft allo take : | “away 266 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ¢ Cal away his liberty to choofe what is fpiritually good, “and to refufe what is fpiritually evil.” me Once more, “ To fay here that men thus dif- abled may deferve punifhment for the evil they do, though they cannot do otherwife, becaufe they difobey willingly and choofe to do fo, is to make the devils and damned fpirits farther punifhable, becaufe they alfo choofe to do evil ; and the blefied angels rewardable, becaufe they choofe to do good, and do it willingly. —To fay that men under this unfruftrable operation are ftill free, becaufe what they are moved thus to do they zil/ to do, and do it with compla- cency, is only to fay, Man herein hath the free- dom of an elect angel, which is not rewardable; ** but not that he hath the freedom of a proficient, “* or one in a ftate of trial and probation. ~ That “< this is the true ftate of the queftion cannot be *¢ reafonably doubted.” * Thefe extraéts appear to me to contain the fune- damental principles of our author’s dodtrine on the freedom of the will, in the application of which againft the calviniftic fide of the queftion, he every where infinuates, that there is fomething inconfiftent — with divine juflice in the fentiments he oppofes, and which we maintain. Let us now examine thefe principles with as much brevity as the nature of — the fubje& will admit of, ¢ “ 4 La 4 Dal A ee é na é Ca) f° € Cs) € n 4 ta é nv (44 wn §27. 1. It is gratuitoufly affumed, that the liberty belonging to /ap/ed man, is a liberty effen- | tially ® Difcourfe, px 297, 299s 3015 305, 309, 312. Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined. 267 | tially different from that which belongs to man in a perfec? ftate. Whereas the difference between /apfed and perfe# can no more influence the queftion in difpute, “© Whether the Will be determined by Grace,” than man’s breach of the divine law can abfolve him from his allegiance to the fupreme lawgiver and judge. To fuppofe that the fai or tranfgreffion of man alters the nature of that liberty © which makes him accountable, is contrary to all reas fon and analogy; and is not unlike a plea urged to excufe a man from difcharging an o/d debt —be« caufe-he has incurred a mew one! 2. Since man had not in his beft eftate, as before fhewn,* ‘¢ a power to do what is fpiritually good,” much lefs has he now in his lapfed ftate ; except we fuppofe that his power increafes with his guilt and wickednefs, It is true, man has a dorrowed power, which never fails him, of choofing what appears to him def; elfe he muft either ceafe to bea volun- tary agent, or choofe evil as evil, which is inadmif fible. There is therefore no controverfy about his power of choofing life or death, as far as he judges (all things being taken into the account) the one or the other to be eligible. But this muft not be con- founded with ‘‘ a power to. do what is {piritually good,” as if the latter were neceflary to account- ablenefs, For . 3. The real power of doing well is not, and cannot be effential to the “erty of any accountable being. If, when the intellect reprefents an object as beft to be chofen, a divine concurrence take place, as * Chap. iv. Sect, is = 268 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY, as an eftablifhed law of providential government, which may be called a borrowed or improper power in the creature, it is abundantly fufficient to con- ftitute the refponfibility of the fubject. 4. The falvo fubjoined in the objection, “a freedom to do— by the affiftance of the grace afforded in the gofpel,” is vague and indeterminate ;~but pro- bably is intended to convey the fentiment before expofed, ‘* an idea raifed in the brain by the Holy Spirit, and the impreffion made upon it there ;” which requires no other confutation than is due to the ancient jargon of Ariftotelian philofophy— myftic forms, and occult qualities. 5. When our author contends that the will ought not to be determined to one, in order to blame-worthi- nefs or praife, in fuch a manner as to be free from nccefity as well as co-action ; he requires not only what is unreafonable but impofidle. For there is no medium between the will being determined to one, when the choice is really good, and the will determin- ing ifelf; and that this latter is impoffible, or an - inconceivable abfurdity, Prefident Epwarps has given the moft ample proofs, in his unanfwerable performance on the fubject, to which the reader is referred. § 28. Dr. Wuirsy contends, That the’ liberty of man, in the prefent flate of trial, implies “a power to do what is fpiritually good as well as evil; could any one then, except he hada bad caufe to ferve, a tottering hypothefis to prop, once imagine it conceivable, that /uch a power is one of ) the ag Sa ChlV. = Arminianifin examined. 269 the imperfections of human nature, and peculiar to the prefent ftate? Yet fuch is the opinion which he holds. An imperfection, yet abfolutely requifite to render our aétions worthy of praife or difpraife ! May not this writer be juftly termed the patron of IMPERFECTIONS? Surely, what renders our actions praife-worthy, and our perfons capable of rewards, muft be good; but are imperfections good things ? | Again, that freedom, in the prefent ftate, cannot confift with a determination to one, he argues from the fimilarity that would then fubfift between men in this world and the angels in heaven. But men’s obligations do not arife from what they are ina ftate of probation; the queftion is what they ought to be. And ought not the will of Gop to be «¢ done on earth, as it is done in heaven?” The truth is, that men, as far as they are praife-worthy, are like the angels; and their goodnefs proceeds from the fame caufe; they do “ what the divine impulfe doth incite them to do.” The difference does not confit in the mature of their freedom, where they choofe what is fpiritually good; but in its degree, or, perhaps more accurately, in that the angels are always incited to do what is right, to the utter exclufion of all evil; and men in the prefent ftate varioufly. As far as they are the fubjects of fovereign grace, they are fo incited as to time and degrees; but as far as they are dealt with in equity, they choofe what is wrong; for nothing prevents their abufe of liberty but a gracious divine im- pulfe. | It 270 _ EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. _It 1s obje&ted, That “ the general will to be happy, and not to be miferable, though it be volun- tary, is not free,” and therefore not praife-worthy ; from whence it is inferred, that no freedom is praife- worthy but what is independent of all neceffity. Confequently, fuch is the defperate flate of the eaufe, he denies that angels are at all rewardable, and the damned fpirits further punifhable! As if the wherenefs of a moral action conftituted its sature ! But 1s there no goodne/s in the fteady inclination of Angels to holiefs and Gop, or badnefs in the fixed averfion of Devils? Nothing praife-worthy in the ardent love of the one, or blame-worthy in the conftant hatred of the other? Thefe, however, are implied parts of the fyftem oppofed, and which are adopted for the fake of avoiding the confequence that an action may be at once free, neceffary, and praife-worthy, But the union of thefe being evi- dently in the blefled Gop, in holy Angels, and Jefus Chrift, another figment muft be invented of a free- dom peculiar to a lapfed fate! It muft be earneftly contended for, as ab/olutely requifite, elle Gop would be wxjuft in requiring compliance with his calls and Invitations to duty; and yet muft be done away as an zimperfection ! Once more: it is argued, that fince the requifite freedom is neither an aé nor an habit, but ** 2 faculty of power,” a divine determinating operation takes away liberty to choofe, which is inadmiffible. But, leaving our author in the full enjoyment of his own definition, itis granted by him that an ** habit doth facilitate and incline to action ;” if therefore divine grace Chit, Ar minianifin examined, 27t grace form the temper and habit of the mind, which inclines to a good a¢tion, an event or action may be made certain, or neceffarily future, without infringing this ‘* faculty of power.” And this is what we plead for, not that grace has for its immediate object the act or power of willing, fo much as the perfox in his difpofition and habits. Make the tree good and the fruit will be good; but - an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, § 29. It remains only to fhew, in a more direct manner, that this operation of grace which determines the willis not inconfiftent with equity, which is the only objection, virtually, that Arminians can make in their oppofition toit. In addition therefore to what has been faid in reply to particular bach cam a objections, we obferve: . That from the nature of the will infelf, which is oe power of the mind by which we choofe, and its true liberty, it appears, the influence of grace in de- termining the will is not unjuft, or unworthy of the fupreme Governor. If the will be the power we have of choofing the greateft apparent good, as all muft allow it 1s; and if that apparent good which is chofen be the real good, while the coincidence of appearance and ay arifes from the gracioufly reciified ftate of the mind; is there any infringe. ment of the will in its operation when making fuch a choice, more than if the mind were left to choofe the appearance only of good to the rejection of the reality, through its unrectificd temper? Can the Purity of our ibe and choice be more effectually fecured 202 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fecured by the impurity of the mind and heart ? Can the will and its liberty be more perfec by the prefence of an acknowledged imperfection? 1s the liberty lefs real becaufe the object preferred is good, and certainly forefeen by omnifcience ? 2. The futility of the fyftem oppofed, and the equitablenefs of that now defended, may appear from the nature of that operation which is in queition, in reference to the will ; it being a fovereign act of Gop rectifying the moral ftate of the creature, which is a confideration altogether different from an injury offered to the will, which is a natural faculty. 3. We appeal to the mature of equity, which is violated only when the creature has more than his due of fuffering. But as this operation confifts in. nothing worfe than rectifying the moral ftate of the fubject, what conceivable injury is done it? Our fyftem does indeed reprefent the fubje&t as deftitute of all merit, and independent worthinefs; becaufe none is reaily due to him, whether viewed as a finner ora mere creature. Why our author fhould a/cride praife to men for choofing what is good, and yet deny praife to angels for making the fame choice, it may well puzzle thofe heavenly intelligences to under- ftand; except it be to favour the monftrous, extra- vagant, rebellious dodtrine of Auman merit, and to rob Gop of part at leaft of that praife which is due to his glorious majefty. | 4. We appeal to the nature of divine fovereiguty, which has unlimited power over the creature for its welfare, in its. being, difpofition, and actions. Yet no one who underftands the fubject can hefitate refpecting ~ Ch. IV. Arminianif examined, — 273 refpecting the perfectly harmonious agreement of fuch divine fovereignty and equity. To confirm faints or angels in purity and happinefs, and make them xecefarily inclined and determined to good, is an act of fovereignty, fince, I prefume, arrogance itfelf would fail in defending it as their due in equity : therefore, to determine and confirma moral agent in the choice of good is not inconfiftent — with equity. | 5. We appeal to the juft confequences which would flow from the denial of our propofition. It would tend to reftrain omnipotent benevolence from rendering men, while in the prefent ftate, better than they are without their previous confent; Gop muft not prefume to make the work of his hands more amiable, more inclined to virtue, to holi- _nefs, and the fruition of himfelf; he muft wait for the favourable decifion of his enemy —‘* the car- nal mind, which is enmity againft Gop, which is not fubject to his law, nor indeed can be.” — A work muft be wrought, a change muft be effected, or man cannot be happy; for ‘* without holinefs no man fhall fee the Lord;”? but man cannot be conformed to the law of Gop while in his carnal enmity, that is, cannot be holy, or qualified for heaven; if therefore Gop be reftrained from effect. ing this qualification, how is it to be done? The > «truth 1s, if Gop do it not, it cannot be done, nor can any foul of our fallen race entertain the {mallet degree of rational hope of eternal happinefs. As we would avoid eternal mifery we mutt be << holy ~/and without blame, pure in heart, and made meet to 274 | EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. to be partakers of the future inheritance of the faints in light; none but Gop can thus qualify us, and he has promifed to do it in various ways 5 but this proud au]:Earsoy, this formlefs phantom of ‘yfelf-fovercignty, holds his hand, and charges him with injuffice if he do it! In brief, the fentiment I oppofe robs Gop of what le claims as his right and glory — to fave us by his grace, not by works, left any man fhould Boast. It places man on the ground of felf-wortht- ‘nefs; which is the fole prerogative of Gop. It ‘afcribes to imperfect rebellious man that fove- reignty over future events, and his own happitiefs in particular, which is denied to holy angels, and which belongs only to Gop, who * works in us both to will and to do what is praife-worthy of fis own good pleafure.” — And finally, it implies that Gop cannot be juft except man poffefs a power to be good, and to do good of himfeif—a power which we have endeavoured to fhew to be incommunicable to any creature however ‘exalted. With abfolute cleffion, particular redemption, Jpe- cial grace, and the will determined by erace, ftand clofely connected, | § 30. (V.) The perfeverance of faints; which Dr. Wuitsy ftrentioufly oppofes. We fhall take the ftate of the queftion, on his part, from the author - himfelf, ‘* We own, fays he, that they who are _ preferved to falvation, are fo preferved by the power of Gop through faith ; and that they _ «© who are thus kept, are kept by Chrift, he alone “ being Ch: IV: Arminianifn examined. ane “* being able to keep them unblameable ; but then *< we deny that Gop hath abfolutely promifed to “* keep them by his power from making thip- “© wreck of this faith; or that the juft man who “* lives by faith fhall never draw back unto per- “* dition.”* <* We own that Gop hath engaged ‘* his faithfulnefs, that all who do not wickedly “© depart from him, fhall never be forced from him * by the power of any adverfaries — but, deny “* that Gop hath from eternity decreed, or abfo- ** lutely promifed to preferve them from falling into © thofe fins which he cautions them to avoid, or ** to perform himfelf what he requires as their ** duty.” <¢ Wegrant that Gop hath promifed ¢ perfeverance in the ways of righteoufnefs to the ** ‘end, to thofe who conftantly and confcientioufly ** ufe the means by him prefcribed for that end— ““ but deny that Gop hath abfolutely promifed to “ interpofe his power infruftrably to engage all * true believers to ufe thefe means.” + On the other hand we acknowledge, not only that faints may be guilty of great fins, but alfo ‘that it is not owing to any ftrength, fleadinefs, or immutability of the renewed will or nature in them, that they do not fall away totally and finally; but isto be afcribed, not only to the power but alfo ‘the purpofe, faithfulne/s, and wifdom of Gon. ‘What we hold therefore, in diftin@ion from our opponents, is reducible to thefe two points; Fir, That thofe who are faints indeed, pardoned and renewed, fhall per/evere in that ftate, and be finally | ‘Te glorified ; * Difccurfe p. 385,&¢. +p. 386, t p. 387, 388, 276 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. clorified; and confequently, that thofe who do not _ die faints, never were faints. Secondly, That in this dodtrine there is nothing izequitable , there are no objeétions implied in it that can juftly militate againft the accountablenefs of man or the equity of Gop, the declarations of his word, or the rules of his providence. § 31. To inveftigate the truth and evidence of this doctrine in the. numerous paffages of holy writ which are ufually introduced into this controverfy, would lead us to a prolixity unfuitable to the na- ture of our plan. We conceive that not a Jingle text fairly interpreted, according to its real defign, is repugnant to this doétrine ; but as our author has been at the trouble of reducing them into certain general heads, thofe which are moit plau- fible and important in the view of the inquifitive mind will be noticed, in the way of objections. In order to fimplify the fubject as much as poflible, the firft thing propofed may be thus ex- prefled ; the dogtrine which maintains that the perfons who are eventually faved, might have been eventually loft, 1s unworthy of Gop, according to the difcoveries he has made on the fubject, both of himfelf and his conduct: And that the converfe of this propofition is equally fo, namely, that fome of thofe who are eventually loft were once faints. The arguments which conclude in the one cafe, are conclufive in the other ; and therefore we may con- fider them as connected, Yet that the attention of the reader may not be embarrafled by the com- plexity Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined. 277 plexity of the fubject, let this point firft be kept principally in view, It is unworthy of God to fup- pofe that any who are eventually faved might have been eventually loft. And in proof of the affertion we appeal, : . 1. To what we are taught of the divine purpo/e. It is acknowledged by Dr. Wuirsy himfelf, “ that they who are kept, are kept by the power of - Gop;” it muft be alfo acknowledged, that for any to be fo kept is a great privilege and dlefing, efpecially to be preferved in fafety until they are lodged in eternal bleffednefs. This then is a real good, of which Gop is confefledly the author and fnifher. Now it is unworthy of Gop to fuppofe that he did not purpo/e all the good he performs ; therefore he purpofed the falvation and perfeverance of all who are eventually faved. Confequently, thofe who are faved could not have been loft; for who hath refifted his will of purpofe? Surely, it will not be queftioned by any who have the {malleft degree of real knowledge of the true character of Gop, that known unto him are all is works from the beginning of the world, and that all he effects is according to the coun/el of his own will. Thefe two things, therefore, which are fo evidently joined, Gop’s work in time and his eternal purpo/e, muft be feparated, which is altogether unworthy of the divine character, or elfe we muft conclude, That thofe who are or fhall be actually faved, could not have been loft. _ When therefore it can be proved, that eventual falvation originated in our/elves, and originated in Gee fuch 278 =~ EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fuch a manner as to make us independent on the work of Gop in our prefervation; or when it can be proved, that Gop worketh fome things, even the bringing of many fons to glory by the captain of their falvation, which he did not purpo/e to do after the counfel of his will, then may it be alfo proved, but not before, that fome who are eventu- ally faved might have been loft. Again we appeal 2. To the divine faithfulne/s. ‘To fuppofe that any who are eventually faved might have been loft, 1s an impeachment of the faithfulnefs of Gop to his own purpofe and plan refpecting the event. That Gop has a purpofe and plan refpecting fuch event is manifeft, except we fay, that the import- ant event will take place either without or contrary to any purpofe or plan; which is to build the glory, everlafting glory of millions on the phantom contingence, or the equally phantaftic notion of finful Self-fovereignty! But if there is a purpofed plan refpecting the event, Gon’s faithfulne/s to his own defigns, and its inviolable prefervation, require, that thofe who are finally faved could not have been loft. : i We draw the fame conclufion from the argu- . ment of Gop’s faithfulnefs to the Saviour, © Afk of me, faith Gop to the Meffiah, and I thall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the ut- termoft parts of the earth for thy poffeffion,” * ** And I know, fays the Meffiah, that thou heareft me always.” Whatever, therefore, Chrift afks of the Father, he is engaged in faithfulnefs to grant, * Plalm ii. 8, ‘+ John xi. 42. Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined. 279 grant, And this is what he afks with peculiar emphafis, ‘* Holy Father, keep through thine own own name thofe whom thou haft given me, that they may be one as we are. —I pray, that thou fhouldeft keep them from the evil, Sandéify them through thy truth. Neither pray I for thefe alone, but for them alfo which fhall believe on me through their word. Father, I will that they alfo whom thou haft given me, be with me where I am} that they may behold my glory.””* Here the Father engages to give the fon what he afks, and indeed the mediatorial office implies fuch an engagement ; for what kind of Mediator would he be whofe petitions would be rejected, and how unworthy of Gop fuch an appointment; here alfo we obferve the Mediator emphatically afking that a// who fhould believe on him might be kept and glorified. If therefore it can be faid of any perfon that he is © at any time a believer or a faint, the divine faithful- nefs to Chrift, as Mediator and interceding prieft, requires that he fhould behold in heaven the glory of Chrift, and be eternally with him. And of fuch we muft fay, from the premifes, that he coudd not have been loft but in violation of the divine faith- fulnefs. — We appeal, finally, § 32. 3. To the divine wifdom. This confider- ation will be principally directed in favour of the other part of the argument, That thofe who do not die faints never were faints. For it might be urged, that, admitting the divine purpofe and | JR Ag | faith- * John xvii, pafim. 280 . EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. faithfulnefs to bring to glory thofe who are eventu- ally faved, others who are not fo faved might be the fubjects of grace for a time; fuch grace as would have faved them, had they not drawn back unto perdition. In reply, we grant, that this hypothefis, as not militating againft the certain falvation of thofe who are eventually faved, .or the purpofe and faithfulnefs of Gop refpecting them, is not fo degrading to the divine charaéter as the other; but yet we regard it as unworthy of Gop in many refpects, and think it is virtually anfwered in our laft argument drawn from the Mediator’s prayer for all bedevers; and particularly we confider it as unworthy of the divine wi/dom on feveral accounts. | 1, Since every believer is, from an enemy, reconciled to Gop not only by the death of his Son, but alfo by the gift of his Spirits re- generated, juftified, adopted, and fan¢tified in the name of the Lord Jefus and by the Spirit of our Gop; the object of a peculiar love and compaftion, the fubject of a peculiar power ; fince he is forgiven, all paft fins blotted out, united to the Saviour and made the temple of the Holy Ghoft; reprefented in heaven by his high prieft, and interefted in his interceflion ; it muft be allowed that here is a very diftinguifbing favour fhewn him. He who at firft commanded the light to fhine out of darknefs hath fhined into his heart, to give him the light of the knowledge of the glory of Gop in the face of Jefus Chrift; hath raifed him from the grave of a natural flate, and brought him out of darknefs into his marvellous light. He hath quickened him toge- ther Ch. IV. Arminianifin. examined, | o8t ther with Chrift, as the effect of the great love wherewith he was loved when dead in fin; he with all faints beholds in a glafs the glory of the Lord, and is changed into the fame image from glory to glory, as by the fpirit of the Lord. Thefe are fome of the bleflings actually conferred on every faint, which, it muft be acknowledged, are miracles of mercy, quite above the courfe of nature and - common providence. Now we argue, that it appears repugnant to all the views we have of wif. dom, that any fhould be in thefe wonderful parti- culars the fubjects of fovereign grace, and after all be left to perith. 2. We argue from the grand effential diftin@ion which ever muft be maintained between mora/ Means and a fovereign operation, Were all that the {crip- tures relate, as done for faints, nothing more than the former, the cafe would be very different; and the conclufion of Arminians, and our modern Rationahjis in general who agree with them in this point, would be admiffible. We admit that Gop does great things for thofe who are finally loft, ia the way of moral means; he proclaims to them his adorable perfections, and exhibits to them his cove- nant mercy, his incarnate Son, whofe mediatorial fufficiency is a fource of univerfal encouragement, and in him life eternal. And this is peculiarly the cafe with thofe who are the fubjects of covenant feals and their attendant privileges, who yet may fall fhort of eventual falvation. But were we to admit that means are all, to the exclufion of fovercign operation, no flefh could be faved, The 282 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. The necefity of this operation has been before fhewn; let it fuffice to add, that the favours now referred to, and with which every be- liever is endowed, are not any thing fhort of fovereign operations as contradiftinguifhed from. the means properly fo called. And from hence we argue, that it appears incongruous to the charaGters of wifdom to feparate thefe from final falvation. Means appear to be the only inftruments of moral government, as they are fully adequate to that end; gracious operations therefore are not necefary for any degree of condemnation which might difplay the honours of juitice, feeing the © formal ground of all punifhment, as of all fin and accountablenefs, is not fovereign operation but fuitable means abufed. Now if neither final falvation, nor yet the difplay of juftice in their condemnation, be an end attained by thefe miracles of mercy, mutt not the fuppofition of a /aint’s being eternally loft be a bold impeachment of the divine wifdom ? § 33. From thefe confiderations we may, I think, fairly conclude, that Gop hateth putting away his faints, will perfec? that which concerns them, will never Jeave nor forfake them, nor the work of his own fovereign grace in them, that he who hath begun this good work will carry it on to pere fection ; guiding them by his counfel, he will re- ceive them to glory, and, girding them with firength, will make both their way and their end perfect. ‘That the fheep, who know his voice, and fhare his pardoning and purifying favour, fhall never Ch.1v. Arminianifm examined, ¢ 283: never perifh ; and having drank of the living water, fhall never thirft. If they fall they fhall arife ; and fhould the violent blaft of temptation injure the fruit, leaves and branches, the final evil shall not happen to the juft, nor fhall his roof be moved.* Though in them/elves there 1s every caufe of fear, and ground for caution; yet, in God there is abundant caufe of fafety, and falvation infallibly fecured. ‘* I will put my fear in their hearts, faith Gop, that they fhall not depart from me,” The tendency of their evil hearts is to go aftray, but my fear fhall prevent their apoitacy, Having loved his own, he loves them to the end, Chrift hath united them to himfelf by his Spirit, irre- fpectively of any worth in them, fhall he therefore difcontinue that union and influence becaufe they do not render themfelves worthy in a fubfequent period? If the enmity of their hearts, and the impurity of their lives, were no fufficient caufe why he fhould withhold his love, fhall their after imperfections determine him to withdraw his love? § 34. But a laboured vindication of perfever- ance, from a confideration of the numerous topics of argument with which the caufe might be defend- ‘ed, is not the point now defigned, fo much as its defence againft one radical objection urged by its oppofers, viz. That fuch would make the governs ment of God he bitegost This is the tendency of Dr, WuHITBY’s #: Proy. Xii,\4; 21. + Jers xvi. 75 Se 284 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. - ‘Wurtsy’s reafoning and remarks. He particu- larly urges, “It is ab/urd to pray or intercede for « that | perfeverance} which Gop hath abfolutely s¢ decreed — nor can it reafonably be fuppofed that «© an all-wife Gop fhould go about to juftify the - “© equity of his ways only by fuppofing things im- ‘© pofible by virtue of-his own decree and promile. “© To believe the doctrine of perfeverance is to « make Gop feriou/ly to threaten men for fuch’a “¢ fin’ [apofiacy} of which they are not capable, and «¢ of which they are obliged to believe they are not «¢ capable. —It feems incongruous to imagine that “¢ Gop fhould make an adfolute promife, that true - & believers fhould perfevere to the end, and be “ unfruftrably faved, and yet /z/pend their happi- <6 nefs and reward on this condition, that they do “© perfevere unto the end.” + : Many other paflages to the fame purpofe occur - in our author’s Difcourfe, but as they all terminate Gn one root, That it is icongruous, and unworthy of God as a juft Governor, to enfure, unfraftrably, the perfeverance of faints, and as our animadverfions on his work have confiderably {welled this Eflay, it would be fuperfluous and unpleafant to multiply quotations. This I believe is all that polemic fairnefs requires. We. proceed. therefore to ex- amine this radical principle in the following re- marks : 5] 1. If there be a moral fyftem, there muft be commands, virtual at leaft, and confequent obliga- tions. And as we are dependent upon Goon for all | we + Difcourfe, p. 388; 393, 398, 419+ Ch. IV. Arminianif examined. 285 we are, have, and do, it mut be reafonable to pray for divine aids, and to ufe ail moral means of per- fection. This, I prefume, will be readily admitted by all whofe underftandings are acceflible by argu- ‘ments, and whofe hearts are not the receptacles for the dregs of infidelity. 2. A moral fyftem fuppofes alfo, that the fubject of it, while in a ftate of probation, is expofed to danger, the danger of finning, and confequently of fuffering, the latter being the natural effect of the former. — Hence it follows, uP That no man, while in this probationary ftate, fhould confider himfelf fo fecure as to be above all danger; but fhould watch againft high- mindednefs, cultivate holy fear, and in this temper pafs the time of his fojourning on earth, perfecting holinefs, and working out, by divine afliftance, his own falvation by oppofing all fin. From hence muft appear the reafonablenefs, congruity, and beauty of fuch infpired addrefles as have a ten- dency to promote this frame of mind, and with which the facred records abound. Moreover, 4. There are, it muft be allowed, and our author does not deny, certain abfolute promifes, oz the part of God, that he will give grace and glory, never. leave nor forfake us, cand keep us by his mighty power through faith unto falvation, — Thus far we agree, and here is the place where we are obliged to part. But, 5. If the perfeverance of any be final, and they ! eventually faved, what impropriety is there in fay- ing, that they are preferved thus by their God unfru/- trably 2 286 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. trably ? Whatever of happinefs, of goodnefs, of réal entity, comes to pafs, is either by chance, blind unmeaning chance, or by a /ettled plan, to avow the former, is unworthy of the chriftian name, nay abhortent from uniophifticated reafon; to admit the latter, is the fame as to acknowledge, that the faints perfevere in confequence and in virtue of a fetiled plan, and therefore unfraftrably, which is what we contend for. However, § 35. Let us view the fubjed a little more clofe- ly. Ifthere were any real incongruity between the abfolute certainty of an event, and that event being reprefented as depending on a condition, which is the main objection urged, the whole fyftem of Providence refpecting man would be implicated in the charge. It is the duty of men, for inftance, to pray for their daily bread, fruitful feafons, the peace of the world, the fpread of the gofpel, and a thoufand other things; but who will venture to affert that thefe events are not included in the plan of providence to a certainty 2 If it be faid, This plan might have been otherwife if the conditions had been differently petformed, it will avail nothing to the obje@tor; for to make the event different from what it is, only implies, either, that the plan of providence would have been another, diverfe from what it really is, or, that it proceeds without any plan. Not the latter, furely ; and if the former, what is gained by it? Nothing, tn favour of Arminianifm. © If Ch, IV. Arniinianifin enanined, 284 If there be no incongruity, nothing unworthy of the juft Governor of the univerfe, in commanding us to pray and act in a conditional manner as to providential concerns, which ate the refult of a fixed plan; no good reafon can be fhewn why it fhould be incongruous to extend the command to gracious concerns, and the affairs of our falvation, though the refult of a plan equally fixed and unfruftrable. If I pray for the converfion of a finner, or the final falvation of a faint, why fhould this involve the ‘confequence that there is no certainty or fixed plan refpecting the event? In order to conftitute my prayers, endeavours, and the ufe of all preferibed ‘means, rational, mult God act without a ys or without fettling the refult ? The fac is, man, as the fubje& of moral eovern- ment, mujft be addreffed and dealt with conditionally. His rational powers, his deliberative freedom, his being fubjec to law and fanétions, and amenable to his Judge, require it. A being that obeys or difobeys by atiral neceflity is, in that refpeé, no moral agent; being impelled without deliberative choice. To propofe a condition to fuch would be indeed incongruous, for there is no room to delibe- rate on the claims of the object préfented. But the hypothetical neceflity, or certainty of the event, which we hold, admits no lefs of deliberation and condi- tional propofals than the oppofed hypothefis, which rejects the divine purpofes of election and unfrufs trable perfeverance. In reality, our knowledge of the event is not the “yule of our obligation. Our author fuppofes, that ~if the event, that is to fay perfeverance, were knows or > 288 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. or Jelieved to be unfruftrable, this would have a real tendency to relax the perfon’s efforts. But on what principle of religion or morals are we autho- rifed to form this conclufion? The miftake is, indeed, but too common; fome have even avowed, that if they kvew any individual to be a non-eled?, they would neither pray for him, nor ufe any -means for his converfion. Such muft overlook the very effential eternal difference there is between Gon’s decretive plan and his reéoral will. Our author’s-hypothefis muft, of courfe, refer the important event, perfeverance, to the will of man as the proper caufe, the prime difcriminating efficient; and confequently, there is no evidence in the nature of things, if our reafoning (§ 26—29.) on the will being determined by grace be valid, that one faint will ever perfevere, or that God can have, without firft obtaining leave of man’s free will, or felf-determining power, even fo much as one faint to inherit glory. If any perfevere, it muft not be, it fhould feem, by wufrufirable grace, but by the exclufive efficacy of fruftrable human will. ‘ There are fome terms in this part of the objection which are not properly applied: particularly where a faint is reprefented on our principles, as not capable of apoftacy, and obliged to delieve he is not. Whereas — we maintain that the moft eminent faint is both capable and even certain of falling, if not prevented by fovereigh grace, and therefore is obliged to believe fo. If he is not capable of apoftacy, if that evil one toucheth him not, it is becaufe the ever- lafting @~ Ch, IV. Arminianifm examined. 289 lafting arms are underneath, and his feed remaineth in him, through fovereign interpofition. The queftion is not whether he ts under the fame laws with others, liable to the fame dangers, or in him/elf capable of falling; but whether the acknowledged event, actual perfeveranice unto falvation, does not imply fuch a divine arrangement, or fixed purpofe, as renders the union between grace and glory ~ unfruftrably certain. We maintain, indeed, that he who loves Gop ¢ruly, fhall continue to do fo eter- nally; and yet, ifa true lover of Gop were per- mitted to fall fo far as to ceafe to love him truly, it is manifeft he can draw no inference of encou- ragement while in that ftate, Befides, we are agreed as to the confequence of apoftacy, that thofe who are the fubjects of it cannot inherit the kingdom of Gop. But the ~ difference confifts in the fuppofed antecedent fate of thofe who apoftatize totally and finally from the profeflion of the truth. While Arminians hold that grace is extinguifhed in them, we maintain they never had received the truth in the love of it; in other words, that the nature of genuine holinefs never exifted in them, for reafons before adduced. (§ 30, &c.) Therefore, the perfuafion we have of our fafety, can operate no further againft holy fear and watchfulnefs, and the practice of piety, than the contrary perfuafion. For obfervable remiffnefs in the chriftian’s life, would argue againft the reality of grace, on our fyftem, as well as againtt atiual poffefion, on the other. And the remedy in both cafes muft be the fame—penitential humilia- U tion 290 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. tion on account of defects, and application to the throne of grace for needful fupplies. § 36. Thus we have attempted a fair and full inveftigation of the queftion, Whether the Calvi- niftic explanation of the points in difpute be incon- fiftent with divine equity; and to prove, that neither abfolute E/eétion, particular Redemption, our - doétrine of diftinguifhing and efficacious grace, the Will determined by grace, nor the Perfeverance of faints, imply the leaft refle&tion on this adorable attribute. How far the reafoning in the preceding pagesis conclufive, let the impartial, and competent reader determine. Ifthe validity of it be admitted, it muft alfo be acknowledged that the caufe of Arminianifm is proportionably weakened. SECT. Ch. IV. Arininianifm examined. 291 Seen. 0). UE. Whether Sovereignty, in the Calviniftic fenfe of . the term, be a divine Attribute, § 1 Introduftion. The fubje flated, and its imports - ance. § 2, That there is in Deity an attribute anfwerable to our definition of fovereignty argued from, 1. The felf-exiftence and independence of Ope) $09: 2," His all-fufficience and abfolute liberty. § 4. 3. From the effential imperfection of all creatures; and efpecially, § 5. The precari- oufnefs of the creatures? liberty. § 6. 4. The wifdom of Gop. § 7. 4. The chief end of all creation. § 8.—12. Corollaries, § 1. HIE; definition of the word “ fovercignty,?. afcertaining the fenfe in which I under- ftand it, and which the calviniftic ‘fyftem requires, has been given before, when the principal terms which occur in this work were profefledly ex- plained*. What we now propofe is to prove, That Gop is actually poffeffed of an abfolute right to will and to do whatever is not tnconfiftent with his own effence, intelleé?, and fixed purpo/e. Sovereignty cannot extend fo far as to counteraé a divine immanent purpofe adfually formed; for this would imply that he had purpofed imperfectly, . without wifdom, capricioufly, or without a plan. U 2 : Let ’ Ch.L @s. "292 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Let it be obferved, however, that by purpofe we in- tend fomething fuperior to the prefent fettled laws of nature, which, pofibly, may be fufpended, controled, counteracted, oreven annihilated, without neceflarily impeaching the divine fovereignty. For it muft be allowed that all this was, antecedently confidered, an object of fovereignty ; and may, for any thing that can be advanced, @ priori, be a part of the aiiual purpofe. Though our opponents permit themfelves to fpeak fometimes very flightingly, I may fay with great rathne(s, of decrees and purpofes, in the com- monly received Calviniftic fenfe of the terms; yet I do not recollect that any author ferioufly objects ‘toa right in Gop to form, or even to the actual exiftence of fome decrees. Nor is it probable that any one will objec to the irreverfibility of thofe which are admitted to exift. We are therefore agreed, that what is thus irreverfibly propofed, be it what it may, is incapable of incroachment by any divine right, however ab/aluse in other re{pects. Again, it cannot be fuppofed that either fide will queftion this propofition, That nothing can be the objet of divine right but what is reprefented to. the divine intellect as pofible. That, for inftance, the divine intellect fhould reprefent a felf-exiftent or independent creature, is impoflible ; for it would imply two {upremes, created and uncreated, which ‘5 a direct encroachment on the divine effence, and ‘therefore infinitely abfurd. | Moreover, it is allowed, that nothing inconfiftent with the divine efence can be a matter of divine MF right, Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined, 293 right, as that would involve the grofieft contradic~ tion. And, for the fame reafon, whatever is incon- fittent with any ¢ffential attribute of deity, cannot be an object of divine right. For what belongs to the divine effénce muft belong to effential perfections, whether natural or moral. | Once more, it muft be acknowledged that what ever is inconfiftent with any effential perfection of deity is inequitable, fince by the term ‘“‘ equity,” we underftand ‘“‘ a giving unto all their due,” confe- quently, a right to what is inconfiftent with equity, is a right to encroach on the rights of Gop ! aright to violate infinite reéfitude ! a right to withhold from Gop his effential due! abfurdities which require no comment.—Thefe things duly confidered, our propofition firft mentioned, and which was propofed for demonftration, may be rendered a little fhorter, and lefs complicated, thus: God has an abfolute right to will and io do whatever is not inconfiftent with equity; and as there is no ground of difpute between the advocates of the oppofite fyftems refpecting any object of fove- reignty except what relates to accountable moral. agents, in order, therefore, to fimplify the propo- fition ftill more, we may add; that equity which gives to all accountabie moral agents their DUE. The importance of this principle in Theo- logy, and efpecially in the examination of Ar- -minianifm, muft be evident to all who have. attended. to the fubject.. If God were not effentially fovereign, in the fenfe now explained, it would be a difficulty infuperable to defend the caufe for which we plead; and, to {peak my mind |i freely, 294 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. freely, there would be in my view no fyftem of morality or of religion worth contending for, On: the contrary, the avowal of Gop’s abfolute right, as now ftated, muft needs affect the latitudinarian caufe very effentially. This being the cafe, let me folicit the reader’s clofeft and moft candid attention. But before we proceed to eftablith our pofition, it may be proper, ftill more explicitly, to caution him againft the fuppofition that Arminians reject every notion of divine fovereignty 5 what we therefore intend is, that there is in Deity an eflential attribute anfwera- ble to the definition, and which Dr. Waritsy in all his Di/courfes on the contefted points virtually denies. . § 2. That Sovereignty is, in our fenfe of the - word, a perfection effential to Deity, appears from this one gencral remark, That dominion, or rightful power is a real excellence, according to the degree in which it prevails in every rational being, ‘tind therefore belongs to Gop in an infinite degree, feeing he is conteffedly the fource of all excellence; nor does there appear any poffible ground of objection againft its being extended, in its ope. rations, to the moft abfolute degree. Let us however be a little more particular: : 1. The felf-exirence and independence of Gop necef- farily imply that he is above control, with refped ' to his creatures, as to moral as well as natural power; poffeffed not only of unfruftrable phyfical firength, but alfo of sdb hte right. For who . in Gs ey B10 Arminianifm examined. 295 in earth or heaven has a right to fay, in the language of control, “* What doeft thou?” Here obferve, (1.) His felfexiftence is not affected by. giving exiffence to creatures, the production of his own will, It cannot be fuppofed that he refigned to others any thing that was previoufly and effentially his. Confequently, as felf-exiftence implies an abjolute right in Gop to will and do whatever is not inconfiftent with equity, as it re{pects him/elf, fo Gop continues, notwithftanding the exiftence of creatures, to poflefs that abfolute right, as it refpects them that is, while they have their due. (2.) Self-exittence is not affetied by the non-ex- iftence, or annihilation, of creatures. It cannot be conceived that the dependent exiftence of crea- tures implies, from the mere fact of their exifting, a claim upon Gop for the continuance of it. He, therefore, has an abfolute right, in equity, to recall when he pleafes the being he has given. (3.) Self-exiftence implies an abfolute right to preferibe the mode and condition of dependent exift- ence, while not inconfiftent with equity. Hence the amazing variety of creatures! Hence the degrees in the fcale of being and of excellence! Nor can there be any ground of remonftrance for any one, in all this'aftonifhing aflemblage of beings, however difhonourable or mean it may be in comparifon of others, why its mode or condition of exiftence fhould be different from what it 1s. And while thefe creatures, in whatever part of the univerfe they -exift, have any modification whatloever, including U 4 the 296 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the greateft degrees of pleafure and pain, in equity, this abfolute right is not affecied thereby, any more than felf-exiftence, § 3. 2. The all-/ufficience of Gon, and his abfolute liberty, or freedom to choofe out'of all poffibles, imply the poffeffion of that abfolute right for which we contend. Our opponents will find no reluctance in allowing that Gop ever poffeffed an all-fufficience adequate to an endlefs variety of plans ; and that he was at abfolute liberty to adopt which he pleafed in equity. But they feem not to be aware that the very principle for which they contend, the high prerogative of reg wILL, deftroys their fyftem; that is, that the. rree wiLt, the abfolute liberty which is effential to Gop, requires, and neceflarily implies the abjolute contrel of mans liberty. While they contend in favour of human free-will to the exclufion of divine decrees refpecting that will, they muft neceffarily raife the former above the latter, and fo make the liberty of Gop inferior to that of man. For there cannot be two Supreme liberties, any more than two felf-fuficien- cies; the one muft needs be fubordinate to, and controled by the other. If the freedom of Gop be not fupreme and abfolute, then is he not all-fufici- ent; if it be, then is man’s liberty limited, re. ftrained, and directed thereby. And if our liberty be fubject to control, then the whole of our condi- tion, modifications, and future ftate. Therefore the all-fufficience of Gon, as an adequate object of infinite liberty, and liberty itfelf which is power, and therefore in Gop to an infinite degree, imply an Ch, IV. Arminianifin examined. 267 an abfolute right in Gop to will and a&t whatever is not inconfiftent with equity; and confequently to . influence and control the moft uncontrolable thing inman, his freedom. Gods or man’s liberty muff reign {upreme. § 4. 3, We next appeal, in proof of divine 7 Sovereignty, to the effential inperfection of all creas tures, As there can be, it is {elf-evident, but one abfolutely perfect being, the felf-exiftent and all. {ufficient JEHovan, it is equally evident, that all others are effentially imperfe@. But this eflential imperfection implies, that effential perfection fhould have an abfolute right to difpofe of it in any poflible way not inconfiftent with equity ; even in all thofe refpects wherein its imperfection confifts. As, therefore, every creature, compared with Gob, is imperfect as to being, properties, volitions, a@i- ons, &c. it muft be eflential to Gop to pofiefs and exert the Sovereignty of which we ipeak, § 5. Among the imperfections effential to crea- tures, we muft reckon the precariou/ue/s of their liberty; their defectibility, and uncertainty of pre. fervation entering into the very eflence of their freedom, Nothing is more characteriftic of the awful difference between the Creator and his accountable creatures than that of indefectibility, abfolute cer- tainty, and infalibillity, in him, and in them the reverfe. But this precarioufnefs mui imply a fovereign referve, a controling power, an abfoléte right to influence, direc, preferve; to over-rule, and , 29% EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ' and rectify the miftakes of defectible freedom. If not, Gop would beftow a power over which he had no right, and the abufes of which he could not reaiey: In fhort, to deny to Gop fuch a fove- reignty as we {peak of, is the fame as to allow him fkill to make a curious machine, the very nature of which implies a liability to get out of repair, but the defects of which are irremediable. It is to allow him fkill to make man upright, but not to vifit him with grace and mercy from forefight and purpofe.—This being the creature’s imperfection, and the Creator’s right, there is no affignable reafon why it fhould not extend to every thing not incon- fiftent with Equity, according to our denne of it. § 6. 4. Our definition of Sovereignty is implied in the notion effential to divine wifdom. Wifdom implies forefight and provifion; but excludes all chance, and fettles every thing that is a proper objet of it. This clearly fuppofes an abfolute right to exclude all contingence, and to will and do whatever is not inequitable. Surely wifdom belongeth unto Gop, and known unto him are all his works of nature and grace, in every degree and to the late period. To effed all good, and to prevent much evil, are fovereign acts, not one of which is unjuft; but we dare not, we cannot fay, without violating juffice, that moral evil is an object of fovereign caufation, or indeed of fove- reignty, properly {peaking, in any fenfe. Holy equity gives occafion to moral evil to fhew itfelf; but Ch. IV. Arminianifn examined, 299 but fovereign wifdom prevents the univerfal {fpread, and its horrible effects, to the degree it fees proper. —§ 7. 5. The chief end of all created exiftence implies that Sovereignty, in our fenfe of it, is effential to Gop. That Gop “ made all things for himfelf,”’ that is, to reprefent his own excellence, is not only the language of fcripture, but alfo the verdict of impartial reafon.* But if fo, who fees not that this implies divine Sovereignty ? For isit conceivable that Gop fhould form all things, in order, chiefly, to difplay his own adorable excel. lence, and yet not poffefs a fovereignty over them? After all the evidence which has been produced, and the reference made to Prefident EDWARD$’s matterly performance on the fubje@ of this lat argument, I hope it will be needlefs to enlarge, and truft it may be faid without arrogance, that the original propofition is fairly demonftrated; viz: “© That Gop has an abfolute right to will and to do whatever is not inconfiftent with equity; that equity which gives to all accountable moral agents their puz.” Nor am I aware of any objections that may be urged with any plaufibility. againg thefe arguments.—It remains therefore to notice the consEquEeNces which flow from the proof given. § 8. 1. Coroll, That Gop had an abjolute right . to * See Epwarps’s Differtation, concerning the end for which Gop created the world, pafim; and Se&. V. of this work, 300 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. to predeftinate whom he pleafed of his rational creatures to eternal glory. It has been proved before,* that the decree of ele@tion, or merciful predeftination, is not inconfiftent with equity; and in the foregoing paflages it has been proved that Gop has, effentially, an abfolute right to will and to do whatever 1s not inequitable ; whence the corollary follows; that he has a right to predetti, nate to eternal glory whom he will. § y. 2. Coroll. “That Gop had an abfolute right to redeem {ome of the human race with a decretive foeciality. It has been proved before,+ that to extend redemption decretively to fome more than to others is perfectly confiftent with equity; and it has been now proved, that Gop’s right extends to every fuch object; whence the confequence is inevitable, that particular redemption, in the fenfe » before explained, is an object worthy of God asa fovereign. : § 10. 3. Coroll. ‘That Gop has an abjolute right to confer /pecial grace upon, and infufe gra- cious habits into whom he pleafes. That to do this, is confiftent with equity, has been fhewn before;{> and we have been wow proving that Gon’s right is abfolute as to every thing which ts not inequitable; from whence it follows, that his right includes the conferring of /peczal grace, Wie be # - * Sect. I. § 9. +f Ibid. § 10,&c. + Ibid. § 21, &e. Chi ty: Arminianif examined. — 301 § 11. 4. Coroll, That Gop has an abfolute right to determine the will by his gracious influence. To do this, we have fhewn before, is not inequi- table ;* and now it has been demonftrated, that Gop’s right extends to every fuch object ; confe- quently, there lies no ground of complaint againft his determination of the human will by gracious. influence on the mind. —§ 12. 5. Coroll, That Gop has an abjfolute right to caufe, effectually, all thofe who are faints to perfevere in a ftate of grace unto eternal fal- vation. We muft obferve, as before, that the perfeverance of faints has been proved to be not inconfiftent with any principle of equity ;+ and Gon’s right includes every fuch object, as now proved ; therefore the truth of the Corollary cannot be impeached. SECT. * Ibid. § 26, &c. + Ibid. § 30, &e. 402 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. SRC T. MTV: Whether the certainty, or hypothetical neceflity of future events, be confiftent with that freedom which is effential to moral agency. § 1. Lntroduttion. The fubjeét not exhaufted. § 2. General Remarks. § 3. The difference between Jevence, decree, and prafcience. § 4, That there are. ‘hypothetical tendencies and refults independent of all will. § §. The more freedom is claimed, the more certain the refult of it. §6. The juft limits of the liberty of moral agents, and tts confefience with hypothetical neceffity demonftrated. § 7—10. The rife and progrefs of the controverfy between the — Calvinifts and Arminians, in which Mr. Fuetcu- : ER took fo active a part. § 11. Arminian conce/— jfoons.. § 12. Obfervations on them. §13. The chief caufe of the different conclufions. § 14. The charge of God being made the author of fin retorted, § 15. The nature of fin. § 16, Self-perverfion zs not the origin of fin, § 17. Its true origin proved and explained. § 18, The confiftency of certainty and moral agency proved from the ac- knowledged certain futurition of events. § 19. The Arminian account. of fore-knowledge infufficient, §20, 21. A fuller explanation of the prefené . Sfaftem. ' 7 Ch. IV. | Arminianifmn examined, 303 Sftem. §22-—35. Mr. Fuercusr’s moft power- fuland popular objediions azainft Caluiniftic necef- Sty, anfwered ; whereby is hewn more July the truth and importance of the {y/tem here maintained, and the weakne/s. of its. oppofite. § 36. Conclu- rons from the premifes. 3 I. § 1.) on which the fabric of Arminian- i/m refts, this is one, That the certainty, or, as the Arminians choofe to reprefent the cafe by a ftronger term, the nece/fity of future events is not confiftent with that freedom which is eflential to moralagency, Dr. Wuitsy ftrenuoufly contends that the will is free ““as well from Neceffity, as from coaction,’’* to which he appropriates feveral chapters ; and one in particular is entitled, <* Pro= pounding Arguments from Reajon to evince this freedom of the will from Neceflity.”’+ Later Arminians, efpecially Mr. Frercuer, have {aid much on the fubjeé, though candid: conceffions have fometimes been made, amounting nearly to all for which we contend, in the midft, or at the more fedate clofe, of the moft violent oppofition. «Mr. Jonatuan Epwarps, without the Materialifm and mere philofophic mechanifm of PRigsTLEy, or the unguarded bluntnefs and fevere farcafms of Toptapy, made a noble effort to fhew that the freedom of the will and moral agency are not | | Inconfiftent §1. OF the firee pillars before mentioned, (Sect. - * On the Five Points, Pp. 328. + Ibid. pe 344. 304 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. inconfiftent with all necefity. But if we judge from the effect it has produced, we mutt infer either that his ‘‘ Inquiry,’’ is not rightly underftood by our Arminian friends, or that there is fome defect in his mode of reprefenting the fubject, fince Mr. FLetcuHER has often conceded the whole of ve Mr. Epwarps profeffedly contended for, i. That Freedom is confiftent with fome nbsebivgs : The prefent writer has long thought, and fill thinks, that the fubje&t has by no means been exhaufled, notwithftanding all he has met with in {cholaftic and modern divinity, moral philofophy and metaphyfics. If any additional or new light is, in thefe pages, thrown upon the fubject, whereby may be difcovered, that the frightful gulfs, which were fuppofed by good people on the © oppofite fides to be impaffable, are fordable and perfectly fafe ; by which means there may be among fuch people a more free exchange of Chriftian Jove and evangelical fentiments ; ‘the author will have reafon to confider the circumftance as one of the greateft favours conferred upon him by provi- dence, and one of the highett gratifications of his life. § 2. Before we proceed to inveftigate the fenti- ments propofed, I would offer a few. ie bina ; : . The reader ought not -to overlook ‘the efinititns given of the terms under confidera- tion ; efpecially the terms ‘ moral agency” and “ neceffity.”’* If by thefe terms the writer fhould - intend | * Char. 1. passim ; PCH LY, Arminianifm examined. 305 intend one thing, and the reader underftand an- other, there is little hope of agreement, be the. reafoning what it may. What is here afferted, therefore, is, that this hypothetical neeeffity, or, in other words, the ¢ruly future certainty of an event, does not infringe moral agency in the accomplifh- ment of that event. 2. Though a great outcry has been made againft the antinomian tendency of Calvinifm in general, and Calviniftic neceffity in particular, yet all, who have a grain of candour left among heaps of prejudice, muft acknowledge, That thofe who have held the fubftance of the doctrine here maintained, have been uniformly, and equally ftrenuous for the exiftence of moral obligation, the accountablenefs of man, and perfonal holinefs, with others who have op- pofed it; which is at leaft a fufficient exculpation of them from any immoral defign. That bad men have efpoufed doth fides, is no juft impeachment of either. As, for inftance, the religious charaGer of Prefident Epwarps having never been called in queftion, our opponents themfelves being judges, any more than that of Mr. Frercuer; it cannot be inferred that the patrons of hypothetical necef- fity are avowed oppofers of moral agency and accountablenefs, or even that it produces ill effects in thofe who hold it, azy more than in thofe who reject the fentiment. Perhaps, could an eftimate be fairly and extenfively made, the hypothetical neceffitarians would not appear to difadvantage by the comparifon; and, what is more, perhaps the genuine tendency of both fyftems may be fhewn to be | Wr decidedly 306 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. decidedly in our favour. It is hoped that this publication may affift in fuch an inquiry. ig ade _ 3. Among all good mea, a regard for the honour of God, more than the rights of man, is the matter of holy jealoufy. And it gives me no {mall pleafure to reflect that our oppofing brethren uniformly and openly avow their acquiefcence in thefe two grand AXIOMS: vy fe aa | I Axiom. All coop is of Gop. Il Axiom. All eviu ts of OURSELVES. Jn the following pages, it is prefumed, it will appear, that no fyftem of religion or. morals op- pofite to what is here defended, can be made fairly and truly to agree with both axioms. | _.4, Among modern writers. of religious refpecta- bility; no one has. appeared, on the draunian fide of the queition, with more polemical acumen, or more open decifion, than the Rev. Joun FLercuer, in his numerous controverfial writings. Candour dictates, and the love of real godlinefs, that Mr. F’s, character fhould be held in great efteem. His ardent love of Gop, and zealous efforts to reform, convert, and fave fouls; his humbling reprefenta- tions of himfelf, and warm afcriptions of praife to grace and the Saviour ; his ufefulnefs as a minifter, -and in fome refpects as a writer; and. his worth as a member of fociety demand cordial acquiefcence. With fuch acknowledgments, let it not be con- ftrued a breach of chriftian charity to avamine his pofitions and reafonings on the fubject before us. It has been often faid, ‘That if all good men did but rightly underfiand each other, there would appear | much Ch.IV. § —— Arminianif examined, 307 ) much lefs difference between them than there is ; and it is a remark, I am fully perfuaded, founded in truth. Should I therefore fucceed (which may the Gop of love and wifdom grant!) in giving the admirers of this writer a more ju/, and therefore a more conciliatory view of the matter of difference be- tween what he avowedly held and what I confider as real defenfible Calvinifm; I fhall with heart-felt - pleafure infer, that I have not lived or laboured in - vain. _: But, § _ What claims our immediate attention is, the proof of what is propofed, before we come to notice what has beén objeéfed to it; which is at- tempted by the following explanatory Propofttions. I. Propos. Vhere is a real and important dif tinction between /cience, decree, and prefcience, as applied to Gop. 1. Science relates and extends to all pofibles, with all their diverfities and diftin@ions, as included in the divine all-fufficiency. 2. Decree, being an aé of the divine will, where- by one general fyftem is chofen, in preference to any other, in the numberlefs ranks of poffibles, relates onLy to the adopted fy/tem. And as wifdom is effential to Deity, the fyftem chofen muft be a wife one; 1. e. the beft calculated to anfwer the end propofed. Confequently, without a decree there can be no actual or pofitive exiftence, 3. Prefcience relates to the fyftem fo adopted as to its truly certain futurition. — Science, therefore, relates to what might have been, had Gop willed ‘it W 2 to 308 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. to be, with an efficient or decretive will; Decree relates to all actual pofitive exiftence, whether patt, prefent, or future; and Prefcience to the certain futurition of fuch obj ects, §4. IL. Propos. There are Aypothetical tendencies and refults in the very nature of things, irrefpective of all will concerning them. To elucidate this propofition, obferve : io 1. The divine intellec beholds all poffibles, as contained in the divine all-fufficiency, individually ; and the divine wifdom beholds the fame objects Sftematically. | 2. That there is a. megative hypothetical ten- dency and refult, both individually and fy ftema- tically confidered, is demonftrative from the confideration of the paffive power effential to all created exiftence. For inftance, ir Gop withdraw all fupport from a creature, it ceafes to exifl, &c, 3. That there is alfo a pofitive hypothetical ten- dency and refult, relative to the individuals and the fyftem, is equally demonftrative from the confider- ation of the divine efficience. For inftance, 1F Gop choofe either good or evil, he will certainly choofe good; iF he exert creating power, created effects will follow, &c. § 5. "I. Propos. The more freedom we claim for any creature, the more firmly hall we eftablith the confequence, that, in the |view of Gop, the tendency and refult of that freedom is forefeen and provided for. In proof of this propofition obferve, | ae Wel Ch.1V.—- Avininianifin examined. 309 1. The freedom of a moral fyftem implies the poffibility of a deviation from reftitude. This en- ters into the very foundation of accountablenefs, 2. The hypothetical refult of every moral fy{tem poffible is included in the divine {cience, But, 3. If freedom implies defectibility, and the divine fcience, or all-perfect ‘knowledge, fees the hypothetical refult of all fyftems poffible; it fol- lows, that a decretive fixednefs of all the good, from whence refults the certain fuiurition of all events, is included in our clear and confiftent no- tion of divine goodnefs and wifdom. If a moral fyftem be formed free, in the higheft fenfe conceivable, and there be no decretive cere tainty of the refult of it, as far as it is good; that fyftem is liable to perpetual ruin without a peffi- bility of being retrieved. For, as all good is from God, he muft either decree the refult of it, or, on fuppofition of failure in the fyftem, alter his plan, which alteration to impute to the divine mind is unworthy of our notion of infinite perfection. If therefore it be unworthy of an infinite mind, alike, to operate without a plan, and to alter a plan once formed ; and if nothing can be to nim abfolutely contingent; the confequence is unavoidable, that the more free the fyftem is, the more /iad/e it 1s to perpetual ruin, without a poffibility of being cor- rected and retrieved, if the goodnefs of the refult be not decreed ; an omiffion which is incompatible with the divine goodne/s. | . Again: To create a fyftem which may rufh to ruin, without making a decretive provifion for the W 3 hypothetical! 310 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. hypothetical good refult of it, is inconfiftent with all juft notions of perfect wifdom. Nor can it be queftioned, without denying the firft Axiom, that if the refult be good, it muft be of Ged. And that it fhould be of Gop, without his wil, or decretive . purpofe, is impoffible. 1. Coroll. The higher we carry our fuppofition of liberty, the more firmly, in the genuine confe- quence, do we eftablifh a decretive hypothetical necefity. The more I am left to my own difpofal, the more neceffary is it for Gop to take care of the refult; and to give efficiency for the production of good, in fuch a manner as to fecure a refult worthy of his wifdom and goodnefs in giving exiftence to the moral fyftem. | 2. Coroll, That there fhould be in the univerfe fuch a “iberty in accountable creatures, or free agents, as excludes the infallible certainty of any future event, is impoffible. § 6. IV. Propos. A moral agent has no more liberty than what is needful to conftitute his ac- countablenefs. For, fy 1. In all thofe cafes where accountablenefs is not concerned, philofophical neceflity is incontrovertible. The irrational part of the world is complete mechanifm, a mechanifm truly wonderful, and worthy of its Author! For what has no moral defect, is worthy of a Being infinitely perfect decretively to appoint, and powerfully to effectuate. Yet, . 2. Were not the re/u/t of moral agency known to Chi PY: Arminianifn examined. 3 311% to Gon, that refult, be it what it may, (though, by the bye, it could not be good but by his efficiency) would be an everlafting monument of degradation to his goodnefs and wifdom. But, 4, For the knowledge of this refult there muft be fame aflignable reafon, or ground of certainty, in oppofition to perfect contingence. To deny this, would be to advance contradictions without caufe ; except it be the forming of a convenient plea to con- ceal, or rather to detect ignorance. Wherefore, 4, Inafmuch as ail creatures which are not ac- countable are the fubjects of neceffity, to the exclufion of that liberty which is exercifed about moral good and evil: and ail creatures, without exception, have a pafive power, and an infallible Aypothetical tendency, from the very nature of their dependence ; hence it follows, that no created being, and confe- quently no moral, agent, has more liberty than what is needful to conftitute his accountablene/s. 5. What conftitutes accountablenefs, from our definition, is a capacity to enjoy the chief good ; means of preferving rectitude, or of not finning, both fuitable and fufficient; a power which ex- cludes all abjolute neceflity of finning, or abufing means; and an inftrumental power of improving them. Now as thefe grounds of accountablenefs. are perfectly confiftent with hypothetical neceflity, and as a moral agent has no more liberty than what is needful to conftitute his accountablenefs, it irre- fragably follows, that hypothetical neceffity 1s not inconfiftent with moral agency, Q. jong wre ay Faas > 3 312 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. : § 7. To the generality of readers, who are not accuftomed to abftra& reafoning, and metaphyfical precifion, the method which confiders the fenti- ments, and examines the objeéfions, of the moft able and ingenious writers in the oppofition, is moft -inftruétive and co nvincing. The ability and celebrity of Mr. Frercuegr, as a writer againft the Calviniftic fyftem_-in general, and efpecially that part of it which is the fubjeé of the prefent article, have been before obferved ; and this confideration, in my view, juftifies a peculiar attention to his arguments and objections, as far as our immediate inquiry is concerned. By way of introduéfion to the examination we propofe, it will not be improper, or unacceptable to the reader, to notice the occafun of his engaging {9 warmly on the Arminian fide, efpecially as this may throw fome light on his mode of expreffion. This I fhall endeavour to do with all poffible brevity. In duguft 1770, the Rev. Joun Wes.ey, and the preachers in his connection, held a conference in London. Of the converfation which then paffed {ome minutes were made and printed. From thefe minutes,* an extract was made and annexed toa ee circular “ Some of the expreffions in that conference were: * Tale heed to your doéftrine: We {aid, 1744, We have leaned too much to Calvinifin, Wherein ? 1. With regard to man’s faith Sulnefi. 2, With regard to working for life. 3. We have received it as a maxim, *That a man is to do nothing iz erder to juftification: Nothing can be more falfe2? —- Again: “ Is not this [i. e. he that is Jincere is accepted of Gop] falvation by Works ? Not by the merit of works, but by ‘ works, - Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined, 313 circular printed letter, drawn up and figned by the Hon. and Rev. WaLTER SaIRLEY, purporting, That as Mr. Wesiey’s conference was to be held at Briftol on the approaching Auguf 6th, 1771, it was propofed by many chriitian friends to have a meeting there at the fame time, of fuch principal perfons both clergy and laity, who difapproved of the minutes; in order that, provided a formal recantation of the faid minutes were not made, they fhould fign and publith their prote? againtt them. The letter concludes with thefe words: “© It is fubmitted to you, whether it would not be right, in the oppofition to be made to fuch a dreadful here/y, to recommend it to as many of your chrif- tian friends, as well of the Diffenters, as of the eftablifhed Church, as you can prevail on to be there, the caufe being of fo pubic a nature.” § 8. This circular printed letter, roufed Mr. FLETCHER to write “* A Vindication of the Rev. Mr. Wesxey’s laft Minutes,” confifting of five Letters works as a conditicn. — As to merit itfelf, of which we have been fo dreadfully afraid : We are rewarded according to our works, yea, becaufe of cur works. How does this differ from for the fake of our works? And how differs this from /ecundum merita operum ? As our pe deferve ? Can you fplit this hair? I doubt, I cannot.’ _ Finally: * Does not talking of a juftified or fandtified fiate, tend to miflead men? Almoft naturally leading them to truft in what was done in one moment? Whereas we are every hour and every moment pleafing or difpleafing to Gop, according to our works? According to the whole of eur inward tempers, and outward behaviour.” Vid. Mr. FLErCHER’s Vindic. Pref. 314 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Letters addrefled to Mr. Suirztey, the author of it. To other more private reafons which Mr, F. affigns for fiding with Mr. W. on this occafion, he adds the following: ‘¢ The leave you give both Churchmen ani Diffenters, to direct to you their anfwers to your circular letter, are my excufe for intruding upon you this epiftle; and my apo- logy for begging your candid attention, while I attempt to convince you that my friend’s principles and minutes are not heretical: in order to this I fhall lay before you, and the principal perfons both clergy and laity, whom you have from ail parts of England and Wales convened at Briffo/, by printed letters, —a general View of the Rev. Mr. Wes- LEY’s doétrine —an Account of the commendable defign of his minutes —-a Vindication of the pro- _ pofitions which they contain.” This Vindication, finifhed uly 29, 1771, about five weeks, I believe, after the appearance of the circular letter, was fent in manufcript to Briftol. To the honour of truth and religion be it abferved, that the {pirit manifefted at the Briffol conference was amiable; but the con- troverfy to which thefe {mall beginnings gave rife, was of no {mall magnitude, The Vindication of the minutes was confidered by the author and his party as a feafonable check to Antinomianifm; Mr. Sxiriey wrote a‘* Nar- rative of the bufinefs; Mr. F. publifhes a &¢ Second Check to Antinomianifm,” in letters addrefi- ed to the fame author; this fecond check is fol- lowed by a publication of ‘ Letters ” addrefied to Mr. F. by the refpectable author of Pietas Oxoni- enfiss Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined. 315 enfis,; Mr. F. publifhes, early in 1772, a “ Third Check to Antinomianifm,” in reply to that author; that author again rejoins in a feries of Letters, and his Rev. brother, Mr. R. Hitt, by * Friend. ly Remarks;” in reply to both, Mr. F. produces — << Logica Genevenfis ; or, a Fourth Check to Antino- mianifm,” in a feries of Letters to thofe gentlemen ; R. Hivz, Efq. author of the former productions, publifhes ** The Finifhing Stroke;” Mr. F. re- plies in his ** Logica Genevenfis continued: or, The Firft Part of the Fifth Check to Antinomianifm ;” and at the fame time the Second Part of the fame check, addrefled to Mr. BerripGe, author of the s¢ Chriftian World unmafked.” § 9. Now Mr. FiercHer ftops a little to take breath, after fo long a polemical career, and to take a more comprehenfive view of doth fides the controverted queftions. After this deliberate fur- vey, came out ‘¢ The Firft Part of an Equal Check | to Pharifaifm and Antinomiani{m,”’ confifting of Effays, 8c. and foon after the Second Part of an Equal Check, under a new Title, “* Zelotes and Honeftus reconciled; or, An Equal Check to Pharifaifm and Antinomianifm continued ; being the Firff Part of the Scripture Scales.’ ‘This was publithed at the clofe of the year 17743 and fol- lowed the next year by the Second Part of the Scripture Scales, with Mr. Hit1’s fictitious, and Mr. F’s. genuine creed for Arminians.”” Prefixed to the ‘¢ Scripture Scales” is an Advertifement, of which the following is an Abftract: ‘* The author of 316 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. of the Checks has promifed to his readers an Anfwer to the Rev. Mr. Toptapy’s piece, entitled, More Work for Mr. Wefley. Wis reafon for poftponing that part of his Logica Genevenfis, was the import- ance of the Equal Check, which clofes the controverfy with Mr. Hitt. He faw life fo uncertain, that, of two things which he was obliged to do, he thought it his duty to fet about that which appear. ed to him the more ufeful. He confidered alfo, that it was proper to have quite done with Mr, Hixz, before he faced fo able a writer as Mr, _Topiapy.” And, as contents of his Preface to the laft part of Zelotes and Honeftus reconciled, or Second Part of Scripture Scales, he fays: ‘* The Reconciler invites the, contending parties to end the controverfy ; and, im order to this, he befeeches them not to involve the queftion in clouds of evae five cavils, or perfonal refle@ions; but to come to the point, and break, if they can, either the one or the other of the Scripture Scales; and if they cannot, to admit them both, and by that means, to give glory to Gon and the truth, and be recon- ‘ciled to all the gofpel, and to one another.” Before the controverfy with R. H. Efq. was finally clofed, one volume more was publifhed by Mr. F. as a kind of Supplement to his former Creeds, as mentioned in his preface to that volume, entitled “« The laft Check to Antinomianifm, a Polemical Effay,” &c. His own words are: ‘ If the reader defires to know, why I call it alfo a Polemical Efiay, he is informed, that R. H. Efq. (at the end of a pamphlet entitled, Three Letters writ- ten Ch. IV. Arminianifn examined. 317 ten to the Rev. J. Fuetcuer, Vicar of Madely) has publifhed a Creed for Arminians and Perfeétionifts. The ten firft Articles of this Creed, which refpe& the Arminians, I have already anfwered in The fititious and genuine Creed; and the following fheets contain my reply to the laft article, which entirely refers to the Perfefionits.” * § 10. Our author now faces. his very powerful antagonift, the Rev. Aucustus Topiapy, the author of ** Hiftoric Proof of the Calvinifm of the Church of England,” and in 1776 publifhes «| An Anfwer to Mr. T’s. More Work for Mr, J. Westey, or, A Vindication of the Decrees, &c.’? He introduces the Anfwer with this re- mark, among others of the fame tendency, ‘* When 1 had fent for, and read this admired book, I promifed my readers to demonftrate, from that ‘very book, the inconclufivenefs of the ftrongeft arguments by which Calvinifm is fupported.” In the mean time Mr. Toptapy publifhes the «© Scheme of Chriftian and Philofophical Necef- fity ;” which occafioned Mr. F’s. ‘* Reply to the principal Arguments by which the Calvinifts and Fatalifts fupport the Doétrine of Abfolute Necef- fity,” publifhed in 1777. In the courfe of the following year Mr. F’s. prolific pen furnifhed the public with a work entitled “* The Doétrines of Grace and Juftice equally effential to the pure © Gofpel; with fome Roperks on the mifchievous oT Divifions * Lat Check; Pref. De 6. if 318 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Divifions caufed among Chriftians by parting thofe Doétrines. Being an Introduction to a Plan of Reconciliation between the Defenders of the Doc- trine of partial Grace, commonly called Calvinifts ; and the Defenders of the Dotrines of impartial Fuftice, commonly called Arminians.” This pub- lication includes fome interefting’ remarks on Grace and Juftice; and the ‘ Reconciliation: or, an eafy Method to wmte the profefling People of Gon, by placing the Doctrines of Grace and Juf- tice in fuch a light, as to make the candid Are minians, Bible-Calvinifts ; and the candid Calvinifts, Bible Arminians.” It includes alfo “* a Twoefold Effay, i. e. Bible-Arminianifm, and Bible-Cala vinifm ;” the jirft of thefe “ difplaying the doctrines of partial Grace, and the excellence of Scripture Calvinifm — the /econd, the doctrines of impartial Juftice, and the excellence of Scripture Arminian- ifm.” He then adds, a further ‘* Reconciliation,” by way of inferences from the Two-fold Effay ; the Plan of a general ‘* Reconciliation,” with << fome Directions how to fecure the bleffings of peace and brotherly love ; with further motives to a fpeedy Reconciltation.”——-Then follows, «© An Exhortation? to conclude the whole, in a {pirit and ftyle truly Chriftian. The topics are weighty, and the zeal with which they are urged is warm and Joving. 3 a) It is hoped that this brief account of the rife and progrefs of a controverfy between the Ca/- vinifis and Arminians, the moft important and in- terefting on many accounts, I believe, which has appeared Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined, — 3% appeared in the courfe of the prefent century, will not prove unacceptable to the reader who has not had opportunity of better information, nor appear an unfuitable introduction to our profefled Examiz. ation of the moft radical arguments and forcible objections of modern Arminianifm. And more efpecially, as our Effay has for its object, at leaft in good part, a better underftanding between perfons, minifters and people, who are ¢ruly devoted to God, than hitherto they have had. § 11. The reader will recollect, that we confider , the fubjeét of the prefent article as of the utmoft importance, in order to afrive at a fair iflue. To this point were all the controverfial lines brought at the clofe of Mr. Fretcuer’s polemical efforts ; and there, I add, he difcovers at once the weaknets of his arguments, and the failure of his cauje. I cannot help obferving here, that Mr. F. at his firft fetting out, in his Vindication of the Minutes, acknowledges moft explicitly in connection with Mr. Westey, what appears to me virtually to imply my conclufion. 1. Man’s otal fall, and his utter inability to recover himfelf. Speaking of Mr. Wesrey he obferves: ** For above thefe fixteen years I have heard him frequently in his chapels, and fome- times in my church; I have familiarly converfed and correfponded with him, and have often perufed his numerous works in verfe and profe: and I can truly fay, that during all that time I have heard him, upon every proper occafion, fteadily maintain the total 420 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY, total fall of man in Adam, and his after inability to recover himfelf, or to take any one jfep towards his recovery, without the grace of Gop preventing | him that he may have a good will, and working with him when he has that good will. The deepeft expreffions that ever {truck my ears, on the melan- choly fubje& of our natural depravity and helplefs- nefs, are thofe which dropped from his lips.” * This teftimony is confirmed by Mr. Westey himfelf: “ I always did (for between thefe thirty and forty years) clearly affert the total fall of man, and his utter inability to do any good of himfélf: the abfolute neceffity + of the grace and fpirit of Gop to raife even a good thought or defire in our hearts: the Lord’s rewarding no work, and accepting of none, but fo far as they proceed from his preventing, con- vincing, and converting grace through the beloved.” Nay, Mr. F. confiders this doétrine of fuch magnitude, that he confiders it the * leading principle in Chriftianity, ‘diftinguifhed from Deifm —of fuch importance, that genuine Chriftianity ftands or falls with it.” | Expreflions, which are followed by a profeffed ** Rational Demonftration of man’s corrupt and loft eftate.” 2. That all our falvation is of God in Chrift, and therefore of grace; but all our danmation is of our- Selves. a * Vindication of the Minutes, p. 9. + Here Mr. W. muft underftand the term “ abfolute” in a vague and popular fenfe, elfe he afferts a ftronger kind of neceflity, with regard to the exiftence and Boyes of Grace, than the Calvinifts themfelves. { Vindic. of Min. p, 21. | Appeal to Matter of Fatt, &c, p. 11, 12. 4th edit. Ch, IV. Ayminianifin examined. 2308 Selves. “ Mr, Weszey lays down, fays Mr. F. two Axioms of which he never Jofes fight in his preaching. The firft is, that aLL our SALVATION Is oF Gop 1n Curist, and therefore or Grace; all opportunities, invitations, inclination, and power to believe being beftowed upon us of mere grace— _ grace moft abfolutely free:— but he proceeds further, for fecondly, he afferts, with equal con- - fidence, that according to the gofpel difpenfation ALL OUR DAMNATION IS OF OURSELVES; by our obftinate unbelief and avoidable unfaithfulnefs ; as we may negleé? fo great falvation, defire to be excufed from coming to the feaft of the Lamb, make light of Gon’s gracious offers, refufé to oc- cupy, Jury our talent, and act the part of the Slothful {ervant; or, in other words, refift, grieve, do defpite to, and quench the fpirit of grace By OUR MORAL AGENCY.” Mr. F. adds, *“ He is therefore perfuaded the moft complete fyftem of Divinity is that in which neither of thofe two Axioms is fuperfeded: it is bold and unfcriptural to fet up the one at the expence of the other.” * § 12. On thefe remarkable pofitions I would obferve:. | 1. If all men be fo ‘otally fallen, and utterly un- able, to do any thing of themfelves, previousi1 divine grace, fo that grace makes all the differenc in the man refpecting his thoughts, will, and obedi- ential /feps, and as it is abfurd to fuppofe that the grace received renders him /e/s dependent on the will and - * Vindic. of Min. p. 17, 18. Py EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. and operation of Gon than he was before, or that this grace has an exiftence in the man fomehow detached from the divine will and operation which firft caufed it; it follows that EvERY Goop thought, will, ‘and werk, both firft and laft, muft proceed from the pofitive will of God. But if fo, he muft not only have forefeen but alfo fore-ordained fuch good thoughts, 8c. ‘Therefore, all the good in man is derived froma neceffily of confequence. And, indeed, what poflible medium can there be be- tween fuch neceflity of good, and abfolute con- tingence? A contingence ab/olutely impoflible, as may be abundantly proved. 2. If, according to the firff axiom, ALL our {al- vation is of Gop, even all inclination, and power to believe; and it is abfurd to imagine that any of that all is of Gop to the exclufion of his will and energy ; we mutt infer that act our falvation 1s from the will and energy, and therefore the purpofe of Gop. Wherefore, all our falvation flows from a neceffity of confequence. And as we maintain Free agency, as well as our opponents, we conclude from their own premifes and conceffions, that hypo- thetical Neceflity and Free agency are not inconfiftent. 3. But. Mr. F. after Mr. Westey, according to he fecond axiom, holds, that a// our damnation is of ourfelues. And fodo we. Yes, but he afcribes it to AVOIDABLE unfaithfulnefs, by our MORAL acency. And fo do we aljfo; if by “ avoida- “ble” is meant that there is no ab/olute neceffity why any fhould fail of falvation, or, that there is — no pofitive will, purpofe, or decree againft it. And this ‘* avoidablenefs? is “in virtue of ‘¢ moral. agency 5) Ch. ‘TV, | Arminianifm examined, 223 agency;” as freedom from all pofitive urgency, or influence to evil out of ourfelves is effential to it, Confequently, from the premifes, laid down by our opponents themfelves, it follows, that the kind of neceflity for which we plead, and moral agen- cy, are perfectly compatible. ~§ 13. Why, therefore, was Mr. F. fo exceed- ingly alarmed at the doétrine taught by Prefident Epwarps, fince the doétrine, in general, he con- tended for was only an inference drawn, fairly drawn, from Mr. F’s. own premifes? And why does he call this very dottrine which he and Mr. Westey have taught us to maintain, ‘ the grand error which fupports the Calvinian and Vol- tairian gofpels ?” * The only reafons I can affign for fo wide a difference, and fo warm a conteft, between Mr. F. and his opponents, while their premifes appeared to admit of the fame conclufions, are fuch as thefe. 1. Canyin, Topiapy, and perhaps I may add, Epwaros himfelf, were not fufficiently plain and explicit in rejecting what certainly they ought to have rejected, the fuppofition that fia is one link in the chain of decretive neceflity. Hence 2. Mr. F. takes up the notion that Prefid E.pwarps, and all other Calvinifts, ¢ join literary forces to bind man with the extenf feries of adamantine links, which form the chain of abfolute neceffity.”’ + While the fubject was taken up in this way, and therefore inferred, ‘ that the monfter fin is the offspring of Gop’s Providence, XxX 2 necef- * Reply to the Caivinifis, Introd, p. 4. + Ibid. $24 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. neceffitation, creation, of Gop’s will, of Gop himfelf,” * what probability was there that the truth in queftion could be found, oF an accommo- dation effected between the contending parties ? One party, ftrenuous for the honour of grace, but without afcertaining the da/s on which refts the difference between the caufation of good, and the. origin of evil, were only concerned to maintain the neceflity of confequence, or rather, fome kind of neceflity, in general, to the exclufion of abfolute contingency: while the other party thought it enough, to exhibit inthe moft hideous and horrible colours the dire confequences which the doétrine of abfolute necefiity draws after it. But as the prefent work difavows, no lefs than Mr. F’s, that pedigree of fin which he is pleafed to pronounce “ Cal- vinian,”? but in reality is not fo; may we? not hope that thofe who have been under this too common miftake will candidly re-examine the fubje@, and adopt the jut conclufion. For we not only ac- knowledge, that all fin is from ourfelves, but have undertaken to demonftrate, from firfty principles, that it mui be fo; and that, to the utter exclufion of the Arminian /elf-/overeignty of the will, § 14. But while we keep clear of both abfur- ities, fhewing on the one hand, that fin is no more dujed or appointed by the firft caufe, than cold is auted by the fun, or darknefs by light; and on the other, that felf-fovereignty, in the common Arminian fenfe, can no more exift in a created ae nature, ® Reply, p. 6. = Ch. IV. Arininianifis enavmined, 325 nature, however exalted, than abfolute independ- ence; we think that the Arminian account of the generation of fin is pofitively and exceedingly dif- honourable to Gop. Beginning with fin, they trace its genealogy no higher than man’s free-wil]. Thefe are Mr. F’s. words: ‘* When you begin at. fin you can never afcend higher than free-will: And when you begin at God you can never defcend lower than free-wil/.’ * But is not Gop the author of that free-will?—a pofitive caufe of, what they hold fin to be, a pofitive effec? And 1s not this making Gop the AUTHOR OF SIN? We, no lefs than our opponents, refer fin to the free-will of the creature as the zmmediate or fecon- dary caufe; but inftead of tracing it thence, with the Fatalifts, to the firft caufe, or ftopping there, to fave appearances, with felf-determiners, but who rveally mutt refer it ultimately to Gop; we trace-it to the effential defectibility of a created nature, which is neceflarily implied in the effential difference that muft ever fubfift between a felf-exiftent and a created nature. So that if the matter be well con- fidered, Gop can be no more the author of fin, in any fenfe whatever, than hecan be a dependent being ; and, onthe contrary, man’s free-qwill can be no more, the ultimate origin of fin, than man can be the neceffary caufe of himfelf. Thefe confequences not ftrike the reader at firit view, but are i implied in the premifes. ™ So far, therefore, is fim from being, as Mr. P. reprefents it, the feventh link of the chain of Cal- aS vinifm, * Reply, ps 7+. 326 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. vinifm, and of which Gop is the firft, that it is no link of it; fo far from being the effect of fix preceding voluntary impelling caufes, velut unda impellitur anda, it is neither impelled nor coun- tenanced by amy of them. Not by Gop himfelf, the firft of the chain; for a Being infinitely good cannot be the decretive caufe, or indeed any caufe of the greateft evil, any more than he can be a de- feétibie being ; and if not Gop himfelf, neither alfo his will, decree, creating acts, heceflitation, or im- pelling proniccace. § 15. Much mifunderftanding in this debate has arifen from want of agreement refpecting the nature of fin. We confider it as ‘* want of conformity unto, or tranfgreffion of the law of Gop,” ora defeé? of what ought to be, whether in difpofition or act. Mr. F. on the contrary, contends that it is ** a real thing, and has a pofitive caufe.”* ‘This he thought to eftablifh by what he thought an un- - anfwerable part of a dilemma: ‘ If fin és a real thing, or a poftive moral crookednefs of the will of a finner, and as fuch has a pofitive caufe; can that pofitive caufe be any other than the /e//-perverfion of free-will, or the impelling decree of a fin-ordaining Gop?” + The latter fuppofition is chargeable with impious irrationality; and we fay the former is emo ed but a few degrees from it. Sin is the offspring of felf-perverfion, this of free-will, and free-will is the offspring of Gop; all, on the fuppofition, pofitive caufes of pofitive effects. Con- * Reply, p. 15. + ‘Ibid. p. 15. ChIV. _ Arminianifin examined. 327 Confequently fin, according to the Arminian fy tem, is faftened on infinite purity by thefe ada- mantine links, Gop’s creating will in making us free, and our created freedom, which is the grand parent of every fin! | While men afcribe to fin a poftive entity as oppofed to moral defect, they either give to the free- will of men and devils a creating power, which is abfurd; or elfe they muft trace up fin aéfually to - Gop. For theit free-will was impofed upon them by creating will, they were necefitated to have it; and from hence pofitive effects follow to the remoteft aéts of fin. But this is diametrically op- pofite to our firft Axiom. The abfurdity, and indeed the impiety of fuch a confequence, is fully fufficient to expofe Mr. F’s. notion of the nature of fin, as to the point in queftion. But how does Mr. F. defend Ais notion? “ If it is no real thing, and has no pofitive caufe; why does Gon pofitively fend the wicked to hell for a privation, which they have not pofitively caufed ?”"™ | Befides, according to him, if fin be only a moral defeét, ** it abfurdly follows, that crookednefs, or the want of ftraitnefs in a line, is a mere privation alfo.2 But which is moft abfurd, to father fin on infinite purity, or to admit that crookednefs is a privation? Mr, F. thinks that reafon and feeling are fo much on his fide, as to render null all arguments: “ Reafon and feeling tell us, that crookednefs of a crooked line, 1s fomething every ‘way as pofitive as the {traitnefs of a ftrait line. To ef. | _ deny #* Ibid. p. 15. 328 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. deny it is as ridiculous as to affert that a circle is a not-being, becaufe it is not made of ftrait lines like a {quare.”* In this reprefentation, there is One little circumftance omitted to make the com- parifon a fair one. We fay, that fin is a moral defect, a defect of what ought to be; and furely, if . aline which ought to be ftrait, be found crooked, its crookednefs is a defect; if a figure which ought to be a f{quare, be found in fac a circle, its form isa defe#. The other enquiry, “« Why does Gop pofitively - fend the wicked to hell for a privation, which they have not pofitively caufed?” admits of a reafon- able folution. For we maintain, that the nature of future punifhment confifts in the waut of the chief good, together with a con/ciou/ne/s of that want; and which implies all that is defcribed in {cripture, however awful, of a future ftate of fuffering, Befide, the penal evil of moral agents is not the arbitrary a& of Gop, but the natural effect of fin, Therefore, though fin be a moral defeé? the confe- quence of it is a great evil, Ween § 16. For the fake of looking ‘at the oppofite ptinciples in various lights, and following them to their juft confequences, let us hear the author’s account of the generation of fin. ‘* A /fuful aG is the offspring of a finful choice; a finfal choice is the offspring of /elf-perverfion; and felf-perverfion may or may not follow from free-will put in a ftate of probation, or under a practicable law.” + But if Ce oe Gee *Ibid.p, 15. + Reply, p. 7. Ch, IV. ‘ Arminianifin examined. 329 the nature of fin be not a moral defeé?, this account does not folve the difficulty. For to remove fin from free-will to felf-perverfion, is only to remove the difficulty into the dark, left it fhould be fur- ther examined. Bring it to the light, and you may foon obferve its argumentative nakednefs, What is this faid felf-perverfion ? Is it a good or an evil? Is it a fomething right or wrong ? If evil and wrong, why fhould it be reprefented as the parent of a finful choice, is it not itfelf a fin; except we fay that /m exifts in the mind prior to any choice, and yet free-wil] is ultimate anceftor of fin? A genealogy this, full of confufion and contradictions, Will it be faid that felf-perverfion ts a fomething good and right? This cannot be; for it is what may or may not follow from free-will, in fuch a manner, that if it do follow, it becomes the parent of a finful choice; and if it do not follow, or has zo exiftence, then, and only then, fin is prevented. Self-perverfion then muft be a dad thing, a fin, and the caufe of a finful choice; but if fo, if the choice be finful becaufe it originates in felf-perver- fion, how can felf-perverfion, which is a /iz, origi- nate in choice or free-will ? I afk again, What is this /elf-perverfion? If a fin, it is of little ufe to bring it forward in order to folve the difficulty of jin’s generation. But if it be faid to be neither good nor evil, right nor wrong in itfelf; then it muft I think be acknowledged to be - either (1) Another power of the mind, different from the will; or, (2) A modification of the mind ; or, (3) What we contend for, 1.¢. the effential . defeciibility " 930 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. defeélibility of a created nature, as fuck, from i arifes a moral defeé?, which nothing but unmerited grace can pfevent, or, if not actually prevented, remove. . ‘Let us briefly examine each: 1. If felf-perverfion, the immediate parent of a finful choice, be another power of the mind differ-~ ent from the wall, Goo muft be the voluntary author of it, as he is of all our other powers. But this reprefentation of it as another power, probably, will not be afferted. 2. If felf-perverfion be a modification of the mind ; an effect of a power; diftinguifhed from freedom, an|:cerioy, @ felf- determining POWER, as an effect from a caufe; while at the fame time fin is held to bea pofitive effect of a pofitive caufe;— who fees not the horrible neceflary confequence of it? If felf- perverfion, thus underftood, and which feems to be eur author’s meaning in common with other Ar- minians, be the effect, or offspring of freedom, and freedom the offspring of Gop; it follows un- avoidably that the fcheme I am oppofing makes infinite holinefs to be the fource of fin, and with fewer links between than was afcribed to Mr. Topitapy’s chain of Neceffity. A fxful choice is the offspring of felf-perverfion, felf-perverfion is the offspring of free-will, and free-will is the off- fpring of Ged. Whereas Mr. T. by Mr. F's, ewn ftatement, removed fin from Gop to the /eventh link of the chain. Thus it appears that Mr. Fletcuer, from a pious zeal, indeed, to vindicate the divine perfec. tions, i Ch. IV. Ariminianifin examined, 33t tions and government, coupled with a ftrong indij- criminate oppofition to what he calls ‘* Calvinian Neceflity,” falls into the evil which he wifhed to avoid. To put the falvo, ** which may or may not follow from free-will,” is of no avail; fince we are fpeaking of the aéfual generation of aciual fin. When we are {peaking of the genealogy of a per- fon, it would be curious to hear a man fay, in order to avoid a difficulty in the evidence of his pedigree, that another much better, inftead of the real one, might have been the defcendant of his progenitor ! And this, in order to avoid aif necef- fity, is the genuine language of our opponents, § 17.3. Butas neither of the former ideas couch- ed under the term /é/f-perverfion, can contribute to account for the true cau/e of fin, the word, as ufed by Mr. F. muft mean either zothing atall; or, what we contend for, that is, the defeciibility which is eflen- tial to a created nature, as oppofed to the uncreated. Here the inquifitive mind has a rational refting place; here, conviction muft ftrike every one that underftands the fubject; and here, we are con- ftrained to fay, it ought to be, and muf be fixed. Yes, we have not only a rational, but alfo a de- votional refting place. The foul, thus fituated, is awfully furrounded with ineffable rays of divine glories. From this point we view every perfec. tion of Deity, both natural and moral, fhining with refplendent luftre. Here we fee the moft exalted creature, in comparifon with the all-fuficient and felf-exiftent Gop, dependent, impotent, undeferv- ° . Ines 332 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ing, mean, the mere fhadow (if I may fo exprefs myfelf) of unoriginated exiftence, and very little removed from nothing and vanity ; and that crea- ture, if the a of moral defect, ‘* le/s than nothing and vanity.’ ow, as this d: ifference between the Creator and. creature, is not founded in the divine will, as if the — fovereign pleafure might have ordered it otherwife, but in his neceffary nature; it follows, that effential defectibility, the parent of fin, 1s not imputable to . the divine volition. The prevention of fin, by pofitive communications to influence the di/pof- tion, and every thing good, is indeed imputable to Gop as willing, decreeing, creating, providing, and hy potheticall v neceffitating the fame; but for the produéiion of fin, the effential weaknefs of the creature is alone fufficient, without any pofitive eaufe. This, in other words, is the hypothetical neceffity of things. It is called hypothetical, in oppo- fitton to antecedent. For-there was no antecedent neceflity that a creature fhould exift: but 1F, or on the Aypothefis that he do exift, it is meceffary, and” not a matter of mere will, that he fhould exift on the condition of ab/olute dependence on the firft caufe, and.fo be in himfelf effentially defec?ible. Again: It is not antecedently neceflary that Gop fhould manifeft his justice ad extra, giving to the accountable being nothing more than his due, but ur this be done, fuch being will fhew himfelf to be what he is, by a neceflary confequence ; viz, eflen- tially different from, and in contrat with the ine finitely perfect Gon. Should Ch.IV. Arminianifia examined. 232 Should any be difpofed to fay, This is to exift on a hard condition; 1 would anfwer with St. Paul, ~ § Nay but, O man, who art thou that replict againft Gop? Shall the thing formed fay to him that formed it, Why haft thou. made me thus?” But if an anfwer in a more direct philofophical manner be demanded, we may fay, The Aypotheticad nature of things will admit of no other condition, on — which we can poflibly exift; and if any one conteit the point, let him know that it is a conteft about Superiority between a finful worm of the earth and the adorable Jehovah! In a word, to deny fin to be ultimately the offspring of hypothetical neceflity, though immediately of ourfelves, is to fay, it is pofible the fituation of Creator and creature may be rever/ed ! § 18. Mr. F. admits of “the zecefity of pro- phecy, or of truly certain futurity, which conGders an event certainly future.”’* — And elfewhere he ob- ferves; ‘* One of the moft common miftakes, on which the Calvinifts found their doétrine, is con- founding a neceffity of confequence with an abfolute neceffity. A neceflity of confequence is the neceffary connection, which immediate caufes have with their - effects —- immediate effects with their caufes — and unavoidable confequences with their premifes.” + This neceflity, it {eems, our author had no objection to; and yet Prefident Epwarps is coupled with VottaireE becaufe he pleaded for Necefity! Who now confounds zeceffity of confequence and ab/olute uece/= * Reply, p. 10, 113 + Reply, p. 453 $34 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. necefity, Mr, F. the Arminian, or JonatHan Ep- warps, the Calvinift? For it is notorious to the moft fuperficial reader of Epwarps, and from his moft explicit definitions, that he pleads not for abfolute neceflity, but for that of confequence — the very fame which Mr. F. allows! — But we muft not leave this conceffion without a few remarks: 1. Prophecies relate to bad actions as well as good. Now if fin, or the, finfulnefs of an action, be any thing but a moral defeéf, a want of what ought to be, 1¢ muft have a pofitive caufe, which runs up, by means of felf-perverfion and free-will, to the creating caufe of that will. And therefore the actions, foretold by prophecy, and certainly future, muft have Gop for their primary impelling caufe. It was, for inftance, in the days of pro- phecy, and from eternity, certainly future, that wicked men fhould crucify Jefus Chrift. This atrocious deed, on the Arminian fyftem, would be the effec? of felf-perverfion, and that the effeé of free-will, and this latter the effec? of Gop’s creat- © ing power and wi//. Confequently, this hypothefis makes the moft atrocious evil to be an effeét, of which God, by a few removes, is the caufe, the impelling caufe, velut unda impellitur unda. 2. If fome bad actions, not as moral defects, but pofitive effedts of a pofitive caufe, proceed from felf-perverfion, from freedom, and confequently the author of that freedom, for the fame reafon al/ bad actions might. I fay more; ail, according to that fyftem, muft be referred to Gop. No lgica Arminiana, or enchantment, can ever break this chain. Ch, IV. Arminianifin examined. 335 chain. If all fin be a pofitive effect of felf-perver- fion, and if felf-perverfion be the pofisive effect of freedom, and if freedom be the pofitive effect of the divine providential and creating will; — all jin terminates in the firft caufe of our exittences asa pofitive effed of his will. Mr. Fietcuer’s remark is very juft, “ It is the property of error to be inconfiftent,” and holds - peculiarly true in the prefent cafe. What our brethren profefs a wifh to avoid, above every thing, fo the fentiment, that Gop 1s the author, or voluntary caufer of fin; and yet no fentiment fo truly leads to this conclufion, or in a more direct manner than their’s.. Even Mr. Topiapy’s doc- trine in the worft view of it, Mr. F. himfelf being judge, placed fin at a greater diftance from Gop than what Arminians, to be confiftent with them- felves, are obliged to do. 3. If, as Mr. Fietcuer allows, there is a ‘<¢ neceflity of prophecy,” or an event forefeen and foretold to be certainly future; the propofition afferting this event is a ¢rue propofition; and the fubject and predicate of it muft be truly and cer- tainly connected. Mr. F's. diftinction, therefore, between ‘* that which poz—s NoT FAIL to happen,” and, “ that which CANNOT ABSOLUTELY FAIL £0 happen,” * appears groundlefs. For in proportion as you admit the propofition “ a thing prophefied of may pofibly fail to happen,” you “deen the conneéttion between the fubject and predicate, which affirms it to. be ¢ruly and certainly future. And : the * Reply, p. 11, 336 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the conclufion, in that cafe, would be, the prophecy may poffibly be a falfe affertion! 4. If fome things may be forefeen and foretold to be truly and certainly future, and the crimes of men not excepted, for the fame reafon all things may be fo; and without any more impeachment of the divine character, than Mr. F. would have attached to it. If there be, as he admits, uo de- duétion from the holinefs and equity of Gop in admitting the meceffity of fuch prophecy as is afu- ally declared, neither will there be, by admitting the neceflity of any other future fac which might have been declared; except we fhould fay, that Gop has declared all he knows. Efpecially when we confider that his declaring a thing to be future, is not the necefitating caufe of its futurition; for another caufe of its exiftence muft precede its de- claration, § 19. Here then we muft at length coincide, that every thing and event in futurity 1s forefeen as truly certain. But a great difference lies be- tween us as to the mode of accounting for this fac. Arminians afcribe this knowledge of the certain futurition of events to the drvine omnifcience in fuch a manner, as that it forefees every mind, every free-will, every ‘¢ voluntary unneceffitated obedience on the part of thofe who make a good ufe of their free-will ;” and every ‘* voluntary unne- ceflitated difobedience, on the part of thofe who make a bad ule of it.” * But this account leaves you * Reply, p. 7. Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined. 337 you quite in the dark; for it makes Gop as much the author of fiz as of holine/s, obedience being as much unneceffiitated as difobedience. To which we may add, fince Gop is as much the parent of one man’s free-will as of another’s, he bears the fame relation to difobedience as he does to obedience. Here again we have met, and, may we not fay, foiled our opponents, “ at the back door of their inconfiftency.” Mr. Fs, great outcry again{t Calvinifm was, ‘that, as he thought, it led to Manicheifn , and to avoid this frightful bugbear he fell back upon Free-will as the fupreme parent of obedience and difobedience, good and evil. May not this Free-will, therefore, be complimented as a Manichean Deity 2 But this is not all: Free-qwiil itfelf is, we all allow, the offspring of God. Does not the Ar. minian fyftem, then, as held by Mr. F. in a dire@ and barefaced manner, father upon the author of our nature both good and evil? And is not this as direct Manichzifm as Mr. F’. ever fathered on Mr. Topiapy’s fcheme ill underftood ? § 20. Not content with barely thewing the incon- fiftency and abfurd confequences of the fyftem I am Oppofing, it is my with, if poflible, to give my readers fully to underftand the fyftem I am now eftablifhing, under the name of ¢rue Calvinifin, in Oppofition to Mr. F’s, Srightful pifiure of what ha is pleafed to call, on every occafion, ‘* Calvinian Neceflity.” What is now pleaded for is utterly repugnant to the hypothefes that make al! affions, x the 348 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the good and bad alike, to proceed from the divine decrees. For, 3 1. Bad aétions, as before obferved, arife from ourfelves, as effentially not decretively defectible,; and not from a pofitively good {elf-determining principle, the abfurd and impoffible fource to which Ar- minians refer them. It will not avail to fay, that the abufe of free-will, and not free-will itfelf is the caufe of fin; for fuch adufe, if any thing dad, is itfelf the firft-born of fins. Is it not aftonifhing that inquifitive Free-willers, in the Arminian fenfe of the word, do'not fee the neceffary confequence of their doGrine, that it makes Gop himfelf the pofitive caufe and ordainer of fin? | 2. Inftead of reprefenting the bleffed Gop as a fountain fending forth “ {weet water and bitter,” the prefent fyftem reprefents the adorable Creator as the fource of good only, and of all good, univer- fally and continually. We fay, that evil, or moral defeé?, originates in ourfelves, that is, our effential defeétibility, in fuch a manner, that God alone can prevent its exiftence ; and that, not in virtue of Fquity but of fovereign favour. The denial of this, is in fact the fame thing as to fay, that Gop might, if he pleafed, make a creature which needed no fupport, and with whom his providence had no concern, § 21. But, ftill more clofely to purfue our fub- ject, what is this effential defectibility, or what 1s the hypothetical nature of things? 1s not Gop the author of that being who is thus defectible? Yes, of the being, Chi TV. Arminianifin examined. 339 being, but not of his defeéibility. His exiftence and natural powers are the effect of the pofitive will of Gop; but his defectibility is no olje of creating power and will, for it is not optional in Gon whe- ther a creature, in itfelf confidered, fhall be defec- tible, but arifes from the conditional neceffity of things, But is there any neceffity of things indepen- dent on the mere will of Gop? In reply to this queftion I would put another: Is it the mere will of Gop that conftitutes a difference between him- felf and acreature? Is not this difference founded on hypothetical neceflity, fuperior to all will? As truly fo as Gon’s own exiftence is of abfolute necef- fity? Again: Is it by the mere will of Gop that he is, and continues to be what he is? or, that a crea- ture fhould not be omnipotent, omnifcient, omni- prefent, écc.? Is it not fober language to fay, that this is impofible? For, if there be another being befide the firft caufe, it is neceffary he fhould be limited in his power, knowledge, prefence, &c., And thus it is demonftrable, that, without recur. ring to fatalifm, there 1s an peat neceflity faperior to all will. Is not this making moral evil ab/olutely neceffary 2 No; not in the leaft degree. For, 1. Created exiftence is not adfolutely neceflary. If, indeed, Gop exert creating wifdom and power, it is weceffary this creature fhould be inferior to -himfelf, and the fubject of many limitations. But - this neceffity, it is plain, 1s only confequential. Nor is it proper to fay that thefe limitations are the objects of decretive will. For a decree implies, I iy properly 340 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. properly fpeaking, a power of doing otherwife, antecedently; as it would be abfurd to fay that Gop decrees not to make a felf-exiftent being; or, not to make man independent, or indefedtible, con- fidered in himéelf, 2. The creatures’ defection, or fin, is not ad/o- dutely neceflary. For, Gop might have preferved all his rational creatures, if it had pleafed him, in a way of fovereign grace, in a flate of integrity. But iF arational creature be dealt with according to EQuITY, It would be equal to Gop himéfelf if it did not fall; that is, the neceffity of its falling into fin, though not abjolute, is yet hypothetical. In other words, 1F Gop give the creature what is, in flrictnefs, its due, it neceffarily fhews itfelf to be eflentially different from the holinefs, independ- ence, and indefectibility of its Maker. May we not at length venture to fay, that the ultimate or true origin of evil, as a moral defec?, has been fairly demonflrated? The fteps are eafily perceived, and the connection between them is fuch as exifts between the fubjeét and predicate of a true propofition ; the truth of the connection not depending upon, but fuperior to al/ will. Ir Gop, for inftance, create Adam, it does not depend on the divine wi//, whether he be dependent or not, but, he muj? be fo of neceflity ; rr dependent, in like manner, he muft be defectible, for no creature, confidered in himfelf, can be otherwife in virtue ofany divine volition; iF defe@ible, and left in equity, that is, enjoying nothing more than its real and ftrict due, it does not in the leaft depend on the : wilt Chive Arminianifin examined, BAL will of Gop whether or not he become thereby the _ fubject of moral defef, any more than whether two and two make four, rather than five; or whether a juft inference be or be not connected with its premifes. ‘Thus every creature, however exalted, ftands infinitely beneath Goo! The height of the divine majefty can never be fufficiently adored! How tranfcendent the glories and prerogatives of the felf-exiftent I AM, in comparifon with the worm of earth, man, with angels, with a moral fyftem, with the aggregate of all worlds! O ‘the depth ! : This view of the fubjeét. is well adapted to fill the thoughtful mind with reverential awe. But what tranfporting joy, as well as ardent love, enlarged benevolence, and fincere fatisfaction may not be deduced from the other view of it! Grae. cious fovereignty prefides over all! God is love, his goodnefs is a boundlefS and fathomlefs ocean, — and his mercy endureth for ever! In reference to this great fubject, above all others, are thofe words of our Lord truly important; ‘ Every one that exalteth himfelf fhall be abafed; and he that humbleth himfelf fhall be exalted.” * Thefe views, if I am not miftaken, moft exactly and unexceptionably correfpond with the whole tenor and every part of Scripture. I know of neither precept nor promife, invitation nor threat- ening, which is not in perfeét harmony with the above reprefentations, On the contrary, the Arminian hypothefis, I think it is fairly fhewn, xg tends © Luke xviii, 14. 342 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. tends to rob Gop of his rights of fovereignty, and fathers all the fins in the univerfe, tho? not de- fignedly, yet eventually, on the author of free-will. While the adjolutée neceffitarians, as moft of the modern pretended rational, exclufively rational divines are, together with infidel {peculatifts, from whofe pernicious opinions fome Calvinifts, thro* better motives and for different ends, have not kept quite clear—while fuch neceffitarians, I fay, who make moral evil of pofitive and voluntary ap- pointment, as one dink of a decretive chain, mutt either father fin upon the decreer, or deny the exifterice of fin, as diftin& from natural evil, and confequently of a moral fyftem. To this we may add, the fyftém now advanced attributes what is gdod in all ations to Gop; not only the power but the natural adf; tied the natiral ack of aétions morally bad; which caufa~ tion 18 pofitive, and every way worthy of an infinitely good and perfect being. But all moral defect, or fin, is the obliquity of an act naturally goods which obliquity, in every fhape and refpea, has only a deficient cause, and therefore infinitely remote from all divine caufation, § 22; T here is no method, perhaps, more effectual, in order to eftimaté with impartiality the merits of any fyftem, than that of trying it by the force of obyeéfions brought againft it by able oppofers, Indeed no fyftem of morals of of ree ligion is capable of fuch demonftration as utterly excludes ail plaufible objections; even the firft | principle Gh. Ve Ayminianifin examined. 343 principle of morals, the being of Gop, not ex- cepted, Yet, when the ftrongeft objections are urged with ingenuity and ftrength, and the fabric ftands againft every aflault, men of integrity will be confrained to forbear the rafhnefs of a hafty condemnation. The objections urged by Mr. FLETCHER, in his numerous writings againft Calvinifm, are very abundant; but thofe which he urges with the oreatelt, confidence, are fuch as the following: —(i.) That we confound the different kinds of neceflity, and maintain that all actions, bad as well as good, are abfalutely neceflitated.—= (2.) That we do not diftinguifh between certainty of knowledge and peculiar influence. —(3.) That calviniftic neceflity cannot exift, fince the time of our birth and death is not abfolutely fixed. —(4.) That we multiply the decrees unneceflarily. — (5.) That we afcribe too abfolute a dependence upon Gop, in reference to adults, tho’ not to infants. — (6.) That the conneétion between election and repro- bation is unavoidable, and therefore fhocking. — (7.) That we reprefent Gon as permitting fin.—(8.) That Gop cannot necefitate free agents without de- froying their nature. In examining thefe objections, I fhall fate them in our author’s own words, with all the impartiality in my power. § 23. (1.) It is objected that we confound the different kinds of neceflity. Thus Mr. FLETCHER: «© One of the moft common miftakes, in which the Calvinifts found their doctrine, 1s confounding a neceffity of confequence with an abfolute necefity.” To mae: fhew 344 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY, thew that Mr. F. himfelf made a proper diftinc. tion and well underftood the difference, he pro- ceeds to define and illuftrate neceflity of confe- quence: ** A neceflity of confequence,” fays he, ** 1s the neceflary connection, which immediate caules have with their effects — immediate effects with their caufes— and unavoidable confequences with their premifes.~~T hefe necelfities of confequence?? introduced for illuftration, “do not amount to one grain of Calvinian abfolute neceffity.?* This reprefentation is neither candid nor true, On the contrary, the main ‘body, if not all of the modern Calvinitts, entirely reject the latter in favour of the - former. And if Mr. Toprapy {ometimes expreffed himfelf in an unguarded manner, fo as to miflead the incautious, his Profeffed obje& was to maintain the fame kind of neceflity with Mr. Jonatuan Epwarps, in his Treatife on the WILL; who, as every one acquainted with that work knows, main- tained the neceflity of confequence exclufively, *¢ When,” fays Mr. Epwarps, /‘* the fubje& and predicate of the Propofition, which affirms the exiftence of any thing, either fubftance, quality, act, or circumftance, have a full and certain connec. tion, then the exiftence or being of that thing is faid to be neceflary. in a metaphyfical fenfe. And IN THIS SENSE I ufe the word neceffity, in the following — Difcourfe, when I endeavour to prove that necef- fity is not inconfiftent with liberty.” + Nay this Writer is, if pofible, fill more explicit: ‘* Things which are perfeély connected with other things | % that * Reply to Toriapy, p. 45. + Epwarps’s Enquiry, p. 23. Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined, 348 that are neceflary, are neceflary themfelves, by a neceffity of confequence.. All things which are future, or which will hereafter begin to be, whic can be faid to be neceflary, are neceflary only in this laf way. Their exiftence is not neceflary in it/elf, for if fo they always would have exifted. — And there- fore this is the neceffity which efpecially belongs to controverfies about the acts of the will,” * It muft however be acknowledged, that neither of thefe writers are fufficiently guarded refpecting Gop being, in no fenfe, the author of fin. * If,” fays Mr. Epwarps, ‘* by the author of fiz, is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of fin ; and, at the fame time, a difpofer of the flate of events, in fuch a manner, for wife, holy, and moft excel- lent ends and purpofes, that fin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will moft certainly and infallibly follow: I fay, if this be all that is meant by being the author af fin, I do net deny that Gop is the author of fin, tho’ I diflike and reject the phrafe, as that which by ufe and cuftom is apt to carry ano- ther fenfe.’+ To me there appears an utter impropriety in this mode of {peaking, however onarded, If fin be a defec? of what ought to be, its caufe muft be a deficient one; from which Gop is infinitely remote. In the prefent cafe, the word author mutt be of the fame import with caufe; but in no fenfe whatever is Gop the ‘caufe of fin.. Tobe | ‘* a difpofer of the flate of events” worthy of Gop, is to be the caufe of good only. The truth is, Mr. Epwarps was not entirely free from the falfe * Enquiry, p. 25. _ F Tbid. 357. 346 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY, falfe notion of the origin of evil, viz. that it is the _ Fefult of circumftances, affociations, and combinae tions, without us whereas, in reality, thefe make uo part of its origin, or caufe. If ever this awful fubject become more truly and generally under- ftood, it will be, I apprehend, when thofe who inveftigated it have a juft and confiftent notion of PASSIVE POWER in its nature, caufes, and effects, Mr. F. however was of opinion that our divines, and Mr. Epwarps among others, could not even diftinguith between metaphy/ical and abfo- lute neceflity ; of if they could, made no ufe of the diftinction. “ If the reader,” fays he, * is pleafed to advert to this diftin@ion between a nece/- fly of confequence and abfolute neceffity, he will be able to fteer fafe through a thoufand calvinian rocks.” * If this be the caufe of {leering fafely thro’ dangers, it fhould feem the Calvinifts are not more expofed to the hazards and horrors of fhip- wreck than the Arminians. Mr. Frercuer afcribes to Calvinifm another ** confufion ” with as little propriety as he did the former, when he fays, “ They perpetually con- found natural neceflity with, what may (improperly fpeaking) be called moral neceffity ; and then ex- claims: ‘* Now can any thing be more unreafon- able than to infer that fervants can no more help obeying their mafters, than children can help being born with two hands? Is it not abfurd thus to confound watural and moral neceflity?”?+ V ery abfurd, no doubt; and let thofe who are indeed guilty * Reply to Tortapy, p. 48. T Ibid. p. 49. Ch. IV. _ Arminianifin examined. 347 guilty of fuch a blunder lie under the merited im- putation. Mr. F. thought himfelf perfectly fecure from fuch imputation 5 yet, perhaps, the weight of it really falls upon Ais /ifem with greater force than upon ours; nay, his fyftem is more expofed than even the caricature he has drawn of Calvinifm. Hear him: *¢ That sothing happens independently on that caufe, [the fupreme firft caufe] and on the providential laws, which Gop has eftablifhed, we grant.?>* Here is, in the firft inftance, every thing granted that the moft rigid neceflitarian pleads for. Nothing happens independently on Gop, and his appointment, which is implied in “¢ the provi- dential laws which Gop has eftablifhed.” Take alfo into the account our author’s opinion, that fin is a pofitive fomething, which has a pofitive caufe, and you will foon infer, without any laboured deduétion, that he makes Gop the fupreme firft caufe of fin. To mend the matter he adds: ‘¢ But this does not prove at all the calvinian neceflity of al] our aétions,” No, not the cal. vinian necefity, which makes only good actions to be caufed in the manner before mentioned; but it proves more, it proves that our dad actions, as well as our good, proceed from the fupreme firft caule. § 24. Again: “ Confufion reigns in every part of Babel; another capital miftake of the necefiitarians confifts in their confounding prophetic neceflity, or rather prophetic certainty, with ad- folute neceflity, An illuftration will explain my meaning. * Ibid. p. 49: 448 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. meaning. Mr. Topiapy difcovers a boy, who is obftinately bent upon theft. From his knowledge of the force of indulged habits, he forefees and foretells, that the bov one day will come to the — gallows 5 and his prediGion is fulfilled.” The queftion is then put concerning the boy, * Might he not have reformed, and died in his bed ?”* Undoubtedly he might, for aught that Gop did to hinder him. But on Prophetic certainty, in addition to what was faid before on the fubjeé,- and on the cafe introduced for illuftration, I would remark : _ 1. Prophetic certainty is, an unerring declared forefight of fome future events and the certainty of that event muft be in exaG proportion to the certainty of the knowledge and veracity of the pro- phet. ‘Therefore, 2. The queftion, « Might he not have re- formed, &c. 2” is the fame as to fay, Might not the prophet be either enorant or falfe ? \f fo, why fhould any thing he fays be called « Prophetic certainty ?” Rather fhould it not be called A blind conjecture, or deliberate falthood > But, 3. If the event be Prophetically certain, then there is a certain connection between the fubject and the predicate of- the Propofition affirming it ; or, the event follows with the fame degree of cer. tainty as the conneétion of the parts of the propo- fition. If the event might be otherwife than what the prediGion afferts, the conneion between the parts of the proportion might be fale. And fach prophecies, 1 fhould think, would be more pro- | er] ° Ibid p. 50, ae Ch, [V. Arininianifms examined, 349, perly denominated uncertain prophecies, or prophetic uncertainty. Mr. F. afferts, ‘* The neceffity of fulfilling the fcripture, with refpect to our Lord, could never amount to the leaft degree of ab/olute, calvinian neceflity.’ + The neceflity of calvinifts is, not what Mr. F. is pleafed to fay of it, but a xecefity of confequence. And we argue, iF chriftianity, and redemption by the death of Chrift, be a part of a grand {cheme to be accomplifhed, it was meceffary he fhould die the juft for the unjuft. This is the neceflity we contend for ; but thus explained, That the /infulne/s of men was not cau/ed but only fore/een, while the Jenefits attending his death were doth fore- feen and caufed. ; Moreover: “ When we meet with fuch fayings as thefe,” fays Mr. F, * This that is written must be accomplifhed in me:—The fcriptures must be fulfilled, &c. if they relate to Chrift, they only indicate a ze- ceffity of RESOLUTION, if I may ufe this expreffion : Now a neceffity of refolution is the very reverfe of ab/olute neceflity.” — Quere: Was this re/olution any thing different from the purpofe of God-man? And was the latter any thing different from an ex- preffion of the divine decree ? It is true, Gop was under no antecedent neceflity to form any refolution, purpofe, or decree; but when the refolution was made, that the Saviour, forinftance, would die for finners, was not the connection between the refolution made and its accomplifhment certain, INFALLIBLY certain ? Or is there any medium between certaiz and ¢ Ibid. p. st, ft Ibid. p. 51, 52. 350 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. and uncertain 2 Was not the propofition, Fefus will die for finners, true and therefore certain from eternity? The mecefity was hypothetical, becaufe it originally depended upon witt, and a great number of facts and circumftances in time were conditionally fuppofed, but the certainty admitted of no degrees or exceptions, This is a// we contend for, with refpect to thofe things which it is un- worthy of Gop efficiently to ‘caufe, § 25. (2.) We are again chardaid wid: con- founding certainty of knowledge with peculiar influ- ‘ence. °* All the difficulties,” fays Mr. Fretcuer, ‘¢ which the Calvinifts have raifed, with refpect to the confiftency of divine fore-knowledge and human /free-will, arife from two miftakes: The — firft of which confifts in fuppofing that the fimple, certain knowledge of an event, whether paft, pre- fent, or future, is necefiarily connected with a peculiar influence on that event: and the fecond confifts in meafuring Gon’s fore-knowledge by our own, and fuppofing, that becaufe we cannot pro- phefy with ab/olute certainty, what free-willing creatures will do to morrow, therefore Gop cannot do it.” £ IT am not difpoted to admit either of thefe charges as founded in juftice towards calvinifts, notwithftanding the quotation produced from Top.iapy, and the confident affertion which follows it. ‘* I] have dwelt the longer upon this head,” fays Mr. F. ‘* becaufe it is the ftrong-hold of t Ibid, p. 54. Ch. [V. Arminianifin examined. 25% of the Calvinifts, from which Mr. T. feems to bid defiance to every argument, witnefs his affertion : Fore-KNOWLEDGE, andarkened by the leaft fhadow of IGNORANCE, and fuperior to all poffibility of MisTAKE, is a link which draws INVINCIBLE NECESSITY after it.? In oppofition to this, Mr. F. aflerts: ‘* So fure as the bible is true, Mr. T. is miftaken,’’ and then refers to 1 Sam. xXxil. 10—12. where the Lord fays concerning Saul, He will come down , and of the men of Keilah, They will deliver thee up: nei- ther of which took place. From the whole he concludes: ‘* So far was his clear fore-knowledge, and peremptory prophecy of Gop, from drawing invincible necefity. after them, that Saul did not come to Keilah; neither did the men of Keilak de- liver David into his hands.’’* Had Mr. Feercuer called in candour to his aid to determine Mr. Topiapy’s real meaning under the controverted terms, the difficulty raifed would have had no exiftence. By Fore-knowledge Mr. T, evidently meant one thing, and Mr. F. another. The former intended by it that prefcience which includes the certain futurition of an event ; the latter intended, as appears from his iluftra- tion, that /cience which regards only the hypothe- tical tendencies of things; and which tendencies may be over-ruled by other fuperinduced caufes. Befide, is not Aypothetical neceflity invincible, in as much as iF a propofition be true, the fubje@ and predicate of it are invincibly connected ; 1F the pre- mifes of a fyllogifm be true, the confequence s#- vincibly * did. 2 quotes * Ibid. De 59: 356 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. quotes a number of paflages from {cripture to. Prove it; paflages that {peak of length of days as the reward of wifdom, and Jong life the effec of piety. Thisis but one inftance ont of a great number of this kind of argumentation, which is advanced by our author on every turn. By fhew- ing therefore the inconclufivene(s of this argument, and therein of the principle on which it is built, the logical imbecility of all fuch inftances will appear. Obferve then, | 1, When it is faid, we may, in general, prolong our days, by choofing wifdom, what is the deter. minate meaning of the phrafe in the Arminian ar- gument ? Can it intend any thing more than, it is matter of fad? as well as of promife, that godlinefs (czt. par.) is connected with longevity ? And if {o, is it not one of the laws of heaven, and there- fore an appointed prolongation ? 2. If folly shortens our days, (cet. par.) is not this alfo a lew equitably appointed ? In fa&, the early death of the finner, as well as the late death of the righteous, is as much and unexceptionably fubjeéted to Jaw and appointment as the death of any other perfons in the world. To affert the contrary would be as deftitute of truth as it would be to fay, that the fupreme Governor has but one made of accomplifhing his purpofes ; or that there is but one way of living and dying among men, 3. If every birth and death js alike prophetically certain, that is, perfectly and infallibly known to Gop, fo that, if he thought proper, he might declare it as an event certainly future, with all its moft Ch. IV. Ar minianifm exainined, 257 moft minute circumftances—it follows, that every birth and death is Aypothetically neceffary, But let no one be fo uncandid as to afcribe to us, on this account, a fatal, abfolute neceflity ; which impious fentiment we abhor no lefs than the objector. ' Befide, 4, If one, by free will, may prolong or fhorten life in a great degree, what adult is there that does - not either prolong or fhorten life in fome degree? Confequently, if Mr. F’s principle be admitted, every life and death of an adult may be a deviation from the ftandard of heaven. But what is that ftandard ? are they the laws of Providence? What are thefe laws of Providence? Do they not in- clude the minds of men, as well as their bodies ? Or are they barely the mechanifm of matter and motion? If the latter, what a mutilated meagre notion of Providence! A Providence this, con- cerned in matter only to the exclufion of men’s minds! It fhould feem, then, that angels and devils aré not the fubjects of Providence ! But “it is the property of error to contradi& itfelf.” Mr, Fuetcuer acknowledges, that “ the birth and death of all ‘mankind take place ac- cording to fome providential laws.”* Now, are there any providential laws which are not of divine appointment? And are not the more fecret and minute wheels, the fartheft removed from the grafp and ken of creatures, as well as the largeft and moft prominent, in the ftupendous machine of Providence, equally appointed ? Ye Mr. ® Ibid, p, 613 Qc Bi EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Mr. FLetcuer juftly obferves, that ‘¢ Gop in a peculiar manner interpofes in the execution or fufpenfion of thefe laws, with refpect to the birth of fome men,” and, ‘+ he does the fame with refpect to the untimely death of fome, and the wonderful prefervation of others.” To make this account anfwer our objector’s purpofe, we muft abfurdly imagine, that particular interpofitions are no part of the plan and purpofe of Gon refpecting his crea- tures ! He ftill obje&s: “* To carry the doétrine of Providence fo far as to make Gop ab/olutely ap- point the birth and death of all mankind with all their circumftances, is to exculpate adulterers and murderers, and to charge Gop with being the prin- cipal contriver, and grand abettor, of all the atro- cious crimes, and of all the filthy, bloody circum- ftances, which have accompanied the birth and death of countlefs myriads of men.”> Mr. F. feems to forget, ‘‘ That nothing happens inde- pendently on the fupreme firft caufe, and on the providential Jaws which Gop has eftablifhed.” ¢ Could thefe atrecious crimes, though their atrocity was not caufed by Gop and his laws, have ever exifted as concrete adis, independently on either ? It is once more urged: ‘* Should Mr. TF, anfwer, that —- Although the generation and death of a child conceived in adultery, and cut off by > murder, is divinely and unchangeably fixed; yet Gop is not at all the author of the adultery and murder, 1 defire to know, how we can cut the gordian | knot, + Ut fupra. t Reply, p. 49. on ee Ch, IV. Arminiani{m examined. 359 knot, and divide between” | —~the crime and the aff? Mr. FLercuer’s requifition is by no means a difficult tafk; it has been very often executed: nay, he himfelf, Alexander like, has done it. What he could not uutie he arbitrarily cut! It is hoped, that the fentiments maintained in this Effay, al. - ready explained, concerning the nature and origin of moral evil, contain a fair /olution of the queftion. In fhort, to fuppofe that there is any aéiion or event in the world which has not /omething good in it, and to make any thing befide the poftive will of Gop to be the caufe of every thing good in the life, and death, and circumftances of every perfon, is to charge Providence with endlefs and confum- mate folly. In other words, it is to overturn the two gofpel Axioms. From thefe premifes we fee the futility of Mr. F.’s inference: ‘If neither the fir/? nor the/af link - of the chain of human life is, iz general, fabricated by the abjolute will of Gop, it is unreafonable to fuppofe, that the free-will of Deity alone fabricates the intermediate links.” Why not, /o far as they are good? And until fixlefs perfection can be better proved to have prefent aéiual exiftence in our world. than it has yet been, we may well afk, What acts of the deff of men and women are free of atu moral defect? The difference then of the divine caufation and concurrence in the actions of the def and worf of men, and, I may add, the actions of angels and devils, is this; the former are the effects of much fovereign favour, the Jatter of much equitable ; ZA oe i Ibid. p. 61. ~~ 8 360 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. dereli&tion. The one has much of what it could not in equity claim; the other has much of what was its due, viz. being left to itfedf in the morality of its ac, | | § 28. (4.) Another objection urged by Mr. FLETCHER againft the Calvinifts is, that they multiply the decrees without caufe, Bithop Hop- Kins had faid, that “ nota dutt flies on a beaten road, but Gop raifeth it, conduéts its uncertain motion, and by his particular care conveys it to - the particular place he had before appointed for it,”? To this teprefentation Mr. F LETCHER objects, “* Decaufe it abfurdly multiplies Gov’s decrees—at this rate a large folio volume could not contain all the decrees of Gop concerning the leaft particle of duft.”* Tt is not to be wondered at that one who denies Gop the apppointment of the births and the deaths of men, thould alfo plead exemp- tion for their moral actions, from a notion, well meant indeed though unfounded, that it implies what is unworthy of the great fupreme, his moral — perfections and government, But jt might puzzle a Jefuitic hot to guefs what good end can be aniwered by excluding a fmall portion of matter from the influence of divine purpote, Is the di- vine mind fubje& to the fame inconvenience with ours by a multiplicity of objects? Perhaps no one has confidence enough to affirm there are not as. Many worlds in the immenfity of fpace as there are words in a thoufand volumes, or particles of flying | | duft * Reply to Toriapy, p, 27. Che lV, Arminianifin examined. 361° duft on our globe. Or if we reject the expanded ideas of aftronomers refpecting a plurality of worlds, muft the multiplicity of the objects, and thence a tacit fear left they fhould be any way dif. tracting to the divine mind, or fatiguing to the divine power, be the reafon of that reje@ion ? Rather is it not one of the greateft glories of Je- hovah, that he perceives with infinite café all pof- fible worlds, and all poffible multiplicities and varieties of fuch worlds? And does not reafon dictate, that he could with equal eafe decree what he pleafed of thofe poflibles ? Confequently with what eafe could he perceive and decree all atoms and accidents in ‘this little dwelling place of worms.”? - Befide, is not what the apoftle fays of men, ap- plicable to every living creature, ** In him we live and move?” And is it not equally true, that in him every particle of duft, every ray of light, “has its being ?” To fuppofe therefore that Gop des crees things -iz general, as Mr, Fuetcuer often intimates, but not 7 particular, on account of the multitude of objects, and of accidents to which they are liable, is a fort of compliment to the divine mind which is highly affronting, as if he were “al. together fuch a one as ourfelves,” or at moft an augmentation only of what is finite. Let any Rouve who has juft notions of an INFINITE MIND judge of the following queftions for himfelf. Is it more difficult for Gop to create a thoufand worlds than one ? To determine the movements of the folar fyftem than our little globe ? To appoint the general laws of nature, than the execution of thofe laws $62 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. laws in their minutie ? To afcertain the production, the progrefs, refractions, reflections, and abforbti- ons of all the rays of light exifting in the whole duration of time, than if one only were the objec of his attention ? If, indeed, we judge of divine perfetions as Limited, we an{wer in the affirmative, and fay, that every additional obje& requires additional power, wifdom, attention, &c. But if we judge of the great 1 AM in a manner worthy of himfelf, we fhall fay, that al/ difficulty, which does not imply a real contradiction,. is infinitely re- moved from him. It cannot be more difficult, diffracting, perplexing, or any way unworthy of Gop, to pay a minute individual attention to mil- Hons of millions of aximalcule, grains of fand, or drops of water, and afcertain every motion and accident relative to each, than it would be to make a fingle monarch his only care. §}29.(5.) Mr. FLetcner objets that we afcribe too abfolute a dependence upon Gop to accountable beings. Mr. Toprapy had objected to the Armi- lan notion of a /él/- desermining power, becaufe it smplied a degree of independence anfuitable to a creature, To this Mr. F. returns fuch an anfwer, containing fuch a reprefentation of the dependence of a creature on Gop, as nothing but the def. peration of a caufe would fuggeft. ‘¢Is a horfe in- dependent on its mafter, becaufe it can determine sifelf to range or lie down in his pafture ?—Isa ‘captain independent on his general, becaufe he can cetermine himfelf to ftand his ground, or to run away in ss a ah Arminianifin examined. 363 in an engagement ?—=Are fubjects independent on their fovereign, becaufe they can determine them= selves to break or keep the laws of the land ?”* Does this notion of our dependence on our Maker, Preferver, and Governor, bear any re- femblance or confiftency with the apoftle’s account of the fame fubjeat? “* In Gop we (not the good only, but aii promifcuoufly, we) live, move and have our being,” What are laws of nature without effectuofity ; or organized bodies and mind, with- out the immediate concurring energy of the firft caufe ° , Yet Mr. Fiercuer allows, not only that ‘“ all free agents have received their life and free-agency from Gop,” but alfo that they ‘* are every mo- ment dependent upon Gop, for the prefervation of their life and free-agency.”} But the queftion is, whether thefe free agents are independent on Gop in their free-agency ? Whether any being in earth, or heaven, or hell, is independent on Gop in his aéis, in any individual at? The affirmative, we -fay, is irreconcileable with all juft views of crea- turely dependence, or the effential difference be- tween a creature and the Creator. What though Mr. F’s horfe, captain, or fubject, in the illuftra- , tion above quoted, be dependent, in fome refpetis, on the mafter, the general, and the fovereign, are there not a thoufand refpef&ts in which they are independent on them ? How can this, therefore, be applicable to Gop and the creature without danger of irreverent rafhnefs ! | Unem- * Reply to Topiapy, p. 99, + Ibid. ut fupra. 364 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. Unembarrafied with the fhackles of a difficult caufe, Mr. F. had undertaken to ferve, how dif- ferent from the fentiment now oppofed is the ten- dency of the following language, which, in juftice to the author’s piety, deferves notice in this place, “All our fe, light, and power, are nothing but emanations from him who js the fountain of life, the fun of righteoufnefs, the wifdom and power of Gop, Jehovah our righteoufnefS. All that Lracious rewardablene/s of the works of faith, all that aptitude of our {prinkled obedience unto eternal life, all that being worthy, which he himfelf condefcends to {peak of, Rev. iit, 4, and Luke xx. 35, {pring not only from his gracious appointment, but from his over- flowing merits.—What have we, great Gop, that we have not received from thy gracious hand? and fhall we keep back part of thy inconteftable pro- perty, and impioufly wear thy robes of praife ! Far be the fpiritual facrilege from every pious breaft !—— In point of riff equivatence, our beft works of. faith, our holieft duties, cannot merit the leaft reward. But, O may the humbling truth keep us forever in the duft! in point of rid juftice our every bad work properly deferves infernal torments. -——Are our hearts foftened? It is through the influence of his preventing grace. Are our fins blotted out? It is through the {prinkling of his atoning blood. The very graces which the {pirit ‘works in us, and the fruits of holinefs which 'thofe graces produce in our hearts and lives, are acceptae ble only for Chrift’s fake.— All Chriftian believers fay, Not we, but the grace of Gop in Chrift. So far as their he Eve Arminianifn examined, 365 their sempers and aéfions, have been good, they cry out, Zhou haft wrought all our works in us—J£ ever we did one truly good work, the merit is not ours, but Gop’s, who by his free grace prevented, accompanied and followed us in the performance. For itis God, who of his good pleafure worketh in us both to will and to do. Phil. ii. 12. Not I, fays the apoitle, but the grace of God in me?* This is lan- guage worthy of a chriftian divine; what a pity it fhould ever be contradiged. § 30. (6.) Mr. Frercuer, like Dr. Wuitsy, takes it for granted, from fome unguarded exprefii- ons of Calvinifts, that if decretive elefion be true, decretive reprobation muft be fo too, This reprefentation of the cafe is induftrioufly propagated by modern Arminians, which is an additional call for animadverfion upon it. Thus Mr. F. afferts: ‘« Abfolute calvinian election unavoidably drags after it abfolute calvinian reprobation :—a_ black repro- bation this, which neceffitates all who are perfonally written in the book of death to fin on and be damned.”-+ This affertion is as unfounded in truth, as itis void of decent candour; and which we not only difavow, but alfo demonftrate to be rinpoffible. Abfolute election implies a pofitive appointment, which we have proved before to be worthy of Gop and a glorious fa&; but reprobation, in Mr. F’s accept ation of the term, being an appointment of fin as the * Frercuer’s Difcourfe on Salvation by the covenant of grace, in Lgual Check, p. 44. &c. T Anfwer to TopLapy’s Vindication of the decrees, p. ge Note. 366 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. the mean, and of mifery as the end, has been alfo proved to be equally inconfiftent with the nature of fin, as a moral defect, of God as a being of infinite holinefs and juftice, and of man as a free agent. In reference to this fubje& Mr. Firercuer makes a very curious propofal: ‘If any Calvinift in the world can prove that upon the calvinian plan, among the thoufands of Calvin’s reprobates who are yet in their mother’s womb, oe of them can, any how, avoid final damnation, I folemnly engage myfelf before the public to get my checks burnt at Charing Crofs by the common hangman, on any cay which Mr. Hitt, Mr. Toprapy, and Mr. M*‘ Gowan will pleafe to appoint.”** This paflage, in one view of it, 1s worded in fo cautious 2 manner, that mow it 1s become impoffible for the boys. at Charing Crofs to have a bonfire of the checks; but in another view, had the parties concerned claimed the diverting engagement, they might ; for the requifition was not fo hard a tafk as he thought, except he meant to infult his read- ers by requiring contraditions. | Mr. Fretcner himfelf would allow that eventu- ally, or in faéd?, fuch and fuch individuals of the human race will be in heaven and in hell. Now ‘‘on the calvinian plan” the reprobates are the latter; and their mifery is of them/elves fo entirely as if there were neither decree nor even foreeknow- ledge in Gop. What more could Mr. F. fay or with on the fubje@ ? This cannot be faid of the others, Fabid. ptr Ch. TV. Arminianifin examined. 367 others, for their happinefs, being areal good, is of God. But fhould any one fay, What Mr. F, required was an acknowledgement that one of thofe who, in fad, will be miferable, might have been ‘by fome means” brought in fact to heaven. If the meaning be, that the reprobates, as the ob- jector calls them, fhould have fuitable and fuffici- . ent means to avoid mifery ; or caz, notwithftanding any fuppofed decree of reprobation to the contrary, which is all in reafon that can be required to con- ftitute obligation in moral agents; I hefitate not to fay, The propofal is accepted, a Calvinift can prove, and has proved in this volume, what Mr. F. required, and to which he annexed his extra. ordinary engagement.—But now, reader, out of the four perfons concerned in the propofal, including the author of the Checks to Antinomianifm, three are gone to heaven, where they are better employed than in mutual recriminations and jarrings by the way thither. Mr. Toprapy had argued, ‘If it can be proved that Gop ewes falvation to every rational being he has made; shes, and then only, will it follow, that Gop is: unjuft in not paying his debt of falvation to ~each.—-W hat fhadow of injuftice can be faftened on his conduét for, in fome cafes, withholding whag he does not owe ?”?* How does Mr. F. anfwer it ? Why, by granting to the prefent writer all he wifhes in order to eftablifh the Equity of Divine Government, and the Sovereignty of Divine Grace. G¢ The * Topzapy’s More Work for Mr. Joun Westey, p. 355 36. ; 368 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. “¢ The flaw of it,” fays Mr. F. * confifts in fup- pofing, that there can be no MEDIUM _ between denying eternal falvation, and appointing to eternal damnation; and that, becaufe Gop may ab/olutely elec? as many of his creatures as he pleafes to a crown of glory, he may ab/olutely reprobate as many as Calvinifm pleafes to eternal fin and ever- Jafting burnings.”’* Here Mr. F. fuppofes a medium between denying falvation, and pofitively reprobating ; but at the fame time that Calvinifm — knows no fuch medium. In the prefent attempt, however, a Calvinift not only acknowledges the exiftence of fuch a medium, but has undertakento point out, and from firft principles to eftablifh, the indifpenfable neceflity of it in the true fyftem of Theology ; but which Mr. F. neither did, nor, on his own principles, could do. But after acknowledging the neceflity and exift- - ence of fuch a medium, what can Mr. FLETCHER mean by fuch reprefentations as the following ? “Tt is a common /fratagem of the Calvinitts to fay, Ele&tion depends upon Gop’s love only, but _ damnatian depends upon our fin only. Break the thin fhell of this fophifm, and you will find this bitter kernel; Gon’s diftinguifhing love elects fome to unavoidable holinefs and finifhed falvation; and his diftinguifhing wrath reprobates all the reft of _ mankind to remedilefs fin and eternal damnation.”+ It is natural to afk, whether Mr. F. would have a calvinift fay, who as cordially abhors whateis here palmed * Anfwerto Topuapy’s Vindication of the Decrees, p. 33. Same Ts tr Pa @ Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined. 369 palmed upon him as he himfelf ever did ? He could with him to fay, ‘* The fole caufé of the Reprobation which ends in unavoidable damnation is only fin.” For one, this I can moft cordially fay, as what appears to mea facred truth, but without giving up Calvinifm, becaufe zt does not * ftand or fall with abjolute reprobation,” notwithftanding Mr. F,’s re- peated aflertions to the contrary. When oppofing the doctrine of ab/olute election to eternal life, he adds : “ An election this, which, i the very nature of things, drags after it an ab/olute reprobation to eternal death, through remedilefs fin.” Surely, when the author of the above paragraph penned it, he muft have had a very confined notion of the ‘* nature of things.” § 31. The Rev. R. Hitt had faid, in his ** Friendly Remarks,” that ‘ Salvation wholly depends upon the purpofe of Gop according to election, without any refpect to what may be in the elect.” In open defiance to his own fuppofed inedium, as well as of facred truth, Mr. F. thus replies : ‘* Now, Sir, as by the do@rine of ande- miable confequences, he who receives a cuinea with the king’s head on the one fide, cannot but receive the /ions on the other fide; fo he that admits the preceding propofition, cannot but admit the infepaa rable counterpart, namely, the following pofition, which every attentive and unprejudiced perfon fees written in blood upon that fide of Catvin’s ftand- ard which is generally kept out of fight, «« Damna. tion wholly depends upon the purpofe of Gop Aa according BION ie EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. according toreprobation, without refpect to what may be in the reprobates.”+ A fingle remark fufficiently expofes this fanciful confequence. As there 7s mot in fact, any meritoriops good, or even diftinguifhed excellence of any kind, in the finally happy, but what was gratuitoufly received, their falvation mutt wholly depend on the purpofe and choice of Gop; which Mr. F. himfelf has often acknowledged in a manner more or lefs explicit : But, on the reverfe, as there zs in fact, a fufficient demerit in the finally miferable, without any pur- pofe, will, or agency of Gop whatever, their damnation is of them/elves alone, totally irrefpective of all reprobation. In various ways, and by unwearied efforts, Mr. F. has endeavoured to faften this horrible confe- quence upon Calvinifm. ‘* The queftion is not,” he remarks, ‘¢ whether God.can juftly limitate the happinefs of man, or the number of the men whom he will raife to fuch and fuch heights. This we never difputed.”” Wherein then does this differ from true Calvinifm ? In nothing. Mr. F. having ob- ferved fome unguarded expreffions in Mr. Top- LApy and fome others, called them Calvinifm, and inferred from thence, that all Calvinifts hold, what in fact. they abhor, namely, that Gop ‘‘ may alfo without injuftice abfolutely reprobate as many of his unborn creatures as he pleafes, and decree to pro- tract their infernal torment to all eternity, after having firft decreed their neceflary fall into fin, and their neceflary continuance in fin, as neceflary means + Logica Genevenfis, p. 144, 145 Che ly: Arminianifin examined. 37% means in order to their neceffary end, which is eternal damnation.’’* After fuch a monftrous ex. hibition as this, who can wonder that Mr. F.’s partial admirers fhould be frightened at the very name of a Calvinift, and view him as a deluded Manichean ! What could we think of a man who fhould de- tain two perfons of the fame name, one guilty and the other innocent; then clothe both ake with bear-fkins, and endanger their being alike worried ? By the name Calvinifm, notwithftanding the pleas, the arguments, the proteftations of numbers to the contrary, Mr. F. often intends every thing abo. minable and horrible, fomething worfe and more frightful than Manicheifm. Is this controverfial fairnefs? Is it Chriftian candour? However, let us callin charity’s lovely aid, and impute the ex- ceptionable touches not to defign, but to pres. judice or inattention. Mr. Topiapy had rafhly faid, ** The predefti- nation of fome to life, afferted in the /eventeenth article, cannot be maintained without admitting the. reprobation of fome others to death—and all who have fubfcribed to the faid article, are bound in honour, confcience and law, to defend reprobation, wereit only to keep the feventeenth article “* upon its legs.” If Mr. T. meant by ‘* reprobation” a poftive appointment to fin and wrath; I repeat the term ufed before, it was rafhly afferted. For the doc. trine of the feventeenth article, which, inthe plain unfophifticated fenfe of it, expreffes genuine Cal- Aa2 vinifm, * Anfwer to Topiapy’s Vindication, p. 34, ave EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. vinifm, is a cclumn of burnifhed gold, placed on an eternal rock, and needs not a leg of human artifice to fupport it. § 32. Itis truly fhocking to obferve in what an unqualified manner Mr. F. attributes the moft horrid fentiments to Calvinifm, Mr. Topziapy had faid, with great truth, “‘ If Gop be not obliged, in juftice, to fave mankind, then neither is he unjuft in pafiag by fome men ;” on which our author exclaims: ‘‘If by paffing fome men by, this gentleman means, as Catvinism pozs, abfo-— lutely predeftinating fome men to neceflary, remedi- lefs fin, and unavoidable eternal damnation; we deny that God might july have pafied by the whole of mankind :—we deny that he might juftly have pafled by ome fingle man, woman or child. —Nay, we affirm, that, if we conceive Satan, or the evil principle of Manes, as exerting creative power, wé could not conceive him worfe employed, than in forming an ab/olute reprobate in embryo: thatis, a creature uncon- ditionally and abfolutely doomed to remedilefg wickednefs, and everlafting fire.”? + And fo does the writer of thefe pages ; but fhould fo monftrous a fuppofition be laid to the account of Calvinifm ? Nay, rather, why thould fo daring an affertion be made re{peéting what Calvinifm does mean by the phrafe ‘* paffing by?’ 2 Is it to be wondered at, that an admirer of Mr. F.’s controverfal talents, who has not ftrength of mind to diftinguifh, or candidnefs of temper to acknowledge a difference between tT Ibid. p. 40, Chi ENG Ayminianifin examined. 273 between what is effential to Calvinifm and what js here imputed to it, fhould draw the inference, that alt Calvinifm has in it fomething fupremely /atanic and Manichean ? Nay, it the reader were confci- ous of any efforts of candour in his heart, they are inftantly fupprefled: ‘ The fimple are free quently impofed upon by an artificial fubftituting of the harmle/s word « paffing by’ for the terrible word adbjolutely reprobating to death.”’*f So then, whenever a Calvinift ufes the “ harmlefs” word he is guilty of * artifice; he not only may Jometimes mean what is ‘ terrible” by it, but, this being [no doubt by xeceffity] the acceptation of the phrafe in the calvinian fenfe, he muft be {9 underftood. The prefent writer, however, and a great majority, if not all the Calvinifts, will, he prefumes, therein juttify him, denies the charge, and abhors the im- putation, CaLvIN, it is true, in the warmth of his op- pofition to Popery, faid fome things on the fubjeét, which, if we interpret them without either charity to the perfon or candour to his caufe, according to the moft exceptionable and harfh acceptation of terms employed, ought to be rejected. But, that _ amiable grace charity, which hopeth the beft of all men profeffing godlinefs, might fay much in exculpation of him. When for inftance, he fayss “‘Itaque prout in alterutrum finem gui/que con- ditus eft, ita vel ad vitam vel ad mortem predeftia natum dicimus.” This, if taken in the worft fenfe, might be drefled up, as Mr. F, dogs the whole body of Calvinifm, in the moft frightful colours ; | A a3 but t Us fupra, 474 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. but candour will wait for Calvin’s own explanati- on of his meaning: ‘* Hanc vero Deus non modo in fingulis perfonis teftatus eft, fed /pecimen gus in tota Abrahz fobole edidit—Ante omnium oculos eft fegregatio: in Abrahe perfona, quafi in arido — trunco, populus unus, aliis rejeétis, peculiariter eligitur.” After all the attention to the fubject in my power, as contained in CALvin’s works, what he here exprefles I take to be the real dodirine of that illuftrious writer, ftripped of obnoxious in- cidental expreffions, and interpreted by Chriftian charity. Nay, fuppofe the terms employed by Carvin, TorLapy, or any other, were taken in the worft fenfe that an Arminian choofes to put upon them, the fource of the miftake, or obfcurity, would be the very fame as that of Mr. F.’s intemperate zeal apainft his opponents, viz. That predeftination to Lire mujft needs imply predeftination to DEATH, <¢ as he who'takes the king’s head muft alfo take the on’s.? Take away this falfe principle, and Carvin’s predeftination, «* ad vitam vel ad mortem” +s the moft innocent and amiable thing in the world. Nor let any one abfurdly urge, that the good man took plea/jure in the thought of human mi/ery for its own fake. ‘To be fatisfied of the falfity of the principle itfelf, whether held by CaLvin, FietTcner, or any other, we fhould ever keep in mind the abfolute impofidility of sin being, in any refpect, decretively necefitated, as before fhewn, without involving the moft abfurd contradictions, while + Catv. Init. Lib. iii. Cap. 216 Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined, 375 while holine/s muff, in every refpec& and degree, be pofitively, voluntarily, and therefore decretively | caufed. Whoever confiftently holds, that all good is from Gop, and all evil from ourfelves, which is the effence of all religion and morality, muft alfo difcard the illegitimate inference, the ideal fiction, that fin is pofitively ordained. § 33. (7.) It is again objected by Mr, Frercuer that the Calvinifts reprefent God as permitting fin, In nothing does our author feem more ata lofs than in attempting to an{wer the following queftion : <¢ How came moral evil to be permitted, when it might as eafily have been hindered, by.a Being of infinite goodnefs, power and wifdom?” In this queftion, the term ‘‘ permitted” ftands evidently oppofed to ‘‘ hindered,” and is therefore the fame as not hindered. But how does Mr, F, anfwer the queftion? By a childifh pun: that Gop, * far from permitting man to fin, ftrictly forbad him to do it!” And by a ruinous z//ufration, taken from a general and his foldiers: ‘* A general wants to try the faithfulnefs of his foldiers, that he may reward thofe who wi// fight, and punith thofe who will go over to the enemy.—By his omnifcience “he fees that fome wit defert: by his omnipo- tence he would indeed hinder them from doing it -—but his infinite wifdom does not permit him to do it,” And by an illiberal inference: ‘¢ By fuch dangerous infinuations as that, which this illuftra- tion expofes, the fimple are imperceptibly led to confound Chriff and Belial; and to think, that there is little difference between the celeftial parent of good, and the Manichean parent of good and | Aa evil ; 6ye7 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. evil; the Fanus of the fatalifts, who wears two. faces, an angels face and a devil’s face ; a mongrel Imaginary Gop this, whofe fancied ways are, like his fancied nature, full of duplicity.”? * Now, pafling by the pun and the inference, to notice the illu@tration; the reader fhould be re- minded, that on Mr, F.’s principle that reprefents fin as the offspring of a pofitive caule, i. e. free will which alfo is the offspring of the divine will, here is not only the zor hindering of fin, but a pofitive divine caufation aferibed to it, the very thing the objection profeffes to avoid. _Befides, Mr, F.’s illuftration is as imperfect, in another refpect, ag the fyftem he defends, Man’s dependence upon Gop Is of a nature cffentially different from that of foldiers on their general. In Gop all his creatures live and move; and without his will and concurrence no act could poflibly take place, Omnifcience fees man will fin; the’ will is given by the creator and governor to man, and the divine concurrence is added to his volition. So that by this illuftration Mr. F. refers the origin of evil to the wilf of God as much as the grofieft fatalifm can do, vg To his illuftration, Mr. FLetcuer adds an gp. gument, tending to prove, “ that this world was the moft perfect which Gop could create, to difplay his infinite power, and manifold wifdom,”+ At length we are brought, it fhould feem, to a conclufion which is not a little humbling to the cavils of Arminianifm : Goo could not hinder fin, but by fupprefling, or not fufficiently difplaying, his in- hi finite * Ibid. p. 45. + Ut Supra. Choy: Arminianifin examined, - | 377, finité power and manifold wifdom, The unavoid- able conclufion is, on Mr. F.’s principle refpectiing the nature and caufation of fin, that Gop is pof- Si tively the willer of the exiftence of this montfter, in order ‘to difplay his infinite power, and mani- fold wifdom !”? A fentiment this, and which, I ap- peal to every candid and intelligent reader, is fairly drawn from Mr. F.’s premifes, utterly unworthy of the divine equity and rectitude, § 34. (8.) We are again told, that to neceffj- tate free agents is to defray their nature. ‘Thus Mr. Poeronan interrogates and replies: ‘ But could not GoD NECESSITATE FREE AGENTS to keep the law they are under ? Yes, fays Calvinifm—but {cripture, good fenfe, and matter of fact, fay No.?* This, it muft be acknowledged, 1s a bold affertion ; and, it fhould feem, more bold than true. It is contrary to fcripture, to reafon, and common fenfe, to fuppofe that the fpirits of juft men made perfes lofe. their free agency. And yet, who does not admit that they are neceffitated to keep the law they are under, On this paflage, I would remark: 1. Mr. Fuetcuer has exprefsly acknowledged a neceffity of confequence, and prophetic certainty. Now if fuch neceflity be allowable in any cafe, it muft be be in the influencing of rational beings in fuch a man- ner as that their prefent holinefs and confequent happinefs may be truly predicated of as coy future. 2, We acknowledge, that abfolute decretive neceflity to fin is incompatible with free agency and accountablenefs ; * Ut fupra, 378 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. accountablenefs ; but not fo the neceflity for which we plead, as appears from the following confide. rations. Gop fees to the end of ai/ events, as faéts truly and certainly future ; this is granted, Every event muft have fome caufe of its exiftence ; which every rational mind muft admit, No /inful event, as fuch, can have a pofitive caufe reducible to the qilf of the firft caufe: which our prefent oppo- nents (though not very confiitently) will fubfcribe to; otherwife, the boundaries between moral and natural ‘evil are deftroyed. And, indeed, by the bye, this fhocking confufion fome of the anti- ealviniftic neceffitarians have openly avowed: As if fin were notan oppofition to thedivine will and na- ture, but merely the parent of pain to the fubjec himfelf ; which fentiment will be noticed in the fequel. However, as every event muft have fome caufe, fo,of courfe every good af; if this caufe be in ourfelves, radically confidered, then ai/ good is not from God, which is contrary to an acknow. Iedged axiom. But if all good be from Gop ultimately, in fuch a manner that by /upprefiing his creating act, the good act of the free agent could have no future exiftence; but on the contrary, by his creating and providential acts they could be certainly future; which refts on incontrovertible fa& ; it irrefragably follows, that a free agent 1S neceffitated to aét, in our fenfe of the term, and con- fequently that NECESSITY AND FREE AGENCY ARE NOT INCONSISTENT. 3 of Again; When Mr. Friercuer objects, ** It would be as abfurd to create free agents in order to Chi: TV, Arininianifm examined. ag to mnecefitate them, as to doa thing in order to undo it,? he confounds two things that are in themfelves extremely different, viz. Adfolute necelf- fitation with that which is only Aypothetical, whichour author has openly admitted. And indeed what can be, more reafonable than the fuppofition, that Gop has aright, decretively and operatively, to lay down holy premifes, though he forefees that from thefe the creature will certainly draw a_ practical Sinful inference? But if fo, has he not a right, in like manner, to lay down fuch premifes, from which he forefees the creature will certainly draw a practical holy inference? Now all certainty mult have fome caufe ; fuch caufe muft be either in Gop or in the crea- ture; to fay that the certainty of drawing the prace tical fnful inference originates in Gop, is to make him the certain caufe of fin, which we alike reject: and rather fay, this caufe is in ourfelves, that is, our effential defe@tibility as creatures dealt with in mere equity. To deftroy this defe7idilty is as impofhble as it is to deftroy the difference between Creator and creature, which is the real bafis of it. Here then, the creature, /eft to itfelf, uninfluenced by fovereign - undeferved interpofition, is an adequate and certain -caufe of drawing the practical finful inference, or of moral defee, without any po/itive will, whatever, on the part of Gop, as the caule of its exiftence.—But if {o—that man left to himfelf in equity, is an ade- “quate certain caufe of defect—it mutt follow, that if rational free creatures keep af all the law they are under, they mutt be gracioufly neceffitated to tt, that is, by an hypothetical, not am abfolute necef- ty: Aneceffity, L would add, which has the dif pofition 580 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY, pojfition for its objed, not the will; and yet from which the will certainly choofes good, in proportion as it is aflimilated to the moral character of deity. In a word, there can be no obedience predicated of as certainly future, without an hypothetically necefjary caufation on the part of Gon, § 35. Mr, Frercuer, in the following quota- tion, {peaks good fenfe and found divinity : ** Gop’s diftributive Juftice could never be difplayed, nor could free obedience be paid by rationals, and crowned by the rewarder and judge of all the earth, unlefs rationals were FREE-wiling creatures.” But is it not wonderful that he fhould deny free agency to devils, and alfo mit the free agency of Gop? Of the bleffed Gop he fays: «« He does not exer. cife his liberty, in choofing moral good or evil,” On the other hand, of Satan, he fays: ‘* His liberty of choice is not exercifed about moral good or evil.”t Surely nothing but a defperate effort to uphold a falling caufe could di@ate fuch aflertions;, aflertions thefe, diametrically oppofite to theologi- cal and philofophical axioms. For, 1. The choice of good, in ‘preference to evil, is not praj/e-worthy except it be free. But Gon’s choice of good in preference to evil is praife-wor- thy, therefore it is free. 2. The will that does not choofe good, in pre- Jerence to evil, isnot a good will, But the will of Gop is good, therefore it is a will of preference. The truth is, Gop’s will is free by hypothetical neceflity only; and not by that abfolute neceflity a | for +. J Scripture Scales, Part the Secend, P- 270, 280. Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined. 38% for which Mr. F. pleads. To fay with him that the divine will is ab/olutely neceffitated to any thing is abfurd ; and as much more injurious to euch than the fuppofition of a creature being fo necef. fitated, as Gop is fuperior to creatures. Of all fatalifms this is the moft abfurd. Hypothetical. neceffity, which Calvinifts maintain, affords as firm and certain a conclufion as any premifes afforda - certain inference. Inftead, therefore, of exalting Fate toa fuperior throne, binding the will of the fupreme, we fay: Gop isa being of infinite, inva. riable goodnefs, wifdom, rectitude, &c. THEREFORE he always choofes good rather than its oppofite with infinite certainty. | On the same infallible principles we alfo demon- ftrate the confiftence of Human freedom with hy- pothetical neceflity. On the one hand, iF heis a moral agent, he is free from abfolute neceflity: iF _ his difpofition be wife, good, upright, 8c. we may infer his choice of good, rather than evil, in the fame proportion. On the other-hand, 1F his dif- pofition be foolifh, wicked, depraved, &c. an evil choice may be proportionably inferred. Now it is worthy of Gop, without infringing the liberty of the fubject, to influence and ameliorate the di/pofition, from whence, in the fame proportion, may be in- ferred the certainty of a good choice. This is the only neceffity of good actions for which we plead, And indeed Mr. Fuercuer, in his more conci- liating moments, feems to allow fo much: ** We never fuppofed,” he fays, ‘¢ that the natural will of fallen man is free fo good, before it is more or leis 382 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. lefs touched or rectified by grace.—We always maintained that the liberty of our will is highly confiftent with divine grace, by which it is put in a capacity of choofing life—Nor is this freedom derogatory to free grace; for, as it was free grace that gave an upright free will to Adam at his creation; fo, whenever his fallen children shink or a& aright, it is becaufe their free will is merci- fully prevented, touched, and fo far rectified by grace.—-All agree to afcribe to the free grace of the Kedeemer ALL the freedom of man’s will to coopD.— We give Gop in Chrift a// the glory of our falvation, and we take care not to give him—any of the fhame of our damnation.—At the Synod of Dort, the Arminians were fenfible that a gratuitous election can be defended by feripture and reafon.— We grant, that although Gop as a Judge is no re(pecter of perfons; yet, as a BENEFACTOR, he is, and of courfe has a right to be, fo far a re/peéfer of perfons, as to beftow his favours in various de- grees upon his creatures; dealing them to fome with amore {paring hand than he does to others.—We grant, that none of shefe peculiar éleét fhall ever pe- rifh, though they would have perifhed had they not been faithful unto death; and we allow that, with refpect to Gop’s foreknowledge and omnifci- ence, their number is certain —It is indubitable, that Gop, as a fovereign Benefactor may, without fhadow of injuftice, difpenfe his favours, {piritual and temporal, as he pleafes.—According to all our doctrines of grace, .perfons who are in glory like Peter, are infinitely more indebted to Chrift’s QTACe, Ch. IV. Arminianifin examined. 383 grace than perfons who lift up their eyes in tor. ments like Judas.—Now this election in which Judas has nointereft, fprings from Gon’s free grace, as well as from voluntary perfeverance in the free obedience of faith—Therefore Peter, and all the faints in glory, are indebted to Chrift, not only for their rewards of additional grace upon earth, but alfo for all their eternal falvation, and for al? the heavenly bleffings which flow from their particular redemption.””* If it be afked, wherein does Mr. Furetcuer’s fyftem differ from the Calviniftic one? The true anfwer is, In one fingle point—SELF-CONSISTENCY. ~ Let Arminians holding the fentiments now quoted only be confiftent with themfelves, and we afk no more. If what is now offered to the public fhould prove inftrumental in effecting fo defirable a pur- pofe, one principal defign of the publication will be anfwered. §36. To conclude: Though I have examined Mr. FLETCHER’s principles with a freedom due to the importance of truth, the reader is again reminded that I regard his perfonal character, and the tendency of his praéfica/ writings very highly; efpecially his Portrait of St. Paul + and Pofthumous Letters. He was a man of prayer, mortified to the world, hea- _ venly minded, fteady and indefatigable in his exer- tions * Fourth check, p. 218, 219, 236. Fictitious and Genuine Creed, pref. 6, 7, 10, 11. p. 16, 18. + A fecond edition of this work has been publithed in 2 vols, $vo. and fold by Longman, in London, 384. EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. tions to fave fouls from death, and direct them to “¢ Jefus Chrift and him crucified,” and lead them in the way of holinefs and peace. When therefore I view the character of Mr. Fietcuer, it is with no {mall regret that I find it requifite to animad- vert on his controverfial writings, and to obferve his prejudices running fo high againtt—Calviuifin, fhall I fay? Nay, rather, againft a man of fraw to which he gives that name. find even in his oppofition to what he calls Cal- vinifm, Ican give him full credit that his defign was praife-worthy—to vindicate the divine cha- racter, maintain the reign of holinefs in the church, and fpread truth in the world, In this defgn I have the pleafurable confcioufnefs of concurring ; but how far the fyftem he defended, compared with what is here propofed, is calculated to promote the propofed defign, is now left for public decifion, ‘ SEOCLEV, ? Ch. IV: Arminianifm examined: 386 SE CT. Vi The fovereionty of fubjective grace in transforming the mind to the divine likenefs.. . § 1. Difference arifing from a want of precife views of the nature of GRACE. § 2——4. (I,) Which denotes, according to fcripture, fometimes an ex- hibition of divine favour. § 5, 6. (II.} Some- tvmes the required effect of exhibited favour. And § 7. (III.) Sometimes the holy ftate of the mind. § 8. This produced by an internal operation of the Holy Spirit, and may be termed fubjective grace, $9. Thefe views of grace compared, § 10. Since the firft confittutes but a part of the agent’s motive, § 11. And the fecond is not the mere effect of the Sirf, § 12. Hence the neceffity of the third in all virtuous and holy atts, Further proved, § 133 (1.) From {cripture. § 1416, (2.) From rea- fon. § 17-23. (3.) From analogy. § 24—28, The nature of fubjettive grace more particularly — afcertained, : §r. i Gane controverfial differences have fub- . fitted, and now fubfift, not only between Calvinifts and Arminians, but among feveral other denominations of Chriftians, (fome of. which are ‘making confiderable efforts, in the prefent day, for the propagation of their fentiments), occafioned, Bb 1 prefume, wt $86 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. I ptefume, by the want of precife views of the nature of Grace. The import of the term, in general, is. fufficiently plain, as denoting divine favour: but the difficulty, from which arifes a difference of opinion, confifts in this —that fuch favour is reprefented in the facred otacles under feveral a/peéis, according to different relations and circumftances. _ Ne § 2. (I.) Sometimes divine favour, in the way of exhibition, addteffed to the intellect and will of the moral agent, is termed grace. Thus the mani- feftation of covenant favouts, as the love of Gop to a perifhing world in general; and in a higher degtee to his people in particular, the pardon of fin, the gift of righteoufnefs, falvation from moral evil and from hell, with everlafting life and glory, obtains that name. The grace of God that bring- eth falvation hath appeared unto all men ; that is, the gofpel, which is a difplay of divine favour, is preached to all nations and people. When the apoftle Peter fays (1 Pet. v. 12.) ‘* This is the true grace of Gop wherein ye ftand;” he evi- dently means the gofpel, in which is made a glorious exhibition of divine favour. ‘* The word of his grace’? is a periphrafis for ‘ the gofpel,”’ and often occurs in the New Teftament ; in which the word ‘ grace’? muft intend the divine favour in its exhzbited form. When St. Paul fays, «© Ye are fallen ftom grace,” (on fuppofition that the perfons he addreffed fought to be juftified by the Jaw) he can mean only that they had fallen or apoftatized Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined, 389 apoftatized from the true gofpel,—that they had loft a juft view of Gop’s manifefted favour to fin- ful men as the ground of their faith, and hope of falvation. When St. Peter obferves, (1 Pet. i, 10.) that fome “ prophefied of the grace that fhould come wnto’? the perfons whom he ad- dreffed; he afterwards (ver. 12.) explains. his meaning thus,— they did minifter (or inftrumen- tally exhibit) the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gofpel unto you.” The apoftle Jude fpeaks of fome *“* ungodly men; turning the grace of our Gop into lafcivioufnefs.”’ The very terms ufed in the connection prove that nothing elfe can be meant than the exhibition or manifeftation of covenant favour addreffed to free agents, who perverfely abufed it. Being ‘ungodly’? men, they were Eracelefs, in the fubjective fenfe of the word ; and, yet they abufed ** grace,” which neceflarily im- plies that it was fomething objective. It would be eafy to produce other paflages which are equally decifive in proof of this acceptation of the term ‘* grace,’’ but thefe, I prefume, are fufficient. § 3. In order more clearly.to prepare the way for the refult intended, it js obfervable that the whole of divine revelation may be confidered either asa tefimony, or as a proclamation addreffed to mankind by the King of heaven: 1. The whole of divine revelation, however diverfified, may be confidered as a tefiimony from Gop to man. It teftifies concerning God ; his aia Bb2 - nature; 388 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. nature, his perfections, his works, purpofes, and difpenfations. It teftifies concerning man; his nature, his dependence, his obligations, his apof- tacy, his actions — good and bad, and their con~ fequences. It teftifies concerning the world and the church, the prefent and the future ftate of exiftence, bleflings and wrath, life and death, heaven and hell. | Now every thing thus teftified is addreffed, immediately, to. the underftanding and qudgment, but ultimately to the wl; requiring approbation of what it teftifies to be true and good, and difap- probation of what it teftifies to be falfe and evil. I faid the addrefs is wltimately to the will of man; to his underftanding only as the medium, or the way to the hearé, (a word often ufed in fcripture as fynonymous with will) which is the feat of choice and freedom, and not to the /tate of the mind, whether good or bad, tho’ this has an important. snfluence on the determination of the will. 2. The whole of the facred {criptures may be confidered as a proclamation of the fupreme King addreffed to men. They proclaim divine favours and equitable requirements. They proclaim divine favours. They not only teftify that man is in an apoftate and ruined ftate, but iffue a proclamation of love, grace, and mercy. The fovereign of the univerfe, regarding the human race in a perifhing condition, announces forgivenefs, righteoufnels, grace, life, comfort, _ ftrength, in one word SALVATION. Such favours are implied in all the promifes made to the church Ge es and. Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined, 389 and each believer; in all the predzéions concerning the Meffiah and his kingdom; in all the cnuzta- ttons to partake of the good exhibited ; and in all the preparations made for the ufe of thofe who are. invited. It is obvious that. thefe proclamations of divine favours, provided and about to be conferred, are addreffed ultimately to the will, as well as the ‘* teftimonies’’? before mentioned. They do in- deed convey great inftruction; but all inftruction is intended to reach the heart and affections, and to afford the will fuitable means and inducements for comfort and obedience. Again, the facred {criptures proclaim plbealae requirements, All laws, whether moral or pofi- tive; all fanétions, whether rewards or punifh- ments; all invitations, threatenings, and expoftula- tions ; however diverfified, and by whatever in- ftruments or means conveyed, imply ‘a requifition of obedience. They require the obedience either of faith, of love, of fear, of worfhip, or of fervice. Now, it is plain, though the intellectual powers are firft and immediately addreffed, the will and affec- tions are ultimately aimed at in all thefe proclama- tions, both of favours and requirements. A bare confideration or contemplation of them 1s only a part of the implied obligation ; and then alone is the great end of them profitable to man as the - accountable agent, when the active powers, the will and the affections, are fuitably influenced to practice. § 4. In whatever light we view the holy {crip- Bb3 tures, 320. EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. tures, however analyfed, however claffed, the whole and each part of the Old and New Tefta- ment muft be of the nature of moral means, in fome form, or in fome refpects, addreffed to the will of the agent, in order to affift him in making his elections. Every addrefs, of whatever kind, fuppofes that he is free in his choice, without con- {traint. Every teftimony and every proclamation of divine favour is in fad revealed, or objective, grace; and is juftly intitled go/pel, as glad tidings to finners. Sovereign favour lays the foundation ; but equitable government demands compliance, and requires the moral agent to build upon it for eternity. Objective, exhibited grace may be a- bufed; the divine teftimony difregarded or dif- believed ; the heavenly proclamation undervalued and flighted. To ‘the prepared feaft many, tho’ invited, may not come: to the divine phyfician many, tho’ difeafed, may not apply. — Thefe views of grace, well confidered, will affift us in forming confiftent thoughts re{pecting other acceptations of the term, or other important truths exprefled by it. Gig, dt. ) Another acceptation of the word ‘* orace,’? as ufed by the infpired writers, is the effect produced by exhibited favour, as before explained, in the minds of real converts. Thus they reprefent liberality,* — ** See that ye abound in this grace alfo ;”’ evidently intending the exercife of a gener- ous and lib oe temper in relieving the neceflities of | F See 2. CU cr, av. wild.) Villa ae Chelly: Arminianifm examined. 391 of the indigent. And thus the Chriftian temper is reprefented by St. Peter, (2 Pet. ii. 18.) <* But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift.’”” When Barnabas came to Antioch, ‘‘ and had feenthe grace of Gop,’’ that is, when he perceived the appropriate effects of gofpel truths, ‘ he was glad.”” (Ads xi. 23.) St. Paul, in writing to the Hebrews, exhorts them to be obfervant, ‘¢ left any man fail of the grace of - Gop ;’’ or, as he explains himfelf, fail of a pure, chafte, and felf-denying temper. Now this gracious temper being no lefs the effect or fruit of the holy Spirjt than of evangelical truth in the foul, it has been always common in the chriftian church to call thofe tempers and exercifes of mind which the fcripture ftiles ‘* the fructs of the fpirit,’”’ by the term grace. For as each of thefe, love, joy, peace, long-fuffering, gentlenefs, goodnefs, faith, meeknefs, temperance, and the like, is called a fruit of the fpirit, fo each is called a grace of the Spirit, or a chriftian grace. Thus in ecclefiaftical and theological phrafeology, we fay, faith, hope, and love are chriftian graces ; and he who profpers in the fpiritual exercifes of religion is faid to grow in grace. Does any one refift incite- ments and perfuafions to vice with greater facility ? Is he more eafily induced to encounter difficulties. in the difcharge of known duty, or to forego per- fonal gratification for the good of others? Is he more fteady in his aim to bring every power of the foul to harmonife with the will, the plan, the glory of Gop? Is he more humble; more penitent ; FB b 4 more 392 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. more meek, gentle, and patient ; more loving and — “zealous ; more joyful in tribulation ; more peace- able in his views and deportment; more fimply dependent on fovereign grace; trufting and rejoic- ing in Chrift Jefus as the Lord our Righteoufnefs ; having no confidence in the flefh; walking by faith and not by fight? Does he grow up towards the ‘* meafure of the ftature of the fulnefs of Chrift ;” (Eph. iv. 13.) fetting his affections on things above, hungering and thirfting after righ- teoufnefs, forgetting the things that are behind, ‘¢ and reaching forth to thofe which are before ?”’ Then, in any of thefe or fimilar inftances, he grows in grace. This view of grace, therefore, we fhould con- fider as the effect of fovereign, | objective, favour, Faith cometh by hearing the divine teftimony. We love Gop, becaufe he is “difplayed, efpecially in the gofpel, as lovely: we fear him, becaufe of his awful majefty, his glorious power, and perfect rectitude: we believe the divine teftimony, becaufe Gop that cannot lie, deceive, or do wrong, whofe authority is equitable and fupreme, declares it: we hope to enjoy future good things, becaufe the divine word contains the promife of them to cer- tain characters, Is the chriftian born again, and made a new creature, ‘¢ fo that old things are paffed away, and all things become new ?”’ It is by the “‘ word of Gop,” or the ‘* word of truth,”” which is an’ incorruptible feed fown in the mind. The new creation, or the new man, confidered as an pea of revealed truth, is an affemblage of | chriftian Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined, 393 -chriftian graces, begotten and brought forth in the mind in connection with the indwelling influence of the Holy Spirit. And therefore the very fame effect is afcribed, at one time to the word, and at another time to the Spirit; becaufe both are con« cerned, in different tefpects, in producing it. For inftance ; if a ‘© clean heart’? be the effet, one time it is .afcribed to the Spirit of Gop, — “« Create in me a clean heart, O God,’’ or, in other words, ** Renew a right fpirit within me :” another time it is afcribed to the word of truth, — “ Now are ye clean, through the word which I have fpoken to you.”” And indeed in this manner, mott of the chriftian graces, individually confider- ed, are often reprefented. For initance ; faith is an effect both of revealed truth and of the divine Spirit; for ** faith cometh by hearing,” and ‘« faith is of the operation of Gop.” It implies alike a te/timony to be credited, and a fpiritual view of that teftimony ; and the effect ** believing”’ is properly afcribed to either of them. The fame reprefentation is applicable ‘to every other chriftian temper whatever which may be exprefled by the Ferm .£° grace,)’ | § 6. Now, as thefe difpofitions and holy tem- pers are evidently required in thofe who enjoy the favours before mentioned objectively, and which are commonly denominated the “ means of ‘orace,” there {eems a propriety in calling faith, hope, love, joy, fear, &c. required graces. . For when itis faid, *¢ Believe in the Lord Jefus Chrift ;°°—~«* Let Ifrael : hope 394 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. hope in the Lord ;”—** Thou fhalt Jove the Lord thy God ;’—‘* Rejoice evermore ;’’—** O be joyful in the Lord ;’"—** Let Him be your fear, and let him be your dread:’’—thefe and all other holy tempers, as effeéts of divine truth, are authorit- atively REQUIRED by the fupreme Governor. And to queftion whether ai//, or only fome of thofe to whom the word of falvation is fent, are thus required tobe holy in all manner of tempers and converfation, is the fame thing as to queftion whether all, or only fome of thofe who hear the gofpel teftimony are the fubjects of God’s moral government. What is required is nothing elfe than the genuine effect of revealed truth on a mind which is not in acriminal ftate either of indiffer- ence or diflike to it. Let the mind be in a right ftate, or what it ought to be, and-the required effe& will follow of courfe. But if God were obliged, either in goodnefs, in equity, in faithful- nefs to his engagement, or in any refpect whatever, to make the mind what it ought to be, required grace would be as univerfal as the gofpel meflage. No one would or could then “ fail of the grace of God,” as to the Chriftian temper. Nay, if God were any way bound, in juftice, in honour, in fa- vour, or in any refpect, to give and mainiain a right mind, or what ought to be, in order to fecure the agent from tranfgreffion, Sin would be impofli- ble, contrary to faé. Therefore we may fairly conclude, that holy tempers are juftly required of God, independently of the /fate of the mind; becaufe truth is an adequate caufe to produce the Ch. IV. Arminianifm: examined. 395 the required effect where the difpofition is not faulty. Were any, when fpeaking of the chriftian’s graces, to prefer the term refleéted”? rather than ‘* required,’? the diftin&ion would be fufficiently preferved, and the term properly ex- preflive. For objective grace, or moral means, may be compared to incidental rays of light ; and the proper effect of thefe means to reflected rays. And indeed both might be ufed, were we to main- tain a ftill more accurate difcrimination of thought; the one applied to the moral governor, the other | to the moral agent. For what is required by the equitable governor, is refleéfed by the obedient fubject. Yet, awful fa& proves that requirement and obedience are far from being commenturate. Whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear, whether obedience or difobedience mark their character, the requifition is inflexibly the fame. § 7. (III.) Under the term * grace,” the facred oracles moreover intend the holy ftate of the mind, by which, in conjunction with revealed truth, free agents are effectually difpofed to know, love, believe, repent; to receive exhibited benefits, to truft in the Saviour, to delight in the law of Gop, and to ferve him in righteoufnefs and true holinefs. When the Pfalmift fays,* «© The Lord will give grace and glory,” it is expreffive of a gracious " nature, or a holy principle, and not merely fome exhibited favour. When the Apoftle James, after Solomon, fays,+ ‘ But he giveth more grace : wherefore * Psa. Ixxiv. 11. t Jam.iv. 6, Prov. iii, $4, -1 Pet. vy. 5. 396 EQUITY:AND, SOVEREIGNTY. wherefore he faith, God refifteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble,’’ he conveys the fame idea, The prophet Zechariah feems to in- tend the fame thing in the following words ;* « And I will pour upon the houfe of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerufalem, the {pirit of grace and of fupplications.”” The Scriptures ap- pear full of this important fentiment: the paflages are very numeraus, and require no comment. A few of them are the following. <¢ Of his fulnefs have all we received, and grace for grace.’*} ‘«¢ Who, when he was come,” (referring to Apollos) ‘helped them much which had believed through prace.p 9) See faid, My grace is fufficient for thee.’ * Grace and peace be multiplied.”’| ‘© But to every one of us is given grace, accordy ing to the meafure of the gift of Chrift.’’4 ‘< Grace, mercy and peace from Gop our father, and Jefus Chrift our Lord.’’"** ‘* Grace be with thee: be ftrong in the grace that is in Chrift Jefus.’++ ** Let us have grace to ferve God ac- ceptably—It is good that the heart be eftablifhed with grace.’tt ‘By the grace of God I am what Iam: and his grace which was beftowed on me was not in vain; but I laboured more abun- dantly than they all: yet not. I, but the grace of Gop which was with me.’’§§ ‘+ By the grace of Gop we had our converfation in the world.’’IIl In brief, this appears to be the import of thofe con- cluding * Zech, xii. 10. + John 1. 16, + Acts xviil. 27. §.2 Cor. xii. 92) «Apa Pets 1.2. q Eph. iv. 7. eT Tim. i 2. otf ae, vi. 21. 2 Pam. wale tt Heb. xi, 28, xiii, 9. §§ 1 Cor, xv. 10, {|} 2 Cor, 1. 12, Ch. IV. A rminianifm exaniined, | 297 39 cluding fhort prayers in the Apoftolic writings which we call Doxologies; ‘* The grace of our Lord. Jefus Chritt om with you—be with your {pirit-—be with you all.’’* The fame truth in idea is conveyed in many other forms of expreflion, both in the Old and New Teftament. ‘‘ Create in me a clean heart, and renew a right fpirit within me—uphold me with thy free fpirit.”’+ ‘¢ Until the fpirit be poured upon us from on high.”{—Thus Jefus, ‘«« Rxcept a man be born of the fpirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flefh is flefh, and that which is born of the {pirit is fpirit.’’]- And Paul, ‘* The law of the Spirit of life in Chrift Jefus hath made me free from the law of fin and death.—Ye are not in the flefh but in the Spirit, if fo be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any one have not the Spirit of Chrift, he is none of his.~—But if the Spirit of him that raifed up Jefus from the dead dwell in you; he that raifed up Jefus from the dead fhall alfo quicken your morta! bodies, by his. Spirit that dwelleth in you.—If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye fhall live.—The Spirit alfo helpeth our infirmities.”’§ |“ Now have we received, not the fpirit of the world, but _ the Spirit which is of Gop ; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of Gop.’’€ The Scriptures abound with palltges of the fame » import. | From * Rom. xvi. 20, and numerous other places. + Psa, Mi 10, (2. Eidsaa NXE A155 || John ui. Crary au Ram Vili. 2, 913. J 1 Cor, ii, 12. $98 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. § 8. From reprefentations thus decidedly ex- preflive of efficacious influence, what lefs can be inferred than another diftinét idea of grace, per- fectly different from the two preceding. It is not favour exhibited objectively, as a teftimony or proclamation of truth; nor is it the fruit or effed of truth, required by the fupreme governor, and reflected by the obedient fubjeét; as any unpre- judiced perfon may eafily perceive: but an cnternal operation, changing, renewing, regenerating, quick- ening, transforming, and helping the foul. This laft is what I would call susyectTive Grace. Its nature is diftinguifhable from every other fenfe of the term, in that it is the immediate effect of fove- reign will in the foul, Exhibited grace is objec- tzve only, and towards the agent: required and exercifed grace is from the agent, as the voluntary reflected beams of the Sun of Righteoufnefs ; but fubjeétive grace is in the agent, as an indwelling influence. This implies the immediate prefence of the Holy Spirit in the faints, as the fource of all actions morally good and holy. § 9. Hence it is obvious that grace difplayed in the word, though fovereign, is only the benevo- lence of Gop in the fyftem of moral government: It regards man as a moral agent, with freedom to accept or reject it; and therefore is no other, from. its very nature, than a moral mean in’ the way of propofal. The excellency of the obje& propofed, however great, raifes it to no higher character. Gop himfelf and his infinite perfetions ; Chrift in | his Ch. IV. a | rmincani|m cxamited: 399 , his perfon and work; the Holy Spirit, and all his riches of merciful influence, when only announced, exhibited, and propofed to the intellect and the active powers of the foul, can be cénfidered in no other light than grace in the fignification of means, _ Confidering attentively thefe three diftine views. of grace, we perceive that required grace is an effeé in the moral agent; and that the two others are united caufes of that effect. The objettive i 1S properly and exclufively a moral caufe; that is, a caufe whofe effect depetids on the manner in which it is regarded by the voluntary and free agent, as received or rejected; improved or abufed. It hasa moral tendency of the beft kind; but it may prove, thro’ the agent’s fault, either ufelefs or even deftructive. Thus the fame gofpel is either «a favour of life unto life, or a favour of death unto death,”’ according to the ftate of the mind. Ob- jective grace is a feed fown; if it be found ina good and honeit heart, that is, a fpiritual {tate of mind, it brings forth acceptable fruit; but if on the trodden path or ftony places, an unrenewed mind, it will come to nothing. The other caufe, confifting in the Holy Spirit’s immediate energy, as before confidered, has been fometimes very im- properly called a moral caufe ; for it is not founded in the idea of moral government, nor does the effect depend on the will of the recipient, or on the man- ner of its reception. ‘* Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flefh, nor of the will of man, 400. EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. man, but Gop.’’* “ For it is Gop which worketh iri you both to will and to do of his good pleafure.’’+ Its moft proper denomination is, a phy/ical caufe a term ufed by many judicious divines to convey the idea of immediate influence on the mind. But it fhould be recolleéted, that ‘‘ phyfical,”’ in this connection, denotes pofitive energy producing its _effe& without the intervention of the intelleé&t and will of the agent. It is not an object of choice, but a new nature influencing the choice with refpect to its proper objects ; a divine nature, qualifying the foul to exercife itfelf in righteoufnefs and true holt- nefs. Nor does the idea of fupernatural or fpiritual, affe& the propriety of calling it ‘‘ phyfical,”’ in the fenfe now explained, becaufe they alfo are included in the denomination. Some indeed have, moft improperly, confounded the terms ‘ phyfical influence,’? and an influence changing the phyfical powers of the foul. But the divine energy for which I p'ead produces no change of the phyfical powers, thatigh it fuperinduces a new nature, or a principle of fpiritual life and a@tion. : § 10. It therefore follows, that objeélive grace conftitutes but a part of that motive by which the will is determined to good. If it conftituted the whole of the motive, and every willof a moral agent were equally free in its choice, there can be no good reafon why it fhould not determine ail wills alike. But this is contrary to fat. Forthe word preached does not profit fome, not being mixed with faith | | Mi YicaOd Cig ae Ax *Johni, 13. © + Phil. ii, 13. | Ch. IV. Arminiani{m examined. AQT in them that hear it. The fact is, that, however it is underftood in common language, and even in fome philofophical difcuffions, if by motive we underftand that which determines the will in its choice, the frate of the mind is the moft important part of it: For this alone can enfure a good vo- lition. In proportion as the mind is the feat of benevolent, holy influence, its volitions will be good amidft the moft artful and powerful temp- tations. But the excellence of the other part of the motive, irrefpedtively of benevolent influence rendering the mind well difpofed towards the ob- jects, never can fecure a happy refult. | § 11. It follows alfo that required grace, as flowing from, or exercifed by the free agent, in love, faith, hope, &c. is not the mere effect of revealed truth and exhibited grace towards the agent. For why is the fame gofpel to one a fa- vour of life unto, life, but to another a favour of death unto death? The difference is not in the gofpel itfelf: The Bible is the fame; its language and exhibitions of truth and. goodnefs the fame. If, therefore, there be no. other part of the motive by. which; the.will is determined in connection. with the objective good, the will is determined. to good without.an adequate caufe ; which is. abfurd. -obferved, ,is totally diftin®. from. objective .grace, ; Ce | which 402 FQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ~ which is towards us, and independent of it; even as life is entirely diftinét from food and exercife, and, as to its nature, independent of them. There js no avoiding this confequence without offering the moft unnatural violence to Scripture, to reafon, and to analogy. More particularly, § 13. (1.) To interpret fuch paffages as the | following | in any other fenfe than that of /ubjecfive grace, is nothing better than to offer the moft unnatural violefice to fcripture. ‘“ Create in me a clean heart.’’ ‘I will put my fpirit within them.’ ‘I will pour out upon them the 1 OF oraces B xcept a man be born of the {pirit.”’ © My Father will give his holy fpirit to them that afk.’ ‘* He worketh in us to will.” ‘ Who ~ were born of God.”’ | 2 ea § 14. (2.) To deny fubjective grace is incon- fiftent with reafon. What can be more fo, than to fuppofe that the will acts wzthout motive; or that the objective means conftitute the whole: of motive ; or that the wll ztfelf is its own motive, by a felf-determining power unconnected with the antecedent and actual ftate of the mind? Yet one or other of thefe abfurdities is unavoidable, if we maintain, with fome divines, that there is no gracious influence but what is in, or infeparable from the word. Their defign, undoubtedly, is to main- - tain the honour of revealed truth, and the import- ance of right fentiments: but they would do well to confider, that: gi do moft honour to the ferip-_ tures PEt Ch.IV. — Arininianifm examined, 403 tures who affign them that office which infinite wifdom has appointed, and who do not afcribe to them what is inconfiftent with the fcriptures them- - felves, and contrary to the jufteft reafon. § 15. A few obfervations may perhaps contri- bute a little towards a jufter view of the fubject. 1. Subjedtive grace is not the proper and pri- mary ground of moral obligation. Indeed, in one fenfe, every favour, however communicated, lays a ground of additional obligation ; as different de- grees of mental powers, the improvement of the mind by education, divine illumination, &c. But the proper and primary ground is the objective good, or the advantage exhibited, conftituting the moral means of the agent; and which forms but one part of the determining motive. Were the - whole of the motive which actually determines the will, the ground of moral obligation, it would follow that obligation and obedience would be commenfurate; which is the very fubverfion of a moral fyftems:s)s tides, fas 2s | : | 2. Required grace, which is reflected by the agent; 1s properly the refult of prevarling motive ; --which motive is a compound of objective and {ub- jective grace. No moral means ever did or can prevail, when alone ; and therefore gracious effects will not follow. Yet the moral governor equit- ably requires the fruit of righteoufnels, where he “has afforded the objective means; becaufe fuch means are the proper ground of moral obligation. To fuppofe that any thing more is requifite, 1S | C8 2 fraught 404 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fraught with confequerices grofsly abfurd. It ‘would imply, either that the agent had a claim on being kept from abufing his liberty ; or, that God ought not to leave him to the freedom of his own will; or elfe, that his own freedom is an infallible. preferver ; or, again, that this freedom is perfect chance; or, finally, that there are, in the actions of moral agents, effects without any adequate caufe. 3. Though it be an important truth, that objedtive grace afforded is the proper ground of requiring reflected grace, yet it is hypothetically neceflary, or infallibly certain, that nothing fhort of fovereign, fubjedéfive grace will, in faét, render any means available. To deny this, is the fame as to affert, that the agent, in fecuring his happi- nefs is, in fome fenfe, independent on God; which is impious. ‘Therefore, § 16. To difcard from our creed, as many profefling Chriftians do, all divine influence, except what is implied in divine revealed truths, is in- confiftent alike with the teftimony of revelation and the dictates of impartial reafon. That revealed truth is neceffary to beget “REQUIRED g7ace,—as faith, hope, love; knowledge, gratitude and joy, —is cheerfully granted; becaufe fubjective grace cannot conftitute a mctzve, without an objedt. But to maintain the neceffity of revealed truth, in order to produce the fruit of exercifed grace, is very different from. difcarding the nece/fity of fabjective - grace. In fad, there is the moft abundant evidence, that both are alike neceflary in order a@tually to ‘produce the required fruit. ; | Su Ch. IV. Arminiantfin examined. | 40 5 § 17. (3-) The fentiment 1 oppofe is contrary to analogy; to which the holy fcriptures often refer us. The facred records very frequently reprefent the fovereign fubjective grace of the Spirit, under the notion of a divine life. ‘ He that hath the fon hath Izfe.”’ <* Alienated from the life of God.’’ “* A well of loving water,’’ &c. § 18. For the fake of illuftration, let us glance -at different kinds of life, elementary, vegetative, and animal. For inftance, fire has what may be called an elementary life. Let the light or flame of fire reprefent required or refleéted grace. Abfurd would be the notion that fuel would beget a flame, without a diftin& element, or principle of fire; or that the element of fire alone would be fufficient to beget a flame, without fuel. The truth is, that flame is the product of doth united. In hike manner, both parts of a determining motive are neceflary ; an objective good as the fuel, and fub- jective influence as the kindling element. From both united in the foul, arifes the holy flame of love to God and goodnefs, § 19. The fame holds true in vegetative life. Suppofe, for inftance, that the verdure, bloffom, and fruit of a plant, reprefent the graces of the Spirit in their exercife, as faith, love, humility, meeknefs, &c. No one would contend that, be- caufe the fun and air beget the verdure, bloom, and fruit, therefore there is no diftinct antecedent | Cie principle 406 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. principle of vegetation. Nor would a gardener conclude, that becaufe his plant has the vital fap, he need not expofe it to the warmth of the fun or the influence of pure air. The fact is, that the verdure, the health, and the fruitfulnefs of the plant are the refult of the vital principle and the genial external influences, conjointly. Thus alfo the foul which is bleffed, whofe leaf withereth not, and which bringeth forth fruit in feafon, has a {piritual nature and life, diftin& from thefe effects, and of which they are the offspring, 1 in conjunction with objective means. And he alone who gave exiftence to the plant, and to every plant its own peculiar nature, can reftore the vegetative life when once loft. In vain is the dead tree lanted in a fruitful fi and well watered ; in vain the falubrious air, the cheering light, and the genial fun: the reftoration of life is at the fovereign pleafure of new srratInE energy. § 20. We may find another illuftration in animal life. Let the activity and exercife of the animal reprefent the graces of the fpirit as exerted by the moral agent. No animal can fubfitt with- out food, air, ant exercife ; ; but we cannot infer thence, that thefe could beget the principle of life. This is prefuppofed, and contributes no lefs than the pabulum vite, to the exiftence of the exercifed funétions. The yital energies are, in truth, the refult of both combined. The fair quettion — is, hot how one life propagates itfelf, in virtue of the divine ‘command — “« Be fruitful and multiply ;”’ but Ghy Ve Arminiant{m examined. , 407 but how life is re/lored, when loft. When a lamp is extin@, how is it lighted : ? when a plant has loft the vital fap, how is it revived ? when a body is dead, how is it re-animated } ? Not by the accumu-_ lation of fuel; not by the furrounding elements ; not by the exertions of man. I am aware how a Pelagian | would endeavour to evade this) illuf- tration, by fubftituting another. Tho’ the flame 1S extinguifhed, he would fay, a little breath would rekindle it; though the plant droop and wither, watering will revive it; though life be fufpended, the application of warmth and of ftimulants will reftore it. Illuitrations are not arguments : comparifons are merely explanatory of our meaning. I have therefore no objection toa Pelagian, or any other, explaining his opinion in. the way now mentioned. He confiders the divine life of the foul as partzally gone; and that it. may be recovered merely by the application of means fuch as education, moral fuafion, &c. I confider the fame life as éotally gone ; and that no moral means, without fubjective grace, a miracle of fovereign mercy, are adequate to reftore it. Which of “thefe opinions is founded in truth is to be fought, not from illuftrations, but from fcrip- - tural arguments. My defign, by comparifons, is to explain, not to prove my meaning; except. when that explanation includes a fcriptural ftate- ‘ment. For inftance, the {cripture compares divine “influence to a heavenly fire communicated: the dif- ciples were baptized with it; and they received it, as what they had not before. The feripture alfo Ce compares 40% ~ EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. compares the foul deprived of divine life, to 4 withered branch fevered from a tree; and apof- tates, to trees plucked up by the roots. And when animal life is the ground of comparifon, divine influence is reprefented as quickening the dead, after thé likenefs of Chrift’s refurrection. So that the illuftrations as well ds thé teftimonies of ca are in favour of fubjective | grace. § 21. Another fet of analogical iiultratBAe might be borrowed from the animal fen/és. Sup- pofe we compare the exercife of required grace to the exercife of vifon ; with which comparifon the fcripture abounds. Here are evidently three par- ticulars concerned ; objects exhibited to view, the Vifion, and the faculty itfelf. The vifion, it is plain, is the effect of two things united, the object viewed, and the vifive faculty. The one is fub- jective, the other objective ; and the act of ree is the reflected refult. : ee § 22. Again ; let grace in exercife be com- pared, as it very frequently i is, in {cripture, to the act of hearing founds. In this alfo two things muft concur. In vain are founds produced, if there bé no faculty of hearing ; and ineffectual is the faculty , if there be no found. Hearing, therefore, /uppofes the faculty, and requires the - fonorous percuffion of air. The one is reciprocally indebted to the other for Hae: the effet. § 23. Tt would be eafy to multiply sitheates: Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined. 409 in all the other animal fenfes; tafling, /melling, and feeling. And it is obfervable that the {crip- tures allude to them all, in reference to this very fubject. The exercife of grace is ta/ting that the Lord is gracious; but there muft be an odjeét and a fubjective faculty in order to produce the effect, It is alfo fmelling the fweet odour of divine truth ; which implies the object and fubjecive quality. And finally it is alfo a feeling, —which a eta the fame diftinction. Thus, univerfal analogy proclaims an objctt and a principle to be neceffary, in order to pro- duce vital effects, in illuftration of the nature’of the cafe afferted in'fcripture and fupported by reafon, § 24. Let us now confider, more particularly, the nature of fubjeftive grace. It is properly denominated a divine nature ; and is the imme- diate effect of fovereign, gracious energy, by which it is diftinguifhed from a mere natural difference between one perfon and another. Na- tural differences are exceedingly various. Some human beings, as well as other fpecies of animals, are fierce, violent, and untractable, others quiet, calm, and gentle ; fome of a quarrelfome, others of a peaceful temper ; fome courageous, and others timid. Thefe differences, however, are only fhades of diftinéion in the fame nature: but fub- jective grace conftitutes another nature, fpiritual and divine.—Of this alfo we are furnifhed with illuftrations from every part of animated nature. Grains of wheat may differ among themfelves, | and 410 EQUITY AND. SOVEREIGNTY. and are yet of the fame nature; but compared with barley they are of a nature extremely different, One oak may differ from another; but the very nature of a cedar is effentially diftinct.* § 25. Now what conftitutes thefe Sidertncee of nature? Why fhould a cedar differ from an oak, a rofe from a lily, or a myrtle from a thorn ? The genial influence of the fun and atmofphere, and even the foil itfelf may be the fame; and yet 7 they * « The Spirit of Gop Is given to the true saints, to dwell, in them, as his proper and lasting abode; and to influence their hearts, as a principle of new nature, or as a divine, supernatural spring of life and action, The scriptures re- present the Holy Spirit, not only as moving, and occasion- ally influencing the saints, but as dwelling in them as his temple, his proper abode, and everlasting dwelling-place. (1 Cor, iii. 16. 2 Cor. vi. 16. John xiv. 16,17.) And he is represented as being so united to the faculties of the soul, that he becomes there a principle or spring of a new nature and life.— The sap of the true vine is not only conveyed into them, as the sap of a tree may be conveyed into a vessel; but is conveyed as _- sap is from a tree into one of its living branches, where it becomes a principle of life. The Spirit of Gop being thus com- municated and united to the saints, they are from thence Pro perly denominated from it, and are called spiritual. — The grace which is in the hearts of the saints is of the same nature with the divine holiness, tho’ infinitely less in degree ; as the brightness of a diamond which the sun shines upon, is of the same nature with the brightness of the sun, but only that it is as nothing to it in device, Therefore Christ says (John iii. 6.) That which is born of the Spirit is spirit ; ; i.e. The grace that i is begotten in the hearts of the saints, is something of the same nature with that Spirit, and so is properly called a spiritual nature. Pcomenes on Religious Affections, Works, Vol. IV. P: 104, &c. Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined. All they put on forms the moft diversified. Why fhould:a.horfe differ from an ox, and both from a fheep, in fo many refpetts, though they breathe the fame air, eat the fame herbage, and drink at the fame fpring? The caufe mutt be traced to the fovereign pleafure of the creator, (1 Cor. xv. 38.)* § 26. x © Other power may make a great alteration in men’s present frames and feelings; but it is the power of a Creator only that can change the nuture. And no discoveries or illu- minations, but those that are divine and supernatural, will have this supernatural effect. — All grace and goodness in the hearts of the saints is entirely from Gop ; and they are universally and — inunediately dependent on him for it.—He gives his Spirit to be united to the faculties of the soul, and to dwell there after the manner Of a principle ef nature; so that the soul, in being endued, with grace, ig endued with a new nature, — In the soul where Christ savingly is, there he lives. He does not merely live avithout it, soas violently to actuate it; but he lives zm it, so ~ that the soul also is alive. Grace in the soul is as much from Christ, as the light in a glass, held out in the sunbeams, is from the sun. But this represents the manner of the communis cation of grace to the soul, but in part; because the ‘glass remaining as it. was, the naiure of it not being changed at all, it is as much without any lightsomeness in its nature’as ever. But the soul of a saint receives light from the Sun of Righteousness in such a manner that ils nature is changed, and it becomes properly a luminous thing. ‘Not only does the sun shine in the saints, but they also become little suns, partaking of the nature of the fountain of their light, In this respect, the manner of their derivation of light is like that of the lamps in the taber- nacle, rather than that of a reflecting glass ; which tho’ they were lit up by fire from heaven, yet tnereby became them- selves burning, shining things. —- Grace is compared to a seed implanted, that not only is in the ground, but has hold of it; has root there, grows there, and is an abiding principle of life and nature there.?—-Epwarps on Religious Affections, Works, Vol. iV. ‘p, 233. Be Re en 412 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. § 26. It may be objected, If fabjediive p grace be a nature abfolutely different from, and inde-. pendent of our will and the means we can employ, what room is there for PRAYER, or for an expectation of obtaining advantage from any of the exercifes of religion? I reply, where there 4s a divine nature, facred truth and ordinances, and efpecially application to Gop by prayer, are fuited to its growth and welfare. And prayer is the moft rational fervice in which a dependent nature can be engaged; becaufe the very idea of this new nature being the fruit of fovereign will is at once a ground of encouragement that we may obtain it, and a ftrong reafon why we fhould apply to Gon for it’s beftowment. It is at his free difpofal to give us his Holy Spirit: to whom therefore fhould we apply for the invaluable gift, but to him? And he has taught us, that this is the right method of proceeding. (Luke xi. g—13.) *« T fay unto you, Afk, and it fhall be given you; feek, and ye fhall find; knock, and it fhall be opened unto you. For every one that afketh, receiveth ; and he that feeketh, findeth; and to him that knocketh it fhall be opened. If a fon fhall afk bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a ftone? Or if he afk afifh, will he give him a ferpent ? Or if he fhall afk an egg, will he offer him a fcorpion? If ye then being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children; how much more fhall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that afk him ?” . ‘3 OF Ch. IV. Arminianifm examined. 433 §27. From what has been faid, we may fee in what fenfe the commonly received expreffions, that the word of truth is the infirwment of conveying grace to the foul, or, that the foirit never works ‘mail the word in. renewing the mind, ea are to be confitently underftood: and in what fenfe alfo thofe paflages of {cripture are to be taken, where a faving change ts exprefied, fome- times without, and at others in connection with the word. Spiritual perceptions of truth are by means of the word of truth, but the het of God _in the foul, whereby it is capacitated to perceive it, muft be in a direct and immediate manner from the Father of Lights. "The thing perceived, and the qualification for perceiving it, are not to be con- founded. The xew man confifting of new per- ceptions, judgments, paffions, and exercifes, is begotten by the fovereign will of Gop in union with the word of truth. And evena divine nature, inafenfe, is produced by the promifes, in the fame way. For what is the nature of Gop but love? Now to poffefs and improve a divine nature, in this fenfe, or the outflowings of love to Gop and man, we muft contemplate and receive the pro- mifes in the light of Gop. By faith we receive them, and are transformed by them. The glory of the Lord fhines in the gofpel objectively ; and | the believing foul is changed into the divine image, from glory to plory. But this: is done, not merely by the .odjeé contemplated, but alfo by the Spirit of the Lord. And that Spirit exifts, notin the word but in the mind. ‘This propofition, ) Gop 414 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. «< Gop is Love,’’ contains a glorious truth ; but it is no more {een in its own light, than any other truth however common. Gop, indeed, is feen in his own light, as the fun is ; but the light by which we fee the propofition to be a glorious truth proceeds not from the declaration concern- ing Gop: nor yet does it enter with the propofi- tion; for all illumination of the Spirit is from within, not from without. Light in the mind, as an operation of the Spirit, is not a ftream which has flowed from an objective truth, but a light created in the foul, by which it is enabled to per- ceive, in a fpiritual manner, that Gop is love, that Chrift is an able and willing Saviour, that the gofpel is a bright and glorious difpenfation of mercy, &c. This is beautifully expreffed by the Apoftle Paul, (2 Cor. iv. 6.) ‘ For Gop, who commanded the light to fhine out of darknefs, hath fhined in our hearts, to give the light of the. knowledge of the glory of Gop, in the face of | Jefus Chrift.”” Here is included, not only the light of K nowledge of the divine glory, but alfo the light of God fhining in the heart ; from which, in connection with its object, all fpiritual Knowledge takes its rife. 3 § 28. Some, while endeavouring to exalt the divine word, and to fhew its importance in effect- ing a faving change in the foul, have greatly, tho’ not intentionally, mifreprefented the nature of the Spirit’s operation, and thereby difhonoured him. I fear this is a growing error in many of our pulpits and focieties. When Chrift fays that his ' words Ch. yet Arminianifm examined. 415 words are /perit and life, he cannot furely mean that his words are the Holy Spirit and the Life of God ; but rather that they treat of fpiritual and living realities, and are adapted to nourifh and invigorate grace, which is a fpiritual and living principle. Some have compared the entrance of truth into the mind, to a candle entering a room, _ when the candle and the light enter together ; to the exclufion of all other illumination. But this is an erroneous reprefentation ; and the error confifts in making the word, (though compared to a light, a lamp, &c, becaufe of the glorious truths ‘it ftates, and their ufe to us in the prefent flate of things) to be the work of the Spirit, and in thus making the Spirit enter the mind in the manner of objective truth. It reprefents the Spirit’s light as coming into the foul from without, either blended with or accompanying the word, rather than as ~ereated zn the foul. The facred oracles are indeed as ‘‘ a light fhining in a dark place;”’ and this light ** fhines into the hearts’’ of fome: but this could never take place without another influence proceeding from the Spirit of God capacitating the heart to underftand the glorious gofpel, which is only objective truth. Let us give to the fcriptures the things that are theirs, and to the bleffed Spirit the things that are his. ‘‘ The fpirit of man is the candle (or lamp) of the Lord ;’’ (Prov. xx. 27.) but the Spirit of the Lord muft light it, for {piri- tual purpofes. And in this refpect, the words of the Pfalmift, (Pfa. xviii. 28.) are ftri@ly appli- cable; “ Thou wilt light my candle; the Lord ey God will enlighten my darknefs.”’ ' CON- 416 «-EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. CONCLUSION. &1. Introduétion, Advantage of these principles, -§ 2. (1.) In reference to moral fcience. Lzberty and Necefity. § 3. The origin of moral evil. § 4. Prefcience and free Will. § 5. The exift- ence of fin and the perfections of Deity. § 6. The real nature of virtue and vice. § 7. A moral fyftem. § 8. The dottrine of motives. § 9. The abfurdity of two eternal principles, one good and the other evil. §& 10—13. The doétrine of moral obligation. § 14. (II.) In reference to {erip- tural theology. The princzples of this work are calculated to expofe other fyftems and points im divinity, befide Arminianifm. Antinomian éen- eis flated. §15—17. Expofed. § 18. Sande- manian tenets § 19. Pelagianifm. § 20. Wrong notions of the Kingdom of Chrift. § 21. Propri- ety of calls and invitations to finners. § 22. The Jaw as a covenant and arule. § 23. Difputes about grace and merit. § 24. Extent of redemp- tion. §25—29. Fu/tification. § 30. Regene- vation. § 31—34. The American controverfy refpetting the way of falvation.. § 35—40. (ILI. ) In reference to perfonal religion. : § 1. (ENTIMENTS are valuable in propor- tion as they are applicable to ufeful pur- pofes; that is, according to their tendency to facilitate the acquifition of important. knowledge, or to roufe the dormant energies of our nature to oh xt > Mpeactife Conch. In reference to Moral Science. 419 pradctife thofe things which we know to be right. In all controverfy there is at leaft a feeming op- pofition ; but often, among good men at leaf; who muit be confcious of the beft intentions or ftand felf-condemned, the jar of fentiments and the ~ contrariety of conclufions are owing to the want of a clear underftanding of each other. And that mifunderftanding may long continue for want of a middle term by which both claims may be mea- fured. All difcrepancy of opinion mutt be owing either to falfe reafoning on true data, or to falfe data, be the reafoning what it may. Thofe prin- ciples therefore muft be of prime importance which have a genuine tendency to dete% the fophifms of a fyftem, or to afcertain the line of truth, amidft the intricacies of adverfe parties. From the preceding reprefentations of Equity and Sovereignty, deduced from the holy {criptures, - we may derive many important advantages, if I miftake not, in reference to moral Science, f{criptu- ral cheology, and perfonal religion. § 2. (I.) In reference to Mora science, Few fubjects have been more acutely debated, by moral philofophers, than the doétrines of Liberty and Neceffity. . But moft of the miftakes and perpetual clafhings between thefe writers, feem to have arifen from a common gratuitous affumption, that the truth muft lie exclufively on the one ‘fide or the other of the feeming oppofite fyftems; that is, that man mutt be free to the exclufion of neceflity, or neceffitated in his a&tions, to the exclufion of all freedom properly fo called. Whereas we may fee Dd 3 from 418 _ EQUITY AND. SOVEREIGNTY. from the reprefentations of Equity and Sovereignty contained in this work, that every man is at once both free and neceffitated in different refpects. He — is free to evil, in the moft proper fenfe of freedom, to the exclufion of all neceffitating influence from the _ Firft Caufe; but yet neceffitated to good, without infringing his liberty of choice in the morality of his acts. While the will is left perfectly free in “its atts of choofing, according to the greateft apparent good; the difpofition itfelf, by which the choice is directed, is the refult either of paffive power or of fovereign benevolence. If Liberty, therefore, be viewed as connected with Equity, and Neceflity as connected with Sovereignty, and man be regarded at once as equitably free and fovereignly (that is benevolently) necefilated, the perplexity is -unravelled, and the feeming inconfiftency difpelled. The divine nature is the ftandard and fource of all truth; it might therefore be reafonably expected that the true key for opening fo intricate a lock muft be juft views of the divine charaéer, in refer- ence to free agents. Equity, in the fenfe defined, will teach us, that man is free, and mutt be fo, from principles the moft firm and irrefragable ; principles founded in the refpective natures and eflential properties of Gop and Man. If man be not free, abfolutely free, from all decretive neceffi- tation, in the obliquity of his moral acts, moral government is but an illufion, and retribution ai a deceptive name. But divine Sovereignty, i i the fenfe explained, fhews that man, in ether | view, is the fubject of necelfi ity ; a neceflity founded on the nature, properties, and prerogative of Gop, and Cottch. ©: in reference to Moral Sczence. 41g and the inevitable condition of man confidered as ‘a cteature, and not merely as a finner. Here, and here alone, can we behold the full evidence of thefe axioms, however univerfally acknowledged ; ALL EVIL IS FROM OURSELVES, becaufe the fub- jects of paflive power and free will; and att GOOD Is FRoM Gob, becaufe he alone is good, and the diftribution of goodnefs can proceed from — no other fource than fovereign pleafure. The fame perfon then, is, in different refpects, the fubject both of proper liberty and of néceflity. As the fubject of moral government, accountable for his wrong choice, he is free; but as the fubject of a gracious fovereignty, he is neceffitated. § 3: Nearly allied to the preceding fubject, and not lefs perplexing, though lefs has been ‘written upon it, is the origin of moral evil. While fome have contended, that we ought to defpair, at leaft in this life, of obtaining clear evi- dence on the fubjeét ; others have boldly affirmed, that moral evil is of pofitive ordination. This is almoft the univerfal fentiment of the modern advo- cates for philofophical neceffitation, who reject the Calviniftic fyftem of Theology. They are there- fore obliged to infer, that there is no real evil in fin; that it is only accidental and relative, after the manner of natural evils. According to them, all the evil is confined to the feeling of the fubject, rather than a deviation from efflential rectitude ; and jf the fufferer faw vice and fin as Gop fees them, he would inftantly be happy. If this be not the direct way to obtain a feared.confcience and felf-complacency in tranfgreffion, it is difficult Dd2 to 420 _. EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. to fay where to find one. Is not this giving the Jie direét to apoftolic teftimony, that fin is exceed- ing finful,; and to the general declarations of {cripture that God hates all fin, and the workers of iniquity on fin’s account? But it is grievous that'perfons otherwife of found principles fhould be {> incautious as to run into this error. ‘The late Dr. HopxKins of America, bold beyond all the orthodox that ever went before him, though he attempts to ouard his affertions againft profane confequences, iS highly cenfurable. The tenet itfelf, that Gop has decreed moral evil, is abfolutely ‘adefenfible. It is, in fa@t, to deftroy the effence ofa moral fyftem. Dr. H. mutt have been driven to this falfe refuge, by the difficulty which _ his ardent mind found in accounting for the origin of evil in any other way. But far better would it be to continue in humble ignorance, than thus to charge Gop foolifhly. If, however, we view a free agent in the light of Equity and Sovereignty, in their exercife refpectively towards a moral agent, a creature at once free and neceffitated ; becaule a paffive recipient of his good, and yet the fubjeG of free will and paflive power; if we view the creature, as indeed he is, abfolutely dependent, and in himfelf an effential contraft to the Creator, in point of independence and all- fufficience, we fhall find a demonftration that moral evil cannot proceed from Gop by any agency or decretive appointment whatever, but from the creature’s paflive power, influencing, as a negative caufe, his free will. Sin therefore muft proceed from ourfelves alone, in the ftriéteft fenfe. Though placed — Conc. In reference to Moral Sctence. 421 placed in circumftances the moft advantageous conceivable, by the exercife of that equity which gives to all their due, both as creatures and as accountable, man will fhew what he is in himfelf, when not fupported by benevolent, fovereign, unmerited influence. And what belongs to man becaufe a free agent, is equally aPpieae ls to all free agents, ee eue Seales, § 4. Clofely connected with the forementioned ~ fubjects, is the difficult problem, how to reconcile the divine prefczence of moral evil. with the free will of the agent. Without juft views of Equity and Sovereignty, this problem muft remain inca- pable of a fatisfactory folution ; but in their light, the difficulty vanifhes. The good of actions is foreknown, becaufe fovereignly appointed ; but the evil of them is foreknown, in their deficient caufe, paflive power, becaufe that caufe is equitably per- mitted to reveal itfelf, without fovereign prevention. § s. Hence we alfo perceive, by the fame light, that the exzftence of fin is perfectly confiftent with the perfections of Deity. If equity be exercifed, in the fame degree the free agent fhews what he is in himfelf, both as a creature, and as an agent direct- ing his free actions. Andif Sovereign benevolence be exercifed towards him, in the fame degree will he appear a monument of unmerited favour, pro- moting his own happinefs and the perfection of the univerfe. The caufe of moral evil being ferictly in himfelf alone, as the fubject of paifive. power and Dd 3 : free 429 - EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. free will, his errors are only fuffered to take place, without being actively caufed by the Deity. They are forefeen as what will refult from defect, and not as the effect of pofitive appointment. What is good in the act is. indeed appointed, but nof its failure and criminality. The agent’s obligation is, to intend the ultimate perfection of univerfal being, to will as Gop wills, and to act in fubfer- viency to him; but there being in him a caufe of failure, when not fupported by efficacious, unmerit- ed aid, infinite knowledge muft needs forefee it as certainly future, and infinite wifdom overrules it for the higheft good. Light and darknefs appear intermixed; but the light alone proceeds from Gop, and the darknefs from the creature’s paflive power. Yet the darknefs ferves, by all-compre- hending wifdom and infinite benevolence, to fhew forth the greater glory of the light. § 6. A juft view of the divine character, as equitable and fovereign, wil] enable us to afcertain with greater precifion the real nature of Virtue and Vice. God, as a Sovereign, wills all the per- fection exifting in the univerfe, and when a free agent wills and really defigns the fame in his accountable acts, by laudable means, he exercifes pure virtue; and whatever act comes fhort of this, is called virtue only in a partial and comparative fenfe, and is not inconfiftent with a_ character predominantly vicious. And as the virtue of actions is a part of the perfection of “the univerfe, it is included in the fovereign ap- ‘pointment. Vice, therefore, is a deviation from the Conct. Inreference to Moral Science, 423 the line of that actual rectitude or perfection which’ Gop fovereignly wills. The agent propofes to himfelf a different end of his actions, and there- fore feeks happinefs by means not laudable. And though many fuch acts are called virtuous, becaufe they have a partial good tendency, yet in reality they are vicious, owing to the agent having a different will and aim from what belongs to pure virtue. Hence, becaufe the Deity’ Ss own acts are agreeable to him, all tending to effential perfection, and therefore in the higheft fenfe virtuous; fo every deviation from that line of rectitude muft be difpleafing and hateful to him, and is propefly Vicious. Equity, rightly underftood, will fhew this to be the fact. If praife, approbation, and delight be not due to infinite wifdom, to abfolute rectitude, and to perfection of defign, that is, to pure virtue, nothing can deferve them; and blame, difapprobation, and abhorrence can belong only to the oppofites of pur2 virtue, that is, to vice. Equity, therefore, requires, that virtue be approved, and vice difapproved, for the fame reafon that divine rectitude is approvable. % § 7. It cannot be expected that moral fcience fhould make much progrefs, but in proportion as juft notions of a moral fy/tem are afcertained. But this can only be attained through the medium of the moral governor’s real character. To little purpofe do we reafon upon the intellectual and active powers of man, if we bring not into the Dd4 account 494 _ EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. thofe perfections of Deity which are exercifed to- ward the fyftem. And I believe the obfervation will be found accurate, that every act of the divine Governor towards a moral fyftem is reducible either to Equity or to Sovereignty. Juft views, therefore, of thefe glorious perfections of God, appear effentially neceflary in order to form right notions of a moral fyftem. To fovereign benevolence belong its very exiftence, welfare, and final perfection; to divine equity belong its pro- bation, accountability, laws, and fanctions. Its conformity to rectitude and happinefs, are effected by fovereign benevolence; its being left to the freedom of will, the influence of its paflive power, and the uncontrolled conieg uence is the pure effect of equitable government. 3 § 8. It is of interefting moment, 1n- moral {cience, to have precife ideas of the true doéfrine of Motives. No. inconfiderable part of the difpute refpecting Liberty and Neceffity, moral obligation, and feveral theological points, has arifen from this want of precifion, Until, however, we have acquired correct views of the divine character, in the two-fold refpect ftated in the preceding pages, we are never likely to obtain fatisfying evidence on the fubject of determining motives. | If we make the whole of motive to confift in the object | contemplated, the fame object would affect all minds alike; and if we allow a difference in the minds affected, the object cannot be the whole of the mative. We are therefore conftrained to infer, that Conct. In reference to Moral Science. 426 that thé objects, or moral means, which Gon, as an equitable governor, affords to his accountable fubjects, are not efficacioufly fufficient. The ftate of the mind mutft be taken into the account, for the folution of different refults in choofing good and evil. A difference of mental ftate, whether by original conformation, or by amelioration, can proceed from no other fource than fovercign goodnefs ; but a difference by deterioration, though occafioned by the exercife of equity, is not caufed by it; and much lefs is it caufed by fovereignty. Fience we fee, that equity affords objeftive means as a part of the determining motive; and fove- reionty affords that ftate of mind which enfures a virtuous refult ; while paflive power, equitably fuffered to affect the mental ftate without the counteracting influence of fovereign aid, becomes _ a negative caufe of a wrong choice, The external part of the motive is the fame when prefented to different minds; the internal part which enfures a virtuous choice, can proceed from no other fource than Gop’s favour ; and the internal part which enfures a wrong choice, can be nothing but a comparative defect, which may be called meta- phyfical evil, or paffive power, and has no other fource than limited exiftence. _ §9. By the principles defended in the pre- ceding pages we may more clearly difcern the abfurdity of two eternal principles, one good and the other evil. This notion has been not only held by the Perfian magi, and the Manicheans in the 1 , early ? 426 - EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. early ages of Chriftianity, but alfo, too much tayoured by fome philofophers of modern times. To thofe who underftood the nature of the divine character, in reference to creatures, their folly muft have been expofed as foon as uttered. The folly of their conclufions, indeed, has been often fhewn from the incompatibility of two principles being eternal ; but this argument leaves the cau/e of evil unexplained. Its effect was not to enlighten, but to folence the objector. The fingle confideration of what is due to a creature, or what is the operation of abfolute juftice towards it, muft at once unveil — its comparative imperfeétion ; and this fuffered to operate, unreftrained by fovereign interpofition, will fhew, that ftability in goodnefs is peculiar to Gon, and that evil is peculsar to a creature. Evil can have no exiftence without a fubjeé&. Evil uncon- nected with good is an impoflibility ; for what is the nature of evil but a deviation from perfection in a fubject? If therefore there were no ftandard of perfection, antecedently confidered, there could be no evil. That infinite perfection. fhould be liable to evil of any kind, involves a contradiction : it is to f{uppofe the only ftandard and meafure of evil, to become itfelf evil, while yet without a good ftandard nothing could be evil. Hence it -_irrefragably follows that only a being comparatively - imperfect, that 1s, a creature, can poffibly be the fubject of evil. As there is no medium between Creator and creature, the juft inference is, that evil cannot precede created exiftence; not evil of any _ kind, or in any degree, except inidea, Limitation as Conci. . In reference to Moral Science. 427 as to effential perfection, otherwife denominated comparative imperfection, metaphyiical evil, or paflive power, enters neceffarily into the difference between Creator and creatures, and therefore is equally infeparable from all creatures alike, the higheft as well as the loweft, the moft pure as well as the moft polluted. It is not a privation but a neceflary uegation of good; I fay a neceffary ‘negation, for an infinitely perfect creature involves a contradiction. In the univerfe, phyfically and pofitively confidered, there is no evil, properly {peaking ; for matter and motion, and the eftablith- ed order by which they operate, are good, and worthy of infinite perfection to effect, though neceflarily fubject to limitation, and though foine- times they prove relatively injurious. And as to moral evil, which alone is properly denominated evil, is it not felf«evident that it can have no exif- tence but from a defectible moral agent ? Hence it is plain, that no evil whatever, metaphyfical, phyfical, or moral, can poffibly exift prior to created exiftence. And we are led irrefiitivly to thefe fair conclufions, from a juft view of divine equity, as explained in this volume. § 10. Another important branch of moral {cience is the doctrine of moral obligation. It is no wonder that philofophers differ fo widely from one another, and moft of them from the truth, while the real character of the moral governor occu- pies but a fecondary part in the difcuffion. Od/1- gaiton, in general, is a binding force. But moral obli~ 428 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. — obligation differs effentially from that which is merely phyfical. The latter excludes freedom of will; but not the former. A man may be obliged to go to. prifon, or to be executed, though againft his will Moral obligation implies farce) hypothelic cally only: that is, 1F the agent would attain his ultimate happinefs, he mu/t choofe the road of pure virtue. But whence comes the propofal, either explicit or implied, of ultimate happinefs? From the fovereign benevolence of the Creator, who has made us what we dre, capable of fuch happinefs, and ever feeking it inftinctively. And why are we obliged to feek it in the way of pure vir- tue, or by conformity to perfect rectitude ? Becaufe virtue and ultimate happinefs are infeparably con- nected in the nature of things, that is, in eternal truth, or the nature of God, and divine equity re- quires that he who feeks not his happinefs by pure virtue fhall not obtain it. | Hence we fee that infinite, orerien bene- volence propofes ultimate happinefs to a free agent ; but equity obliges the agent to feek it in the way of virtue rather than of vice, of rectitude rather than of obliquity. Benevolence not only propofes ‘to the agent a happy end, but alfo appoints an inftinctive propenfity after general happinefs, and communicates affiftance to fome, with the exercife of unreftrained volitions in the choice of good. ‘But equity demands alfo that this agent fhall be free to choofe his own antecedents — to choofe amifs, as well as to choofe aright; and, in cafe he. adopts thofe antecedents which are con- — neéted in the nature of things with lofs of hap- Conci. In reference to Moral Science. 429 happinefs, (for who can be happy without con- formity to Gop ?) obliges him to abide by the difafttrous confequence. § 11. Thefe things being duly confidered, we may perceive the errors and the defects of moft theories of moral obligation. ‘* Why am I obliged to keep my word ?”’ inquires Archdeacon Pa.ey ; <* Becaufe it is right, fays one.——Because it is agree- able to the fitne/s of things, fays another.—Becaufe it is comformable to rea/on and nature, fays a third. —Becaufe it is conformable to éruth, fays a fourth. —Becaufe it promotes the public good, fays a fifth.—Becaufe it is required by the wail of God, concludes a fixth.’’ Having rejected thefe folu- tions as unfatisfactory, how does Dr. Patey him- felf anfwer the queftion? ‘* Becaufe I am urged to do fo by a violent motive ; (namely, the expectation of being after this life rewarded, if I do, or punifh- ed for it, if I do not;) refultang from the command of another (namely, of God).’’ But though this acute writer fays, that ‘* this folution goes to the bottom of the fubject, as no further queftion can reafonably be afked,” his affertion is not fatis- factory. If thofe ‘* anfwers all leave the matter Jnort,’? his reply is wide of the mark. With. a little reflection, the reader may. fatisfy himfelf of the juftice of this remark. According to Dr. P. «* A man is faid to be obliged, when he is urged by a violent motive, refulting from the command of another.’? This definition applies only to a fenfe or perception of obligation, and leaves the proper 430 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. proper ground ofl it untouched. A dblent motive is explained to be the expectation of being, after this life, rewarded or punifhed. According to this, if | have no ‘‘ expectation,’’ I have no “ violent motive;’”? and if I have not the latter, I am not obliged. But are men obliged only according to their ExpECTATIONS of rewards or punifhments ? To fay that this <‘‘refults from the command of another,’’ or ‘‘ the will of God,”’ does not alter the cafe. For though this makes the motive to be violent when perceived ; yet it fhews not the reafon why the command of another morally obliges, whether we perceive its urgent force or not. This in fact, is a very general error in the writings of moral philofophers :—to confound the perception or sense of duty, with its ground of obli- ‘gation. 12. When a perfon is faid to be obliged in honour, in gratitude, in truth, in juftice, or in resfon, the meaning is, that 1r he would be ho- nourable, grateful, true, juft, and reafonable, which are fo many confequents, he must (he is forced, urged, conftrained to) choofe the antecedents. But; on the contrary, 1F a perfon adopt the antece- dents of difhonour, ingratitude, falfehood, in- juftice, ot folly, he must abide by the correfpond- ing confequents. But we fhould recollect that in thefe, anda thoufand more inftances, the obligation arifes from an exifting certain connection between the means and the end. Though the end be good only in erroneous eftimation, ftill the agent is obliged : = > ———_ a —— Conct. In reference to Mcral Science. 431 obliged (though not morally) to adopt means con- nected with fuch end. A gentleman receives a challenge to fight a duel, for words or conduct which are generally confidered by people of fafhion as deferving of fuch refentment. Honour is the end, and fighting the means; and the exiftine ‘connection is certain. He is therefore obliged in honour to accept the challenge; that is, rF he will retain his character in the fafhionable world, as a man of honour, he must fight. But it would be abfurd to fay, that he is morally obliged to fight ; that his virtue and ultimate happinefs have a cer- tain, exifting connection with his fighting. The ends or confequents which agents propofe to themfelves are as numerous as they choofe’ to make them ; and they are, as agents, at liberty to adopt their means or antecedents. Wifdom confifts in the fuitable adaptation of means to ends; and the nature or quality of wifdom, in the choice of one end rather than another. Perfons are wife to do evil, when they have fkill in the ufe of means, but the end propofed is unworthy. The children of this world are often wifer in their generation than the children of light; for though the latter have chofen the more worthy end, yet the former difcover more {kill in adopting fuitable means, as conducive to effect their own purpofes, § 13. No perfon can be morally obliged ‘to any act which is inconfiftent with pure virtue ; but to this, it is evident, every moral agent is conftantly obliged. The ultimate /landard of virtue is the | divine 432 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. divine reétitude: to this, therefore, we are cor- | ftantly obliged to be conformed. And the ulti- mate interc/t of the agent in being virtuous, is final happinefs. Hence we learn, that perfonal — happinefs is the end, refult, termination, or confe- quent of virtue; that divine rectitude is the rule or jiandard of it; and that divine equity is the obliging . power. To feek happinets, therefore, to the neg~ lect of pure virtue, is to fail of the end we propofe ; that is, to be finally miferable: and what obliges the agent to abide by éhis confequence, is divine equity, which confifts in giving 1 to the mae his due. § 14. (1].) Scrrprurat Tuerotocy. The importance of juft views of Equity and Sovereignty, in reference to the Calviniflic and Arminian fyftems, appears from the profefled examination of them in the preceding pages. But if I miftake not, they are of equal importance in appreciating the merits of other theologzcal fyftems, and in adjuft- ing a great number of fubordinate controverted peints. I fhall Ane a few, ay way of {peci- - men. MONT he Aintorbomibare ’ according to MosuriM, “ are a more rigid kind of Calvinifts, who pervert Cauvin’s doctine of abfolute decrees to the worft purpofes, by drawing from it conclufions highly detrimental to the interefts of true religion and virtue. Several of the Antinomians (for they are not all precifely of the fame mind,) look upon it as unneceflary in Chrifttan minitters to exhort their 7 flocks Conc: Jn reference to Scriptural Theology 433 flocks to a virtuous practice, and a pious obedience to the divine law, fince. they whom Gop has elect- ed to falvation, by an eternal and jiimutable decree, will, by the crvefificble impulfe of divine grace, be led to the practice of piety and virtue; while thofe who are doomed, by a divine decree, to eternal punifhment, will never be engaged by any exhort- ations or admonitions, how affecting foever they may be, to a virtuous coutfe; nor “have they it in their power to obey the divine law, when the fuccours of divine grace are withheld from them. . From thefe principles, they concluded, that the minifters of the gofpel difcharged fufficiently their paftoral functions, when they inculcated the necef- fity of fash in Chrift, and proclaimed the bleffings of the new covenant to their people.’’—** Another; and a ftill more hideous form of Antinomianifm is — That as the e/eét cannot fall from grace, nor forfeit the divine favour, -fo it follows, that the wicked actions they cummit, and the violations of the divine law with which they are chargeable, are not.really finful, nor are to be confidered as inftances of their departing from the law of Gop j and that confequently they have no occafion either to confefs their fins, or to break them off by repentance. Thus adultery; fot example, in one of the eleét, though it appear /inful in the fight of men, and be confidered univerfally as an enormous violation of the divine law, yet is not a jin in the fight of Gop, becaufe it is one of the effential and diftinctive characters of the ele%, that i oka Ee ao & 434 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. do any thing which is either difpleafing to Gop, or prohibited by the law.’’* | ae § 15. Who fees not that tenets like thofe now recited, can have no place except in minds totally ignorant of the divine character, as equitable in moral government, while fovereign in divine grace. Their whole fyftem, if fuch it may be called, refts on the falfe principle, that fovereign grace and moral government are incompatible. Thofe who are not decreed to be faved, they allow, are under moral government ; but thofe who are decreed to be faved by grace, are not. Thefe perfections, they acknowledge, are exercifed towards different perfons, but not towards the fame perfons. The eleé& ought not to be thieatened, nor the non-elect invited. Thus they make the divine decrees the rule of human agions, But it has been proved, in the former part of this work, that divine government is founded in eguity, and divine grace in Jovereiguty ; and that both perfeGtions refpect man in his two- fold capacity, as free, and as paflive. Now, to give the leaft colour of confiftency to their fcheme, they ought to fhew, that the eleéd, as fuch, are not free, not moral agents, but merely the paflive recipients of grace; and confequently, that on them Gop has no claim of moral fervice: and at the fame time, it is incumbent on them to prove that, for want of grace, the non-eleé are not obliged to be holy, or, which is the fame thing, to perform any act in a fpiritual manner. The eleét, they acknowledge, | : are * Mosnu, Eccles. Hist. Cent. xvii. cect, 11. Parti, ch, .§ 23.» Conct. In reference to Scriptural Theology, 436 are obliged to {piritual obedience, becaufe they have grace; and others are not obliged, becaufe they have not grace. Thus they make Sovereignty the ground of obligation to the ele&, and the mea- Sure of minifterial condudt ; and equity the gtound of obligation to the non-ele&! and thereby prove their moft confummate ignorance of the character — both of Gop and man. There is tio end to their inconfiftencies and contradiétions. Their funda: mental error f{prings from their falfe and abfard notions of moral obligation. § 16. The gofpel call, according to their un- {criptural fancy, fhould not be directed to the unconverted, as they are not able to repent and believe in a /piritual manner ; for, fay they; fhould we require of men impo/fbilities ? Thus they make a holy principle the ground of obligation ; and the want of it, a difcharge. And’ thus alfo, with fin. _ gular inconfiftency, they agree with the Arminians; that obligation arifes frorh inward ability, and not from the freedom of the agent, in connection with objective means; the abfurdity of which, it is prefumed, has been fufficiently proved, in the pre- - ceding examination of Arminianifm. § 17. To the Antinomians, above all people in the world, is this chatge applicable, that they “ hold the truth in unrighteoufnefs.”” They do indeed hold moft’ precious and important truths ; _fuch- as Gop’s abfolute decrees, and eterna! _ election,—the fovercienty of orace, and its irrefift- Pera | ible 436 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ible efficacy,—faith being the gift of Gop,—the genuine tendency of free grace to produce grateful obedience,—the perfeverance of the faints,—-and, in general, all the bleflings and privileges of the everlafting covenant between the Father and the Son. But alas! they hold thefe truths in wn- righteoufnefs,; becaufe they draw from them the moft iniquitous inferences. For inftance ; from the dottrine of abfolute decrees, they infer that Gop has decreed fin as well as holinefs,—that in an ele perfon, Gob beholds no fin, but Joves him in the days of his folly, blafphemy, rebellion, guilt and impurity, in the very fame fenfe as after he is made by grace poor in fpirit, meek, merciful, and pure in heart; yea, that he loves a debauchee in a brothel, or an aflaffin in the act of murder, becaufe he is one of the e/ed, in the fame /enfe, nay the fame degree, as when called, juftified, watfhed and glorified | Their defign, I allow, is to exalt the freenefs, the fovereignty, the ftrength, the un- changeablenefs, and the unparalleled greatnefs. of divine love. But for want of underftanding the refpective natures and influence of Equity and Sovereignty, according to divine revelation, they utterly fail of accomplifhing their defign, and miferably deceive both themfelves and others.— From the glorious truth of the irre/i/tible efficacy of divine grace, they prepofteroufly infer that - educational endeavours and. perfuafive addreffes to the unconverted to repent and believe, are not only ufelefs, but alfo a mark of unfoundnefs in the faith !—Becaufe faith is the gift of God, , they uf ne waywardly Concn. Jn reference to Scriptural Theology. 437 waywardly gather, that deleving is not a finner’s duty ; as if there were fome . inconfiftency between thefe fats. Some of them indeed allow, that every finner is obliged to love Gop, but not to believe in Chrift ; becaufe the one is required by the law, the other only by the gofpel: for the law has to do with the non-elec&t, but the gofpel with predefti- nated finners exclufively! Thus they muft appear, - to every one who is acquainted with the Equity and Sovereignty of Gop, in their re{pective oper- ations, moft wretchedly defective in their know- ledge of a very important part of divine truth.— They juftly alert that the genuine tendency of grace, is to produce grateful obedience; but then they perverfely conclude, that the law—the rule of right—is no direéory to the believer: As if the promife and the law, divine government and grace, ‘were not only different, but oppo/ite to each other. But is the law againft the promifes of Gop? Does the grace of Gop fubvert his government? Grace and our works, indeed, as the ground of accept- ance with Gop, are incompatible ; but they are not fo, as effects found in the fame perfon,—the one fovereignly imparted, the other equitably required. There is a fenfe,a very important fenfe, in which the fubjeéts of grace are not under the law: but perverfenefs, and ignorance of Gop, of his perfections, and of his covenants, muft furely combine to draw the inference, that a delzever is “not, in any fenfe, the fubject of divine law, or obliged to be conformed to the rule of right. Does the Antinomian boaft in the precious doc- LWiakoiees _trine 438 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. trine of Perfeverance ? He does well. But how mifchievous the inference, that our own endeavours to perfevere are ufelefs, or that we are not bound ~ in duty to “ work out our own falvation with fear and trembling.” § 18. He who has a juft conception af the character of Gop, and the relation he bears to mankind in general, or to faints in particular, as a Gop of grace and of juftice, cannot embrace the Sandemanian principle, That faving faith confifts exclufively in'a fimple affent to the divine’ tefti- inony concerning Jefus Chrift. The fovereign Gop, in the perfon of the furety, beftows the fotrit of faith ; without which there can be neither a fimple affent, nor any thing elfe deferving of the honourable appellation of fazth ; and wherever that divine principle exifts, there alfo will be found, as occafion offers, confent, affiance, reception, or appro- priation, no lefs than fimple affent. This laft, in its higheft import, is only oné fruit of the fpirit of faith, which is not more of a faving nature than other exercifes of the fame divine principle. If the fimple affent flow from the work of the fpirit, it is granted that falvation is connected with it; and fo it is with love to Gop, to Chrift, to the brethren, &c. The difpute therefore, agitated by Sande- manians concerning faith, is merely verbal. Grant- ing that faith, in ftri&tnefs, is nothing more than Simple affent, it is not faving, to the exclufion of hope and love, holy fear, and penitential forrow. for though we are ju/iified by faith, in the : {cripture Concu. In reference to Scripiural Theology. 439 fcripture fenfe, exclufively ; we are not therefore finally faved by it, irrefpeétively of other graces, If this view of faith be more valuable than any other, it muft confift in the fuppofed cafe with which a perfon may become a Chriftian. But is it a mighty acquifition, to become better verfed in the meaning of a word, in order to find an eafy way of being a Chriftian ; while, at the fame time, - the Chriftianity thus acquired is no more an evi- dence of a faving fate, than any other exercife of the divine life! What does the divine governor equitably require? Is it fimple affent alone? Is this the whole of a juft claim in order to final falva- tion? Lhe abfurdity is too glaring. In this reprefentation of faving faith, there feems to be a ftrong, though fubtle, fpice of legaliiy, under a pretence of eafe and fimplicity. While the formal pharifee requires much labour in order to accept- ance, the advocate of Grass and SANDEMAN requires but very little ; a little fomple affent, and and all the required work is done.—I fear, the difference between thefe is not in kind, but in “degree; not as work differs from grace, but, as much work differs from little work. For a frmple affent is a work, an act of the human mind, no lefs truly than truft, reliance, confidence, or any other branch of obedience. He who expects to be faved by a fimple affent to Jefus as the Son of Gop, may as well expect the fame by his exercife of love to Gop and man, or to the Saviour. —The one is no more of divine appointment and requifition than the other. Is not condemnation | Ee pronounced 440 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. pronounced on the want of Love, as well as on the want of faith ? e ; § 19. In the light of thefe revealed principles, we may difcern the folly of Pelagianifm. Con- fined j in their view of Gop's character, Pelagians afcribe to him government only, to the utter exclufion of fubjective grace 5 and equity, to the exclufion of Jovereignty in our acceptation of this | term—And, equally confined in their views of man’s real charactér, both as a creature and as a finner, they afcribe tohim aéfive: power, to ‘the exclu- fion of paffiv ive; a perfect ability to keep the divine law, €ven in the prefent fallen ftate, to the exclu- fion of divine influence. ~~ hope it has been fairly | fhewn, that fuch views are no lefs contrary to true philofophy, than to the uniform tenor of the facred otacles.— Were it not that the Pelagian leaven imperceptibly. infinuates itfelf into the minds of perfons profeffing orthodoxy, they could not main- tain what they do refpecting either the prefent or the priftine ability of man, They are ever con- founding that kind of ability which is the bafis of moral obligation, with another kind which is the immediate caufe of a virtuous determination of the will. They july contend that man has ability — to make his own elections without control ; but how abfurd the inference that therefore he has no need of fubjective grace, in order to render the moral means efficacious, and his character truly virtuous ! Some perfons indeed have acknow- ledged, “that none could perfevere or advance in a Conct. In reference to Scriptural Theology. 44 a holy or virtuous courfe, without the perpetual fupport, and the powerful affiftance of divine grace ;”’ and yet, with fingular inconfiftency, they maintained ‘‘ that inward preventing grace was not neceflary to form in the foul the fir/t beginnings of true repentance.’’* That is, they could mae, but not keep themfelves Chriftians! They could | create, but not preferve the divine life! It is the property of error to be inconfiftent with firft principles. - § 20. For want of accurate notions refpecting the nature of moral government, fome writers, who are claffed amongit the moft orthodox, and among the diffenters too, have egregioufly erred refpectting the Aingdom of Chrift.—They feem to make fubjects and obedient fubjeéts, fynonimous ; and to identify Chrift’s offices of King and Surety, referring each alike exclufively to the ele@. This fancy confounds the equity of the Meffiah’s government with the victorious power of his grace ; his regal authority with his munificent bounty ; aétual obedience with obligation to obey ; the internal form of the covenant of grace, with its external adminiftration; a profefling church with Chrift’s myftical body: Whereas ‘¢ the kingdom of heaven,” or the kingdom of Chrift, has bad fubjeéts which are to be punifhed, as well as good ones to be rewarded; unprofitable fervants who know their mafter’s will, but do it not ; /lothful fervants who hide their talent ; ufelefs tares that fhall be burned; things that offend, and them * Moss. Eccl, Hist. Cent, v. Part 11. ch. v. § 26. 442 : EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. them which do iniquity. The kingdom of Chrift, properly fpeaking, is compofed of fubjects whom he governs; but to fuppofe grace in the foul to be a neceflary bafis for governing a moral kingdom, as that of Chrift evidently is, according to {cripture facts and affertions; or to fuppofe that his govern- ment commences with a fpiritual power in conver- fion; is nothing better than a dangerous fiction, or a limb of pernicious Antinomianifm, under the garb of righteoufnefs. It is a precious truth, that Chrift ae a Weed! kingdom ; that he makes his people willing in the © day of his power; rules in their hearts here, and beftows upon them a kingdom hereafter. But to call thefe exclufively ** the kingdom of Chrift,”’ is juft as proper as it would be to give the pela of ‘* kingdom of Great Britain’? to a few of the King’s favourites, to the exclufion of all others, whether infants or adults. Are none fubjeéts of Meffiah’s reign but thofe who know their king and the nature of his dominion? who enjoy his’ fpecial favour? who bow to his authority, and obey his laws? No one can fuppofe it but from extreme inattention to the government of Chrift, and the proper nature of his kingdom. § 21. From the principles explained in this book, we may fee the propriety of the gofpel call, and the divine fincerity of gracious invetations. Calls and invitations, as well as commands, are moral means employed by the divine governor in reference to his creatures as free in their acts, and accountable Conci. In reference to Scripiural Theology. 443 accountable for their conduct. He who denies the propriety and utility of {uch means, even towards the non-eleé&t, proves his ignorance of a moral fyftem, and the operations refpecively of govern- ment and grace. He who knows the character of Gop and the nature of man, muft alfo know, that thefe means are effential to produce obedience and the fruits of the Spirit. Though invitations, per-— fuafions, and expoftulations, when alone, never prevail in begetting faith, repentance, and fpi- ritual obedience; yet, even fovereign fubjective grace, without them, never fucceeds to effect thefe ends. Moral means form an effential part of that motive by which the foul is determined to good, no lefs than the fubjective grace by which they are found effectual. In order to fhew that fuch means are irrelevant, it is incumbent on the objector to prove, that the non-elect are- not capadle of acting according to motive, not fubjects of equitable go-_ vernment, nor amenable to Gop as the righteous Judge! § 22. Here we may fee the true ground of that well known diftin@tion between the law as a cove- nant, and the fame law as a rule. The very idea of a divine covenant implies fovereign favour ; but. not foadivinerule. ‘The former, therefore, ftands related to the Sovereignty, the latter to the Equity of Gop. When the favour is forfeited by breach of covenant, the rule continues invariably the fame. The denial of this diftinétion argues that the objector 1 is unacquainted with the real import and relative $4 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. relative influence of government and grace, in reference to Adam and his pofterity. § 23. Many controverfies have been agitated, in different ages, under different names and forms, concerning grace and merit. But what have they been differing about? The one party has been - ftrenuous to advance the honour of fovereign grace, the other to eftablifh the claims of equitable go- vernment. On both fides, the principle feems to © have been too much affumed, that the fyftem oppofed, was wholly falfe. This was ftrikingly the cafe with refpect to the dodtrines of the divine decrees, of fcientia media, of redemption, juftifica- tion, and regeneration. But if the principles of this Effay be admitted, vefpecting the characters of Gop and the creature, the truth may be found in 2 medium between two falfe extremes. For in- fiance, the truth refpecting the divine decrees may be found by allowing that thofe concerning good come under one confideration, and are as abfolute : as any can wifh them to be; while /uppofed ones con- cerning metaphyfical and moral evil, which have given juft offence, appear to have no real exiftence. The fame is applicable to the conteft about fcventia media. The good is forefeen becaufe decreed, and it 1s not poflible for it to fpring from any other fource ; but the evi/s, both moral and metaphyfical, are forefeen through a medium.of each refpectively. Metaphyfical evil is viewed in the glafs of hypo- thetical exiftence; as no created exiftence can be without it: and moral evil in the medium of its deficient ey a Be oo a San rice ee ee a Oe rE ae pena cae ‘Conci. In reference to Scriptural Theology. 445. deficient caufe united with free will, which fully accounts for its exiftence wzthowt a decree. On thefe principles, to the one party is allowed all the fovereignty i in divine grace that he can wifh;. to the other all the equity in the divine government which he can defire; and both in perfect harmony. Hence none are faved by good works forefeen, whether faith, repentance, or any other; ‘and none > are condemned for fin fore-appointed. And hence alfo, the faints are judged according to their works, while yet they are faved by grace—According to his mercy Gop faveth us; yet falvation as the end is obtained by obedience as the way. Sovereignty worketh all our works within us ; and then we both will and do what the moral governor demands. § 24. Were we better verfed in thefe grand principles, the conteft about redemption, whether it be particular or univerfal, would foon be at an end. For the work of Chrift, confidered as a mean of divine government, muft needs be of equa! extent with any other mean. ‘Thus his incarnation, his obedience, the doétrines he revealed, the pains he endured, his death, refurrection, and afcenfion are all public aéls, and the ground of encouragement for all returning finners. “Dhey were capable of neither abridgment nor enlargement. They were neceflary, had there been but one elected ; yet fufficient, were all to be faved. But the fame work of Chrift, as a part of the Sovereign decree, becomes operative only in the minds of thofe who, according to election, have fubjective grace. They receive the atone- ment 446 - EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ment and reconciliation; the biefling exhibited becomes perfonal, effective, and faving. As the Jove of Gop has both an exhibited, and an energetic _ afpeét, ptoceeding from the two-fold character of Gop with reference to man; fo, the obedience and ~ fufferings of Chrift have the fame diverfity. The general afpecdt, whether of the love and grace of Gop, or the humiliation, obedience; fufferings and voluntary death of Chrift, is an exhzbztzon of a {uit- able good to moral agents; but the partecular afpett of the very fame things is an effeé to be produced by them in certain perfons according to the order of a fovereign purpofe.. Hence the preaching of Chrift crucified, or the proclamation of his divine righteoufnefs, tho’ addreffed to all alike who hear them, produces a faving effect only on the fubjects of fovereign grace. Aut are alike obliged in equity and intereft, to receive the an- nounced benefits; but some only are found aéiually difcharging that obligation, and eternally praifing the fovereignty of divine grace for oes them to differ. 4 25. Thefe principles are well calculated to explain fome difficulties which attend the doctrine of -Fuflification. ‘That the fubjeét is attended with » difficulties, no intelligent perfon, who has read and thought upon it, can queftion. If not aware of them, let him confult, for inftance, Baxrer and ‘TitLorson, onthe one hand ; Ames, TuRRETIN,; Owen, Grit, and Epwarps, on the other ; and he will foon find confiderable difficulties. This is particularly Conci. In reference to Scriptural Theology. 44'¥ particularly the cafe in afligning to faith its proper office, and in reconciling the apottolic ftatements. of Paul and James. But if we duly confider thas a two-fold relation fubfifts between Gop, and his chofen, that of a fovereign decreer, and that of an equitable governor, the chief difficulty difappears.— In the firft of thefe effential characters with refpect to us, (though in equity to Chrift) he imputes — tighteoufnefs without works—we are juftified freely by grace—or by Chrift,—wherein we are the paf- five recipients of benefits. Thus he covers our fins, and blots them out for his own fake, without any condition on our part. The bafis of Juftification is union of perfons, and that union which is a {ufficient ground for the gracious act of juftifying, is formed by the Covenant Head, the Lord our righteoufnefs, as an att of fovereignty, in the time appointed, even, the day of his power. As the bafis of the impetration of new-covenant bleflings, of pardon by atonement, and righteoufnefs by obe- dience, is the uNrion of the Saviour’s Per/on with our nature ; fo, that of the application of thefe bleff- - ings is the union of his nature with our perfons. By the union implied in his incarnation, a founda-~ tion 1s laid for preferving our nature from eternal ruin, by his dwelling in that nature perfonally ; but by the quickening union which takes place on a perfonal change, a foundation is laid for preferving our perfons unto eternal happineds. By the one he aflumed our nature, by the other our perfons. By the former he removes the law enmity, by the latter the Aeart enmity. In 448 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. In the firft inftance, he fulfilled the covenanted condition of making hAim/felf the fon of man; in the laft, that of making us the fons of God. The one is 2 common falvation, the other an e/eéfive one. On the one is founded his calls to evangelical faith and repentance; on the other his beftowment of righteoufnefs, holinefs, and everlafting life. § 26. On the other hand, as a governor Gop requires obedience ; and thus forgivenefs and Jufti- fication are held forth in a conditional form. This is the language of rectoral propriety ; ‘‘ Except ye repent, ye fhall perz/h’’—* he that believeth not fhall be condemned.’’? This equitable conduct is founded in the relation itfelf of government and free agenty, and not in mere pofitive appointment. Juftification being founded, as before obferved, on the union of perfons, the bond on the agent’s part is faith, or believing, whereby the foul receives Chrift and all his benefits, and becomes as one with him; affenting to his meffiahfhip, on the teftimony of the gofpel record, approving of him : in the whole of his perfon and work, and trufting in him for life and falvation, Terms, or condi- tions, have no place in the execution of fovereign decrees, or the communication of benefits, becaufe man is then confidered as paffive, and the recipient of benefits; but they are effential to moral govern- ment, becaufe man; the fubject of government, is regarded as a free agent. ‘This double relation between Gop and. man, belongs to every period of human exiftence. The conditional afpect of the old Concert. In reference to Scriptural Theology. 449 old covenant was, ‘ Do this, and live ;”? i, e. per- form perfeét obedience to the divine réquifition, and it will be followed with happinefs. But the conditional afpeé of the gofpel teftimony is, << Be- lieve on the Lord Jefus Chrift, and thou thalt be faved.” Much debate has been occafioned by the fuppofition, that, becaufe faith and repentance are privileges and bleflings of the covenant of grace, they cannot in any refpect. be terms or conditions to be performed by us. But the fame thing may be a blefing freely beftowed, in one refpect, while an incumbent duty in another; a bleffing in its principle, and a duty in its exercife. The princi+ ple, or fpiritual nature, is a fovereign gift ; ‘but its exercife i is Segui oly ipa of ve agent. § 27. Hence it is s plain, that as the divine go- vernor juftly claimed from Adam, in his’ prim: eval ftate, unfarling obedience, as a condition of happinefs ; fo, with equal juftice, he now requires the obedience of faith: But what is faith, in the bufinefs of Juftification? Opinions here are innu- merable ;—-a grace of the Spirit, a moral duty, an inftrument, a natural fitnefs, its object metonymi- cally exprefled, &c. Towards a fatisfa@tory an- fwer to the queftion, it may be ufeful to remark; that belzeving in order to juftification, is what the moral Governor, according to the prefent difpen- fation, requires; and which the accountable agent performs. Now what is required in this cafe by the one party, and performed by the other, mutt ee ool be a work, or moral duty. And if-undelief os Beta be 450 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGN TY. bea bad work, it fhould feem that believing is @ good work. Again, if faith exercifed, or believing, — conneéted with its object, be not confidered asa - good work, in the bufinefs of juftification, . while it is entitled to that character in every other bufinefs, there ought to be fome ftrong neceflity for fo fingu- Jar, not to fay unintelligible diftinction, But there is no neceffity for it, while we have only accurate apprehenfions of the divine character. | In juftification three things are implied, a charge made—a plea offered—and the juftifying © fentence. If the charge be, that the perfon has, in our common progenitor, deviated from original rectitude, by a breach of covenant; it is plain, that no work of ours can be urged as a plea: Chrift alone, as the fecond Adam, can meet it on our behalf, and give us the privilege of pleading it — But if the charge be, that, notwithftanding the gofpel remedy, the perfon continues an unbeliever, impenitent, and difobedient to the heavenly call: it is equally plain, that the only admiffible plea, in an{wer to this charge, is believing, repenting, obe- dience. The Surety’s fulfilment of all righteouf- nefs, in our behalf, was not to excufe us from per-— forming, but to enadle us to perform the/e equitable requifitions. Chrift and his righteoufnefs, the fruit of fovereign grace, are exhibited in the gofpel as objective bleffings for our ufe; our fuitable improvement of them is juttly required by the divine governor ; and in every inftance of actual compliance, or of the condition performed, fovereign grace is the immediate as well as the original caufe ! | of Cénci. In'reference to Scriptural Theology. ASE of it. Unbelief excludes from all the benefits of the gofpel, and leaves the finner under the con- demnation of a broken covenant, and his own perfonal tranfgreffions. On the contrary, faith introduces into all the benefits of the gofpel; as - pleadable by the believer; while it is the fruct of that vital union with Chrift which he effed@s in fovereign love, but the root of that which is required of us in equity. What Chrift has dane and fuffered, as performed by him in our behalf, is imputed for our juttification, when he effec an union between himfelf, who is a quickening Spirit, and our perfons. But he did not {o believe, repent, and obey for us, as to excufe us from thefe acts, becatife Gop does not refign his cha- racter of governor, while he conducts himfelf towards his people with the exercife of fovereign favour. § 28. In order therefore to be extricated from feveral, I may fay innumerable difficulties, attend- ant on the doctrine of Juftification, we fhould remember that Gop maintains the character of a> gracious fovereign, and a jut governor. In the latter character, he deals with us by moral means and conditions; in the former, he proceeds accord- ing to the counfel of his own will, and the internal form of his covenant. In purfuance of a fovereign covenant and: plan of redemption, Gop requires, not from us but from the Surety, the performance of conditions, which are virtually included in thefe two things ; viz. the impetration of righteoufnefs _ KF f2 and EE a EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. . and life, and the impartatson of his quickenin ¢ Spirit, whereby a vital ‘union is formed, active rebellion fubdued, and enmity flain. To fuch a foul, being thus in Chrift Jefus, there is, there can be no condemnation. In foro cait, the perfon ftands complete in the Surety. The enmity of | the law again& the offender, and that of the offender againft the law, are alike annihilated. And, in this refpect, the imputation .of righteouf- nefs, refulting from union, is declared in heaven ; ; and the participation of life, the fpirit of faith, of repentance, and of holinefs, is the infeparable attendant in the perfon fo circumftanced. ‘This is juftification freely by grace, through the redemption which is in Chrift Jefus, to the utter exclufion of all our perfonal works. Yet; § 29. In purfuance of the plan of moral go- yernment, Gop’s elect have duties artd obligations as well as others. They have equal caufe to enquire, What fhall we do to be faved ? And this ‘s the work of Gop, that they believe on Jefus Chrift for prefent acceptance and eternal falvation ; that they accept pardon, righteoufnefs, purity and blifs, as a free gift, “° without money, and without price.’ > Performing this required condition, ac- tively affenting to the truth, and actually believing with the heart, they are declared to be juftified — from all thofe charges that appear againft the unbelieving, who. reject the counfel of Gop when -propofed to them. ‘Hence we fee the. confiftency between Paul and James. Paul, when. difcuffing | the Se ra o=% ea Conct. In reference to Scriptural Theology. 453 the queftion, How a man, whether Jew or Gentile, as to be accepted of God? afferts, that we muft obtain the invaluable blefling, not by perfonal obedience to the law, whether ceremonial or moral, but by faith; that is, by aflenting to, and confiding in him who performed both. But, fays James, it muft be an operative faith; a faith that brings forth fruit unto Gop, and brings in its train all other graces and works of righteoufnefs. For though Gop, as a fovereign difpenfer of benefits, {ets us at liberty from condemnation, and gives us a title to life, on a condition performed by Jefus Chrift, he has not thrown away the reins of his ponent. or ceafed to require a condition in order to acquit us of a charge of rejecting his truth propofed to us as moral agents, and in order to confer on us his promifed benefit. § 30. The do¢trine of f{criptural regeneration may be confiderably relieved from the difficulties in which it has been involved, by a proper atten- tion to thefe principles. As an equitable governor, Gop requires ‘‘truth in the inward parts,’’ per- fect conformity to his revealed will, repentance, faith, and new obedience. But as a fovereign, he takes away the heart of ftone, gives a heart of flefh, and beftows ‘< the law of the Spirit of life.” If by regeneration be meant, a new nature com- municated, we are the paflive recipients of it; but if by the fame term be meant the formation of the body of Chrifiian graces, as a néw man con- formable to Chrift our exemplar, it refults from | Bt 3 this Ad de EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY, this new naiure exercifed on the word of. truth, Hence we may fee the fallacy of that ftatement which maintains that Gop does not require evan- gelical or fpirilual obedience from the unregenerate ; for if as a governor he did not require this, why fhould he as a benevolent and operative fovereign effect the change ? Is it conceivable, that he fhould produce what is not required ? Becaufe all men are obliged, in equity and intereft, to be conformable to eternal rectitude, therefore, fays the gracious difpenfer of covenant bleffings, mine elect fhall be “‘quickened together with Chrift,” and made pure in heart, that they may be bleffed for ever. It is abfurd to fuppofe, that he fhould beftow what is not equitably requifite for them to poffefs, in order to be happy. __ ‘ § 31. Thefe views of Gop and of moral agents, will affift us to form a judgment on the controverfy excited about the middle of the lait century, between fome eminent writers of our own — country and feveral American divines, concerning the way of falvation. I particularly allude to Mr, Hervey and Dr. Bgttamy, and the authors to whom they refer. This is not the place to enter at large into that controverfy ; but we may obferve, that Mr. Hervey feems to argue on the fact of objeéitve grace, Chrift and his benefits, under the notion of a fovereign grant, which in that fenfe is ours before faith; and on our complying with the gofpel call, it becomes ours in fubjeéizve poffeffion. But if the terms ‘ours’? and ‘ mine,’’ which often | occur, Conc. In reference to Scriptural Theology. 455 occur, be taken by one to fignify a warrant, or ground of right to recetve and appropriate the bleff- ing ; and by the other, actual and faving poffleflion, the difference is nearly verbal. ‘Without attempt- ing to vindicate every expreffion of Hervey, or his favourite MarsHALL, every competent and candid judge muft acknowledge, if I miftake not, that the doctrine they efpoufed is reducible to thefe — particulars : | 1. That the gofpel, and the glorious benefits it contains, are a /iream of fovereign love and mercy conftantly flowing towards perifhing finners, which would blefs the moft undeferving, were it not for their criminal rejection of the propofed benefits. In other words; that the gofpel meflage is an emanation from the Father of lights, as the Gop of grace, /hining upon a benighted world, wherever a difpenfation of evangelic truth is witneffed—an emanation that conveys righteoufnefs and healing, that deftroys the power of fin, enkindles holy love, and beatifies the soul for ever,—where there is not a finful refiftance, or an aéfive oppofition to its avowed defign. And this appears to be the mean- ing of Dr, Owen on Heb. il. 7—11. (Abridgem. § 10. : i That, as thefe benefits are great and free, it 4 at-once the high privilege and incumbent duty of every finner to whom thefe tidings are made known, inftantly to receive the teftimony and the thing teftified ; and that every one, at his peril, is bound to lay afide his criminal refiftance, and to - admit this healing beam, this ftream of righteouf- Kf, | nefs 4.56 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. ne{s and falvation, as his own; as defigned for his ufe, and which he may poffefs as a treafure of _ falvation and BaRPInCe by a ie appropri- ation. 3. That, notwithftanding this, it is the uvereuem fecret, infallible influence of the Holy Spirit alone, which does 7m fact produce a radical and faving change in the foul. It is by this influence that we come to difcover the glory of the gofpel, and by — neceflary. implication the glory of the law, as holy, juft, and good, even when condemning its tranfgreffor. It is alfo by the fame influence, that the foul comes to difcover its own guilt, impotency, _ defilement, wretchednefs, and expofure to endlefs mifery. The fame organ, and the fame light, difcover to us, in different objects, the beauti- ful, the grand, and the deformed; the rainbow and the thunder-cloud. To difpute, therefore, which object we fee, or ought to fee fir/t, is little better than trifling. Surely. that object 1s actually firft feen by an enlightened mind, which ts firft prefenied to it, whether law or gofpel, juftice or mercy, Gon’s holinefs, or Chrift’s merits. By de- grees, the relative importance of each appears. 4. That the faith by which we ftand acquitted from the charge of unbelief, and become partakers of it and all his benefits, according to the plan of | legiflative requifition, is a reception of the tefti- mony and the bleflings announced by it. And it feems to be implied; that he who really receives Chrift and his benefits muft be confcrous of his own ad, and the fincerity of his acceptance. Hence their ; view Concn. In reference to Scriptural Theology, 464 view of juftifying faith, or faith required in order to juftification, may be exprefled by a confcious reception of Chrift and his righteoufnefs, for pardon and acceptance. § 32. If the above ftatement be accurate, the ftate of the difference between thefe writers is to this effect: The gofpel regards man as deferv- ing to perifh, and without ftrenoth. By reafon of objective grace, that bringeth falvation, and ap-— peareth to finners without refpect to perfons, every finner may truly fay, Chrift is mine already as the gift of Gop, by way of grant, and will be mine in faving poffefion, 1F I do not reject him by un- belief. And if the a¢tual reception, (I mean an intelligent and voluntary reception) of a proffered benefit includes a confcioufnef/s of the act; it fol- lows, that what was before only hypothetically true, _ becomes on believing actually fo. But from what was true in the former fenfe, no man can infer, | by the aid of the fcriptures, of his fenfes, or of his reafon, what is true in the latter fenfe. From neither of thefe great fources of information, can any man learn, whciher he is a confctous receiver of exhibited bleflings. Nor fhouid it be fought from any other fource prior to, or diftin& from, the exercife of faith, whether Chrift be “ours” in a fub= _ jective fenfe. The reafon is, that the change from one kind of poffeffion to the other, depends on the fulfilment of a condition’ refulting from the fecret will of Gop, begetting the fpirit of faith; and Which 458 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. which therefore, with refpect to man, muft needs be a contingent event. | ) ad If precifion in the ufe of terms be required, I do not think that the following langaage of Mr. Marsuatt is defenfible. ‘* Let it be well obferv-- ed, that the reafon why we are to affure ourfelves in yur faith, that Gop freely giveth Chrift and his falva- tion to us particularly, is not, becaufe it is a truth before we believe it, but becaufe it becometh -acertain truth when we believe it, and becaufe it will never be true, except we do, in fome meafure, perfuade and affure ourfelves that it is fo. We have no abfolute promife or declaration in fcripture, that Gop certainly will or doth give Chrift and his falvation to any one of us in particular ; neither do we know it to be true already by fcripture, or | fenfe, or reafon, before we affure ourfelves abfo- lutely of it.”’* But, though it is not my bufinefs to vindicate Mr. MarsHALt in this paflage, where precifion of terms and perfpicuity of meaning are fo much wanted; it is hoped I may, without giv- ing offence to any, attempt to explain his meaning, according to the tenor of his difcourfe and his general fyftem, on fo important and interefting a fubject. nye 1, This author, who, if we regard the general tendency of his work on Sanctification, is fo deferv- edly celebrated by Mr. Hervey, fuppofes, that ¢ Gon freely giveth Chrift and his falvation to us,” in general, by the fcriptural declaration. This, he allows, is a truth before we believe it, and is given | | us * ManrsHALL on Sanctification, p. 158, ed. 1780. rd Conci. In reference to Scriptural Theology. 459 us as a teftimony that we might believe it. But, he alfo fuppofes, that 2. It is-not a truth, that Gop giveth NoaiGbs actual poffefion of it and his falvation, before faith ; nor is there any evidence that it is ¢hus ours in, particular, but what arifes from faith itfelf, ora confcious reception of him. Therefore, it is in- ferred, 3. When the foul Nie received Chrif and his benefits, a fact exifts for which there could not have been, to the perfon, any prior evidence. The evidence arifes from the fact of an exifting con- dition in the foul; and that is nothing elfe but faith, or a Aeneas reception of the bleffing. For, 1F Chrift is given to us in the gofpel, in order that we may enjoy him in our fouls ; or, rr, by receiving him as propofed, he becomes ours in particular ; it follows, that a confcious receiving of him pro- duces a new relation, a new fact, for which we neither had, nor could have, any prior evidence. | 4s Hence it follows, that Chrift thus given, that is, in actual participation, was not a truth before believing, but becomes a truth by believing. For this confcious reception is that very means by which the conditional propofition becomes an abfoe lute one. By regenerating grace, Gop opens the door of the heart, Chrift and his benefits are cordially received, and confcioufnefs of the act is its infeparable concomitant. For though a perfon ‘may poflefs the principle or the {fpirit of faith, without being confcious of it; he cannot be un- ~ -confcious of his acts proceeding from that principle, which are directed to a fpecific end, and which may A60 : EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. may be termed ‘believing with the heart unto righteoufnefs.”’ ~§ 23. Perhaps the principal defect in our author’s reprefentation, in point of perfpicuity, which has given fo much offence to Dr. BELLAMY and many others, is the manner in which he diver- sifies his meaning by the ufe of thefe terms— ‘¢ particularly,’’ or ‘¢in particular.”” By a candid comparifon of one part of his work with another, and from it’s getieral tenour, his intention by this reftrictive claufe is, to contraft a general grant of covenant bleffings, which are ours before we receive them, in one fenfe ; with a perfonal po/Jeffion of the fame bleflings, which makes them ours in another {enfe, Whereas, inftead of that mode of limitation and contraft, had he faid, that ‘Gop giving Chrift and his falvation as actually dwelling in our hearts, by faith, is not a truth before confcious reception _ but becometh a certain truth dy confcious recep- tion,’ his meaning, though the fame, might be lefs liable to miftake. For he confiders faith, actually receiving Chrift and his benefits, to be what conftitutes the change from general to parti- cular intereft, and of which every believer muft be confcious. The author very juftly. confiders this as an exceplion from the common method of believing propofitions ; for which, though he does not _affign it, there is a very good reafon.. In tran- factions among men, when a benefit is made over, as by will or charter, from one to another, on performing Conct. Inreference to Scriptural Theology. 464 performing fome condition; that condition mutt be fome overt act, by; which the truftees of fuch will or charter may be able to afcertain the claim. But Gop, who “regards truth in the inward parts,’’ fufpends the enjoyment of the bleffing, in the reétoral, or equitable adminiftration of the covenant, on the /tate of the mind in reference to it. Among men, if a teftator fhould leave an eftate to another, on condition that the ftate of his mind be fincerely of a certain defcription, what mortal could . be a fuitable umpire? It is therefore no wonder that, in human tranfactions, the enjoyment of a benefit is never fufpended on any fuch condition. But in the matter of falvation from guilt, the feriptural propofition is, ‘« Zf thou believe with thine heart, thou fhalt be faved.” When a man therefore believes with the heart, he is confcious of his own fincerity in that. act, as in other acts of the ‘mind, and may by the act itfelf know his accept- ance. And it is plain that there could be no ante- cedent evidence, either from fcripture, from fenfe or from reafon, or from any other fource, of his jfincerity in the point of believing. If indeed he had believed that Chrift was is, poffeffvely, before he had a confcioufnefs of fincerely receiving him as held forth in the gofpel, he muft have believed a falfehood, or at leaft believed without adequate evidence. But confcious fincerity of believing is one of the beft and higheft evidences _of perfonal religion ; though there are many others, and of different kinds, to which the believer does well to take heed. : | § 34. 462 _ EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. § 34. Hence it appears, that thofe who efpoufe Dr; Bzettamy’s fide of the difpute againft Mar- SHALL and Hervey, ought not to treat this matter fo contemptuoufly as they fometimes do. For, until they can produce an inftance of a legacy among men, left to perfons on condition that the legatee cordially accept of it, whereby what was theirs in general becomes theirs in particular, their contempt is unjuft, and their triumph premature. - Were a purfe of gold left toa perfon on condition that he would 7ecerve it within a given period, during which it fhould be daily offered him by the executors of that will; he may with truth fay, “It . is mine by grant ;”? but when he actually receives it, he can fay, “It is mine in _poffeffon,” and it. became fo by the very ad of receiving it. ‘* As many as received him,” fays the evangelift, “ to them gave he power to become the fons of Gop, even to them that believe on his name; which were born, not of bldad, nor of the will of the flefh, nor of the will of man, but of Gop.” If therefore it be duly confidered, -that Chrift, and in him righteoufnefs, holinefs and life eternal, are the gift of Gop to us by a teftamentary grant, in order that whofoever believeth in him, i. e. receiveth him, “may not perifh, but have adual poffeffion of thefe invaluable bleffings ; it muft appear plain, that'the — fact of a@ual poffeflion was- not a truth before believing, but became fo by believing, as an appro= Ptiating, confcious aét, Believing truths revealed, in general, irre/pedlively of jultification,’ i is a very different thing from believing the ish teftimony in Conci. Ln reference to Scriptural Theology. 463 in order to ju/tification. A man may truly believe that there is a Gop of infinite perfections, that he himfelf is a miferable finner, and that Jefus Chrift is the only and all-fufficient Saviour of ruined man ; but what has this kind of believing to do with juftification ? A man may believe the exiftence of a will, the benevolent character of the teftator, the legacy bequeathed, the nature of the condition prefcribed, and in fhort ‘all about it ;’’ but this is not receiving the legacy. _ Believing all revealed truths, as worthy of Gop and interefting to men, is one thing: but receiving Chrift, as the end of - the law for righteoufnels, i 1S encehen, According to the one office of faith, nothing is believed but what is fact, that is, revealed, antecedent truth ; accord- ing to the other office, a general conditional grant becomes.a particular individual poffeflion. In brief, the difference between them is as great, as between receiving a legacy, and believing the contents of a will. In my apprehenfion, every other view of juftifying faith is attended with infuperable diff- culties ; particularly, is derogatory to grace, and, if traced toits juft confequences, tends to fubvert the gofpel of Chrift. For it confounds faith and works, and makes juftification to be obtained by faith as an af, inftead of a medium; which is plainly contrary to St. Paul’s dodtrine, and is too favourable to antient Jerufalem and modern Rome. Other acts of faith, befide this. of recetuing a free oift, however excellent in themfelves, contribute no more to our ju/fzfication, than acts of love to Gop and our neighbour, or the exercife of fear, . hope, AGA EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. hope, and joy. If, indeed, the charge were directed againft a perfon—not becaufe he is in himfelf defti- tute of perfect righteoufne/s, but—becaufe he does not exercife the virtue of believing the divine teftimony, confiding in the divine faithfulnefs, and the like; it is plain, that nothing could repel fuch a charge, but the actual production of thofe virtu- ous exercifes. But this is avery inferior fenfe of juftification, and is of a nature totally different from that which relates to our freedom from the con- demnation of our perfons for want of perfonak perfection. ; | ck lake If I miftake not, the views given in this Effay of the different fcriptural acceptations of divine GRACE, as refulting from the character of Gop and the correfponding conditions of mankind, will | contribute not a little to afcertain the line of truth, and to detect the path of error, in reference to thefe intricate points, if impartiality and candour be not violated. An accurate difcernment of the nature of objeffive grace, with which the facred volume abounds, muft recognize the nature of that claim, in virtue of which any perfon may fay, «© Chrift and his benefits are mine.’’ In the nature of fubjeitive grace we perceive that fpirit of faith, which enables the foul unfeignedly to receive the objective blefing, And in required grace, the fruit of the other two, we behold the nature of that juftification, or pardon and acceptance, which is confequent on believing. Againft the charge of a federal delinquency, the tran{greffor indeed pleads the perfection of the fecond Adam. But the fecond ap a Adam Conch. In reference to Perfonal Religion. 46. Adam will be eternally perfect, whether he be faved or loft. He muft then plead fomething more than the bare objective perfection of that righteouf- ne{fs by an intereft in which he is juftified, or elfe his claims differ not from thofe of hypocrites. For thefe alfo plead the objeétive excellence and fufficiency of the Saviour’s righteoufnefs. There- fore, if he would efcape that vcondemnatien which is due to him on account ‘of tran{creflions, both federal and perfonal, he muft plead a confcious union with Chrift by faith ; or, a con/cious recepti- on of him as the gift of Gop. The relative change implied in juftification, is the immediate effect of UNION; and as the nature of the union is, fo is the nature of the relative change. From union by faith, fprings juftification by faith ; and from union by Chrift, (effected by his Spirit, which is the fource of the fpirit of faith,) fprings ju/fification by Christ. § 35. CI.) Personat Reticion. Every intelligent Chriftian will allow, that thofe princix ples which have the moft direct tendency to generate and improve perfonal religion, obvious- ly recommend themfelves as highly important, and worthy of reception. That knowledge of Gop and of ourfelves which naturally tends to excite the believer’s holy love, his filial fear, his _ genuine humility, his abfolute refignation, his ardent gratitude, and his lively hope ; that view of Gop and of ourfelves which is beft calculated to flay our enmity, to check our prefumption, to Gg fubdue 466 EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. fabdue our pride, and to control our impatience ; thofe afpects of the divine character which inflexi- bly oppofe rebellion, forbid defpair, and in{pire delight ;—in a word; thofe afpe&ts which ward off perplexity, and induce cheerful confidence ;— challenge our higheft reverence and efteem. In the Chriftian charaéter, as in the facred volume; and in the divine difpenfations, it is pleafing to recognize a beautiful fymmetry, in which every part appears to occupy its proper fituation, like the parts of a diffeéted map, without any thing either deficient, or fuperfluous. Such, I am perfuaded, are the genuine effects of an habitual, devout con- templation of Equity and Sovereignty, as explained in this Effay. § 36. Holy love is the effence of real virtue, and the fum of Chriftian holinefs. Infinite; fovereign benevolence, habitually contemplated, enkindles the facred flame: all rifing enmity is fubdued, and the foul eafily embraces even its bittereft enemies. That view of fovereignty which has been fometimes maintained, which wears a ftern afpect, and includes a deftruc- tive difpofal of its objects, infpires us with dread rather than with affection. But, to the foul that feeks him, Gop is an ocean of light’ and love. The more we dwell on this bleffed object, the more are we changed into the fame. image, from glory to glory. Love produces love. The command to love fuch a being with all our heart, is ‘* not grievous but joyous.’ And even his” Concn. In reference to Perfonal Religion, 464 his equity becomes a pleafine theme, and the object of pureft love. All things work together for good, to them that love Gop. His very judgments when abroad in the earth, or furveyed in the records of hiftory, though awful, are yet amiable. The guilty alone are: their objects ;- and though the ‘heel of the tighteous’’ may be bruifed by thent, “ their life is hid with Chrift in _ Gop.” Falfe apprehenfions of the divine cha- racter perplex and confound ; but accurate views difcover a lovelinefs, a fpiritual beauty, which words are inadequate to exprefs. Divine benevo- lence is wonderfully operative, and inconceivably fruitful. Gop giveth his own Son and Spirit, he gives him/elf to be our falvation, and everlafting portion, Well may Chriftians exclaim, <* What manner of love is this! We love him becaufe he firft loved us.’’ But the view too often indulged that Gop, by an act of fovereignty, withholds his love, his grace; his merey; his compaffionate fa- vours, is ill adapted to maintain the flame of holy affection. For my own part, I find nothing in divine Sovereignty but what is infinitely amiable and lovely: all befide is Equity, which, though not unamiable, inftantly leads me to enquire, with trembling folicitude, What am I? and what have 1 done ? ? § 37. Filial fear is peculiar to a foul poffeffed of true piety; and confifts in an apprehenfion of power blended with benignity. So important is the ‘fear of the Lord’ in the eftimation of the Gg2 — infpired 468. EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. infpired writers, that the whole of true religion is reprefented by that phrafe. Infinite greatnefs and almighty power, viewed as detached from love, may well create dread, or a ‘ fear that hath tor- ment ;”? but fovereign benevolence, united with aw-_ ful power and equity, and feen through the medium of revealed truth, expel the flavifhnefs of fear, and ‘nduce filial affection. If we conceive fovereign power, in any cafe, capable of doing us an injury, we could never be free from flavifh dread; and <¢ horror of great darknefs’’ might interrupt our -pureft enjoyments : but if, in fact, our fpiritual enjoyments are interrupted, in connection with sight views of the divine character, we may be fure that then equity, not fovereignty, is operative; and that we fuffer nothing more than we deferve. ‘This being the cafe, the mind is awakened to felf- enquiry, the caufe in ourfelf is diligently fought out, and ignorance is properly lamented ; and not only ‘* prefumptuous fins,’ but alfo our ‘‘ fecret faults,’? make us fear, and cry unto the Lord for deliverance. & § 38. Genuine humility confifts in a jut fenfe entertained of ourfelves, confidered as creatures, compared with Gop. As repentance arifes from . the confideration of our finfulnefs, compared with the holinefs of Gop’s law and nature ; fo humility fprings from a juft comparifon of ourfelves as creatures, with the felf-exiftent, independent, and all-fafficient Gop. ‘The effence, exiftence, and perfections of Jehovah are uncaufed and abfolute. ! He : —— Cone. In reference to Perfonal Religion. 469 Fie knoweth neither beginning nor end; neither variablenefs. nor fhadow of turning. He is before all, and above all; therefore humility is no divine virtue. But we are dependent upon him in all re- {pects ; in effence, in exiftence, in active powers and good qualities. Without him we are as nothing, and can do nothing that is truly good. All our | {fprings of fufficiency are in him alone. Some | may imagine, that a proper fenfe of our finfulnefs, and obnoxioufnefs to punifhment, is a main ingre- dient as well as an occafion of humility ; but this is not the cafe. For the angels in heaven, who never finned, are as humble as they are holy ; and humility was a robe which perfeét Adam wore in Paradife, in which the fpotlefs Jefus was conftantly arrayed, and with which every created nature in heaven will be for ever invefted. He who has a deep fenfe of his original nihility, of his abfolute dependence, of his conftant liability to revert to his primitive nothing on the fufpenfion of Gop’s -preferving care, is in the fame proportion humble. But he who thinks that he has any degree of goodnefs, phyfical or moral, in principle or in act, which is not zmmediately from Gop ; who fuppofes that he has a power of prefervation, in any refpect diftinét from the operative divine will, is in the fame degree the fubjec&t of ignorance and pride. If we would difrobe ourfelves of the worthlefs ‘garment of pride, let us view the true character of Gop, and compare it with our own. In that perfect mirror we may fee that there is an infinite difference, and that Gop alone is Gg 3 diftinétly 4AtO EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. diftin@ly good; in a word, there we may fee our own paffive power. And then, of ‘* lefs than nothing we may boaft, and vanity confefs.” In that mirror we may fee the true temper of the firft perfect Adam ; of the fecond Adam, who was meek and lowly in heart; and may behold the profound reverence and unutterable joy of the myriads of heaven. The fole reafon why they are bleffed, is divine, fovereign benevolence ; and the great fource of their humility is their comparative nothingnefs in the balance of perfect equity. _ § 39. There is no fufficient inducement for abfolute refignation to the divine will, except ina firm conviction that ** Gop is love,’”’ that is, infinite benevolence; and that divine fovereignty is (not an arbitrary power of infli@ing mifery, but) a right of difplaying that benevolence in one way, or in one degree, rather than another. But when con- vinced of this, and that a revelation of it, in a way of grace and mercy, is made to finners; when affured, that returning prodigals will be kindly received, and that Jefus will in no wife caft out the foul that cometh to him, or to Gop by him; when moreover we know, from the real nature of divine equity, that it ftands oppofed to nothing but in- dulged fin, and rebellion in the will ;—the way appears clear for the moft abfolute refignation of ourfelves to the will of Gop. Confcious:indul- gence of fin, indeed, or voluntary rebellion, will prove a bar, and what can be more equitable > In faét, the fuppofition of a rebel, continuing fuch, Ny | exercifing Conce. Ia reference to Perfonal Religion. 471+ exercifing abfolute refignation, is contradictory. But, fuch is the wonderful harmony of the divine perfections, the foul which is confcious that it has no allowed guile, may commit itfelf without referve, and without fear, into the arms of almighty love for all the happinefs it can want, in time or in eternity. To him who regards juftice as wearing the afpect of arbitrary feverity, or fovereignty as including a power of inflicting mifery without defert, felf-dedi- cation is more a painful tafk, than a pleafing exercife. But to an enlightened believer, no act of devotion is more delightful. By him, Gop is view- ed asan almighty father and friend, who rejects no returning finner, but ‘‘loadeth him with benefits.”’ For though ‘©Gop fhall wound the head of his enemies, and the hairy {calp of fuch an one as goeth © on ftill in his trefpaffes ;’” yet the humble believer in Jefus comes boldly, that is, with refigned con- fidence, to the throne of grace. ._ § 40. Gratitude is a temper of mind which denotes a defire of acknowledging the receipt of a benefit. ‘The mind which does not fo feel, is not as it ought to be; but a mind rightly difpofed is ardent in gratitude, in proportion to the benefit received. When St. Paul fays of the Heathen, ‘¢ neither were they thankful,’’ he feems to ftamp the fin of ingratitude as peculiarly odious. And in- deed this was the view which the wifer heathen themfelves took of that vice; without, alas! feeling the conviction that thereby they condemned them- Gg4 felyes. a72 “ EQUITY AND SOVEREIGNTY. felves, But it was not peculiar to the Heathen: how common among Chriftians! and to what an awful extent! What benefactor like Gop; fo great, fo good, fo bountiful, fo conftant, fo difin- terefted! But where are the grateful returns? How few utter from the heart thefe words: ‘¢ Blefs the Lord, O my foul, and. forget not all his benefits.’’—*‘* What hall I render to the Lord for all his benefits towards me !’’ Sentiments no lefs rational than devout. like every other grace. which is required of us, virtuous gratitude depends, in part, on right views. A right view of benefits received, of the fource from whence they flow, and of our own demerit, has a direct tendency to excite gratitude ; and while the mind is influenced by grace, 4I mean fubjective, fovereign grace,) this will be the pleafing effe&. Now what views of Gop have the mo/t-direé tendency to-excite and cherifh gratitude ? Not :thofe which regard him as all benevolence, without juftice ; nor thofe which reprefent him as all equity and general goodnefs, without fovereign benevolence. The gratitude of the former, if grateful they are, muft be very limited and feeble ; for, having no great fenfe of their own demerit, one powerful motive is caft away. And the gratitude of the latter, while they reject the fovereignty with which Gop confers his: benefits, muft degenerate into a feeling, where any remains, refembling what they have on partaking of acommon boon diftributed without difcretion. But the devout Chriftian furveys the fovereign | | benevolence e meshes TOI a ci ee ea Conc. In reference to Perfonal Religion. 473 benevolence of the Creator in every perfon, in every object, in every quality, and in every event. When, he views the ftarry heavens, and beholds how * one ftar differeth from another ftar in glory ;’? when he ploughs the mighty waters, and confiders how they are peopled, and how aftonifhing the {cale of animal exiftence, from the bulky whale to the microfcopic animalcule; when he traverfes the | mountain and the foreft, croffes the field and the meadow, or walks in the lawn and in the garden ; when he vifits the city, and obferves the commercial, the political, and the military crowd, or mingles with the devout affembly paying the homage of religious © adoration ; fovereign benevolence forces itfelf on every fenfe, and pervades his grateful heart. Nor does the pleafing emotion forfake him, when he enters the chambers of poverty and diftrefs, the cell of a guilty prifoner, or the awful place of execu- tion. Compaflion to the fufferer does not ex- tinouifh the flame of gratitude to that fovereign benevolence which makes one to fhare of its benefits more liberally than others; while equity guards, | with infinite care, every perfon and every percipient creature, fo that not the {mallet con- cceivable meafure of fuffering is experienced, which is not, in the ftricteft fenfe, deferved. But when the devout chriftian extends his views to the regions of defpair, and the manfions of the bleffed, he is melted into reverential awe and grateful praife; and is ready to fay, Why am J, whoam a great finner, not tormented in thofe flames? And ATA EQUITY AND SOVERFIGNTY. And why fhould manfions of blifs and glory await me rather than others? ‘*O the depth of the riches both of the wifdom and knowledge of Gop ! how unfearchable are his judgments, and his ways paft finding out!’’ Glory, everlafting glory, to him that fitteth on the throne of benevolent fove- reignty and equitable government ; and to the Lamb that was flain, who hath redeemed us to Gop by his own blood, and hath given us the earneft of our eternal inheritance ! § 41. Gop has defigned for the heirs of promife a firm and lafting confolation, a lively hope that maketh not afhamed, anda full affurance of faith. But how can thefe bleffings be enjoyed, except on. the fuppofition, that there is no foverezgnty in Gop but what is properly and ftrictly benevolent, where- by is abfolutely excluded the right of inflicting evil without defert. We could not even depend on the moft explicit promife, if mere wll be the. ftandard of right and wrong. In fhort, to extend the right of fovereignty beyond the manner and degree of diftributing benefits, is the fame as to eftablifh a right to do wrong; or to con- found the terms ‘‘ fovereignty’”’ and ‘‘ injuftice.”’ But by the evidence derived from a clear notion of the divine character, the timid foul is re- lieved from all its painful fears, in the fame _ degree that it feels a confcioufnefs of its own freedom from hypocrify and infincerity in its approach to Gop. Knowing that he is une | changeable Conen. In reference to Perfona] Religion. 475 - changeable love, his confolation is firm, his hope is lively, and his affurance is infallible. Then the believer may fay with the church, (Ifa. xii.) ‘ absque malo metaphysico facere nequit, impossibilia facere nequit. Sed impossibilitas faciendi impossibilia, non arguit defectum potentiz. | Quamobrem impossibilitas faciend1 mundum absque malo metaphysico non arguit defectum potentize divine, consequenter cum Deo competat omnipo- tentia, omnipotentiam nullo modo minuit.-— Veritas propo- -sitionis luce notionum clarissima radiat, ut ea facile percellatur animus modo a notionibus, qu@ terminis abstractis, quamdiu eos familiares minime experiris, adhzret, obscuritatem arceas, id quod aliter fieri.nequit, quam ubi meditatione satis diuturna et sepius repetita singulas expendas, donec lucem, quam dix- imus, in temetipso percipias; id quod in omni casu reliquo tenendum, ubi obscuritatem obstare sentis, quo. minus rationum ~ evidentia convincaris. 20. “ Malum metaphysicum ne per mirqculum quidem « mundo, aut ente quocunque singulari, auferrt potest. —Qui per miraculum fieri posse somniat, quod in se impossibile; is utique cmnipo- tentiam Dei ad impossibilia extendit, que tamen per ea, que de potentia Dei demonstrata sunt, spheram possibilium non excedit. Qui per miraculum ab -aliquo ente finito, quod idem limitatum esse constat, malum metaphysicum auferri posse afirmat, is ens limitatum a limitationibus essentialibus liberafi, consequenter ex limitato illimitatum, adeoque ex finito infini- tum fieri posse contendit: quod quam sit absurdum nemo non videt, tum imprimis per- essentiarum immutabilitatem et attributorum incommunicabilitatem intelligitur. 21. * Malum metaphysicum per se ante decretum rebus decretis inharet, nec ab tis per idem sepurari potest, Cum essentiz rerum sint immutabiles; nec per decretum immutari possunt. Limi- tationes itaque essentialium non demum per decretum rebus Dee decretis 492 ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS decretis superadduntur, adeoque iisdem insunt ante decretum, Quamobrem cum malum metaphysicum per se rebus decretis inest ante decretum.—Qui ideas rerum arbitrarias supra explo sas fingunt, limitationes determinationum essentialium per de- cretum ideis rerum inferunt, et sic in doctrina mali difficulta- tibus inextricabilibus implicuntur. Qui vero essentias rerum eternas et necessarias, philosophis et theologis ad Carresti usque tempora unanimi consensu probatas, agnoscunt; limita- tiones determinationum essentialium ante decretum in ideis rerum, quatenus v1 principii contradictionis, adeoque per naturam intellectus, insunt in intellectu divino, considerant, et hoc pacto circa originem ac permissionem mali et concursum Dei ad malum nihil difficultatis sentiunt, quod non superari posset. Eteo fine propositionem prasentem tanquam probe notandam inculcamus. Nimirum malum metaphysicum rebus minime inest, quia decrevit Deus, ut insit, sed quia decrev it res, a quibus abesse nequit. Homo habet facultatem cognoscendi admodum limitatam, quod nemo non novit, cum idem ex semet- ipso experiatur, Minime autem facultas ejus cognoscendi hoc pacto limitatur potius, quam alio, quia Deus decrevit has essen- tize ejus indere limitationes, quam alias; sed quia Deus homi- nem producere decrevit, cui in idea ejus he facultatis cognos- citive limitationes inherebant, aut, quod perinde est, qui absque hac limitatione produci non poteral, hoe est, si stylo D. Taom ab offensione infirmorum magis remoto uti volueris, quia homo hic absque hac limitatione facultatis cognoscitivee non erat fuctiblis, Vidit enim pro acumine suo, cum infirmis in omnipotentiam divinam 1 injurius videatur, qui quedam a Deo fieri non posse tuetur, hoc ipsum scandalum, etsi acceptum, evitari, ubi queedam non factibilia, aut, si vocabuluin displiceat, ialia pronuncies, ut ea fieri repugnet: in quorum numero utique sunt creaturee a malo metaphysico liberate, hoc est, in Deos CONUCYSE. 3 22. Malum metaphysicumn est absentia penfectionis alien, non proprie. Etenim malum metaphysicum consistit in limita- tionibus essentialium determinationum. Quamobrem cum ens limitatum habere nequeat nisi determinationes essentiales limt- tatas, et per easdem in esse hujus entis constituatur ; majoris quoque perfectionis capax non est, nec fieri potest, quam qui viillarum limitationum locum habet. Quamobrem eo major, | oi que Evil—physical, moral, and metaphysical. 493 que concipitur, perfectio limitibus ampliatis, est alterius entis, cui limites sic ampliati conveniunt, adeoque aliena. Jam cum quid in se malum sit, quatenus quedam imperfectio ipsi in- heret, adeoque perfectio quedam de eo negatur ; limitationes essentiales tantummodo removent perfectionem alienam non propriam, consequenter malum metaphysicum non est absentia perfectionis propriz, sed alienz.—Hine malum metaphysicum potius malum apparet, quam est, et minus quoddam bonus est, si relative ad majora spectetur. . Neque vero utilitate caret hac observasse: usum enim insignem przestat propositio przsens in philusophia morali, quemadmodum suo loco constabit. Pro- derit quoque eandem notasse, ne difficultates circa bonitatem Dei nectamus, quod malum metaphysicum malé concipiamus.”— Curist. WoxFit Theolog. Natur. Tom. I. § 372, 375-—378, — 381, 546, 548. ' 23. From these luminous passages, it must appear plain to every unprejudiced mind, capable of estimating the force of de- monstrative evidence ; plain to the common sense of every person who understands the language and the use of the terms employ- ed; that there exists in EVERY CREATURE the absence of a higher perfection than what he possesses, except it be maintained that he has all conceivable, all possible perfection in himself ;— that this want of greater perfection in a creature is of absolute necessity, otherwise the difference between the creature and the Creator would be but contingent, what may be or may not be at pleasure ;—that, however, being a defect, it cannot be conceived as having a higher origin than contingent existence ;-—that, therefore, it has no separate existence, however inseparable from a creature ;—that, consequently, it is included in the very idea of a creature, that 1F existence be predicated of it, it must enjoy that existence on terms of limitation, or the absence of absolute or all possible perfection ;—that created existence ilself, then, is contingent, but that the terms of that existence are absolute, as absolute as the difference between finite and infinite ; —that no world, however perfect, can be conceived of as exist- ing without this. defect ;—that, therefore, the imposszbility of creating such a world is not unworthy of omnipotence, since to destroy the difference between limited and unlimited existence is a contradictory idea, and ‘therefore is no proper object of power ;—that, for the same reason, it cannot be removed from any 49% ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. any creature even by a miracle ;~-and, since the very idea of limited existence implies this comparative defect, that the exs clusion of it could not be an ebject of decree ;—finally, that ihis defect is not the absence of any perfection that belongs to the proper nature of a created existence, but is only the absence of the perfection of another nature which has no limits ; that is, — a finite nature is not infinite, and creatures cannot be conceived of as absolutely perfect and indefectible beings. Ne 24, With the evidence of these irresistible truths, retaining due deference to Dr. Rerp’s general celebrity for accurate use of terms, 1 am constrained to differ from him, as to the propriety of the expressions “ passive power.” To call it “ powerless power” may answer the purpose of a pun, but it will not bear the test of fair argument. If indeed it were allowed, that all power implies positive causation 5 OF, which is the same thing, that there is ne other cause of events but what is reducible to physical power 3 his reasoning and objections might be admitted. But from the preceding arguments it is clear, that there is in every creature, of necessity, a cause of defectibility; and there is no good reason why cause and power should not be synonimous terms in-this connection: and it is equally clear, that this cause or power is a defective one, implying a negation of activity. Now, if the op- ‘posite to active be properly called ** passive,” and if a meta. physical cause be properly called, metaphysically, ‘power ;” then “ passive power,” In a metaphysical sense, is a strictly proper.expression. The phrases, “ inactive cause,” ‘ passive power,” and ‘ metaphysical evil,” therefore, are synonimous, And as “ evil” and ‘ cause” are respectively equivocal terms, used in different connexions in a physical, moral and metaphysical sense, So is “© power.” It might favour a pun, to say, a causeless cause, an innocent evil; or, “f cause-no.-cause,” ** evil-no-evil ;” but puns are not arguments. PAGE 36. ; 7 Merapuysics, metaphysical evidence.]. The science © -Merap uysics, it is but too apparent, is so little understood, as to be ofien confounded with almost every thing absurd, and scarcely at all applied to the idea most appropriate to the term. Dr. Beattie has given an account of the supposed origin of the word in a manner, and with an apparent design, totally un- worthy of a man of science. According to him, . Ta meia ta | physica, Metaphysics,—metaphystcal evidence. 495 physica, only expressed ‘* books posterior to the physics; either because, in the order of the former arrangement, they happened to be placed, or because the editor meant that they should be studied, next after the physics,” of Arisrorie! This might amuse a schooleboy, but it excites a strong suspicion that the wri- ter had no specific idea on the subject, especially as connected with his frequent use of the expression. He calls it a “ modeof investi- gation that hath introduced many errors into the moral sciences.’ ** Instances of this metaphysic are so common,” says he, “ that we might almost fill a volume with a list of them, Sp1nosa’s __ pretended demonstration of the existence of the one great being, by which, however, he meant only the universe, isa metaphysical argument, founded in a series of false or unintel- ligible, though plausible, definitions. Bex Ke ey’s proof of the non-existence of matter is wholly metaphysical; and ariseth chiefly from the mistake of supposing certain words to have but one meaning, which really have two, and sometimes three.” To excite prejudice against the use of metaphysical science on such grounds, is just as proper as (o éxclaim against the use of a razor, because this, or the other person has cut his throat with that instrument! On such a Lae Logic, Rhetoric, | Poetry, writing, printing, the liberty of the press, and even liberty of every kind, may be condemned as not worthy of exist- ence! But what would Dr. B, substitute instead of it? Not reason, for that would identify it with Legic; but common sense. * The term Common Sense, ” he observes, “ hath in modern times been used by philosophers, both French and British, to signify that power of the mind which perceives truth, or commands belief, hot by progressive argumentation, but by an instantaneous, instinctive, and irresistible impulse ; derived nei- ther from education nor from habit, but from nature ; acting independently on our will, wnbhedee its object, is presented, according to an established law.” All this is very good. But why shoufd it be thought inconsistent with metaphysics ? Is there © no truth to be perceived, no belief to be commanded, beyond the theory of physics ? Are not our minds, “ by an instinctive and irresistible impulse,” sometimes made to ¢rwtscend the consider- ation-of what is actual, by a farther inquiry into what is possé- bie ? Common sense, therefore, instead of being against meta- physics, is an essential part of it. Reason, indeed, is that | faculty 496 ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS, faculty by which we compare propositions and ideas, and must ultimately rest on principles intuitively certam.—On the sub=_ ject of this note I would offer the following remarks, 1. The word Qvots, natura, nature, has been applied to so many ideas, that it has become greatly equivocal, as by far the larger number of words are. Accordingly the adjective Qvoixos, naturalis, natural, is liable to the same variety of ap- plications. 2. The question then is, not in how many senses these words have been used, nor yet how they are to be taken in any particular writings of philosophers ; but how we do in fact use them in a strictly, philosophical sense, so as to have under thet , a precise, and uniformly consistent idea, in order to avoid misconceptions and false inferences. By this method we may soon arrive at what appears to me the genuine import of metaphysics. 3 ; 3. By nature, then, I understand ‘* the regular course of causes and effects in the created universe, according to divine- ly established laws.” Hence philosophy, when it has for its object nature, as contradistinguished from morality, is ealled natural; and on the same account it is called physics. But since the philosophy of ‘¢ nature” in this acceptation 1s very extensive, it is commonly subdivided, according to the two grand constituent parts of nature, matter and spirit; the latter under the name of pneumatology, and the former under the original term physics in a more limited sense ; and in a sense extremely restricted, when used in the singular number, for the science of healing, or the prevention and cure of diseases incident to the human body. 4. When we observe any phenomena which are a partial deviation from the regular course of causes and effects according ~ to established laws, or in a manner beside them, we properly call them preternatural ; but when we observe them completely above that course, we justly call them supernatural. Among the former, are monsters; among the latter, miracles. But, 5. The human mind is so formed that it. finds physics too limited a sphere of enquiry and contemplation, though that term be made to include all created worlds both material and spiritual, with their causes and effects whether past, present, or future. For we find by daily experience, and im @ great variely Metaphysics,—metaphysical evidence. 499 variety of instances, that the mind can no more resist a convice ¢ion of evidence arising from first principles respecting possibles, than those which arise from actuals. Hence an additional object of science, which may be most properly termed meta- Phusics. : 6. The science of metaphysics therefore, in strictness, stands related to cause and effect respecting possibles, whatever be the nature of its objects ; whether matter or spirit, substance or mode, being or not being; good or evil, active or passive, positive or negative. HAS ; 7. Hence we observe, that metaphysics is 4 term of very extensive import; for whether the subject be mathematical; logical, moral, or theological, as far “as we’ appeal to an intuilive perception of truth respecting possibles and dmpossibles, the evidence is metaphysical. Yet as the science of number and quantity is of itself very extensive, and of great use in society, having also actuals as well as possibles for its objects, it is wont to be considered as distinct from metaphysics, even when treating of impossibles and absurdities. And as the use of logic diffuses itself through all the other arts and sciences, so does the use of its more sublime associate, metaphysics ; especi- ally through many parts of Ethics and Theology. 8. We assert, therefore, that this axiom, Jé is impossible for the same thing, at the same time, to be and not to be, is metuphysicat truth, though often classed with the mathematical ; for its object is not-being as well as being, possible as well as actual. Were a man to tell me, There may be some effects without an ade. quate cause; the Creator may perform contradictions ; a crea- ture may be independent on the Creator ; there are no negative tendencies, no limitations, no liabilities to failure, and finally no cause of such things; and then attempt to prove these things hy reasoning ; let him call his principles and his reasoning by what name he pleases, it is to no purpose. I might tell him, Your reasoning is not so plain, so irresistible as my perception of the contrary principles. He might urge, Your opposite principles are not mathematical axioms; they are only meta- physics. I care not what name you give them, I would rejoin; I must admit these and. similar principles, or else “deny the distinction between truth and falsehood, adopt universal scepticism, and wander without end from one maze K k of 193 ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. of error and uncertainty to another.” _ Hence I infer with Dr. Beattie, that “ except we believe many things without proof, we never can believe any thing at all; for that all sound reasoning must ultimately rest on the principles of common sense, that is, on principles intuitively certain, or intuitively probable ; and, consequently, that common sense is the ulti- mate judge of truth, to which reason must continually act in subordination.” * | 9. But it may be asked, When two persons assert that they have intuitive certainty directly opposile, concerning the same thing, which of them shall we credit? Neither of them, on their bare assertion. We should examine for ourselves; as we would respecting opposite testimonies concerning the evidence of sense, Ifthe testimonies be opposite, and all ambiguity of expression be removed ; I am sure one of them asserts what he does not'clearly perceive. If my own perception be clear, 1 can no more be reasoned out of it, than 1] can be reasoned out of the evidence of a perfect sense. In the language of Dr. Beattie, I might say to my opponent, * You may as well attempt to blow out the sun as to disprove my princi- ples: and if you say that you do not believe them (suppos- ing you understand what I say and intend) you will be charged either with falsehood or with folly; you may as well hold your hand in the fire, and say you feel no pain. By the law of my nature (and nature cannot contradict itself) I must feel in“one case, and believe in the other; even as, by the sane law, we must adhere to the earth, and cannot fall head. long to the clouds.—You ask, why I believe what is self-evident ? I may as well ask, Why you believe what is proved ? Neither question admits of an answer ; or rather, to both .questions the answer is the same, namely, Because [ must believe it. I muse believe to be true, and conformable to universal nature, that which is intimated to me by the original suggestions of my own understanding. Nor could 1 divest myself of this belief, though my life and future happiness depended on the consequence, . It is indeed easy to affirm any thing, provided a man can recon- cile himself to hypocrisy and falsehood. A man may affirm, ihat he sees with the soles of his feet, that he believes there is no material world, that he disbelieves his own existence. He may * Bearim on Trath, p. 55. Tendency—physical, moral, and metaphysical, 499 may as well say, that he believes one and two to be equal to six, a part to be greater than a whole, a citcle to be a triangle ; and that it is possible for the same thing, at the same time, to be and not to be.”* In a word, metaphysic evidence is at feast on a par with the evidence of sense, and superior to all reasoning. : PAGE 36. A metaphysical TENDENCY to failures] The word “ ten-. dency” is peculiarly equivocal, according to the different kinds of subjects which it expresses 3 but the radical distinctions are three, which, if we are not on our guard, we are ever liable to confound. All “ tendency” is either physical, moral, or metaphysical. : 1. Puysicat tendency is the aptitude of a positive cause to produce a corresponding effect. Thus a mechanical power, properly applied, has a tendency to raise a weight; a heavy body to gravitate towards the centre of gravity ; water to run _ down a channel; wind to move a ship under sail; compressed air to expand; light to diffuse itself from a radiant point. Thus also a healthy plant in a favourable situation has a ten- dency to grow; a spirited animal to exert its vigour; or a sentient being to pursue one object rather than another, ac. cording to its nature. And thus moreover the human or angelic mind, by a physical tendency, moves to good in general ; a good mind tends to God as its ultimate rest, but a bad mind tends {o transgression ; as every nature tends to its like nature, even irrespectively of choice. Here also it is of importance to observe, that divine influence on the mind is more properly denominated physical than moral, as it relates to the subject of the influence. These terms, in reference to the work of the Spirit on the soul, are very frequently and most improperly confounded, as will appear more full y from the next remark, 2, A MORAL tendency, in the strictest sense, is the yer bent, inclination, or propensity of the well itself of the moral agent towards the object of its choice; and next to this, the moral habitude predisposing the mind to that election: but, in a secondary sense, it denotes the hypothetical aptitude of any object presented to. consideration to produce moral effects, Kk 2 thas * Beartiz, ut supra, p. 53, &c. 500 ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. that is, when the thing considered is calculated in its own nature to determine the will to good or to evil ; and IF the mind be of a nature suited to the object, the effect will be according to the tendency ; but, IF the mind be differently affected towards the object, the tendency is frustrated. This is the most common acceptation of « moral tendency.” Thus we say, for ‘nstance, that religious truth, the preaching of the gospel, seasonable reproofs and encouragements, well-written books, pious discourse, and a praiseeworthy example, have a good tendency 3 but of error, false teaching, reproof or encou- ragements ill applied, profane books or discourse, and a wicked example, we say that they have a bad tendency. In such connections, ‘tis obvious, the tendency is moral, not physt- cal; and the aptitude is hypothetical, not absolute. On the contrary, divine “fluence is not hypothetical in its effects, but absolute; or the cause produces the effect with a physical certainty. As the influence is not an object presented to the will for its election, It is not capable, of being refused in the same manner, though there is a sense in which it may be misimproved as a habit. g A METAPHYSICAL tendency, as perfectly distinct and totally different from the preceding acceptations, is an aptitude arising from defect, or a want of greater perfection than that which can be predicated of any creature. It is ob- vious, then, that it can possess no moral quality, as being no object of: choice, whether we view it in relation to God or the creature ; and equally so, that the aptitude is not physical, since it arises from no positive causation or decretive ‘appoint- ment, as abundantly demonstrated in a preceding note. — But, since a deficient cause has an absolute connection with a physical existence, a8 before proved, its connection with the operations of that existence is not conjectural but certain and absolute, in given circumstances. Thus, for instance, an apti- tude to non-existence ‘5 essential and absolute in the idea of a contingent nature; for an aptitude to exist in a contingent nature, irrespectively of creating will, is a contradictory Of self-destructive idea. And, for the same reason, an aptitude io continued existence in the same nature is an idea equally self= destructive. For the same: reason, also, an aptitude to well- _being, or goodness, cannot be predicated of a contingent nature, Tendenty—physical, moral, and metaphysical, sor nature, any more than of simple existence ; for the one as well as the other is of positive causation, and absolutel y dependent - on supreme will. For if aptitude to eris¢ be not predicable.of a contingent nature, it follows a fortior? that aptitude to the perfection of existence cannot be so. It follows therefore irre- fragably, that defectibility, or an aptitude to failure, is absolutely inseparable from a contingent nature. Consequently, the idea of a contingent or created nature, without a metaphysical tendency to the loss of goodness, or the perfection of existence, is a self-contradiction. Hence we fairly conclude, that the perfection of our nature, no less than our being, is caused by the sovereign will and fuvour of Him, who alone is absolute Being, and absolute Goodness. Therefore, adieu for ever, all ye philosophical subtilties, whose feeble efforts are directed against the doctrine of sovereign grace and the uniform experience of the humble and grateful Christian! Before this glorious truth, let every mountain be brought low, that JEHOVAH ALONE may be exalted, 4. It is obvious that a physical and metaphysical tendency may co-exist in the same subject, though in their nature not only distinct but also directly opposite to each other. A want of proper attention to this important fact, may prove a source of much confusion and error. Opposite physical tendencies and opposite metaphysical tendencies being incompatible, we too hastily conclude, without regarding their different naiures, that two opposite tendencies. in the same subject are incompatible. But this is for want of due consideration, as every one may be easily convinced ; for from the creation of the world to. the present moment there must have been a physical tendency to exist in all creatures, as long as the creating fat, providential energy, and estahlished laws exist; and there must be a metaphysical tendency the contrary way, that is, to nihility, otherwise divine support would be unnecessary to a dependent nature. To say that a tendency to nihility does not exist ina creature whzle it has a tendency to exist; and that the former takes place only when the cause of a physical tendency is suspended, is to confound the ideas of tendency and fact. The idea of annihilation, is that of a supposed fact; but if there be no tendency to that fact prior to its existence, there would be an effect without a cause. Norcan it be said that annihilation is Kk 3 a 502 ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. | a positive act of the Creator, without absurdly supposing that a creature, or the whole world, would exist without sup- port, if only permitted to exist. And whether this supposition deliberately maintained would not be an insult to common sense, let the impartial decide. . 5. A. hypothetical tendency is not properly speaking a different kind from those already mentioned, but may be at- tributed to either according to circumstances. Thus we may say, in reference to a physical tendency, 1F the laws of motion be continued, the planets will continue to revolve around the sun the next age as well as the present: .and, on the con- trary, iF the laws of motion were suspended, there would ensue an universal staghation. And, as to a metaphysical tendency, we may say, IF divine energy and support were withdrawn from the universe of creatures, they would cease to be, as having the only cause of their existence withdrawn : but; on the contrary, 1F the same energy which now operates be continued, their tendency to nihility will not terminate in the fact of annihilation. , hae : 6. Nor is an absolute tendency any thing different from those already explained ; only that it belongs to the first cause in a sublimer sense than to any other. If a physical tendency be s the aptitude of a positive cause 0 produce a positive effect,” we may say, that this belongs to the first cause most eminently, and to the utter exclusion of every hypothetical congideratign. He exists actually and positively, and his ¢ene dency to do sO 18 ABSOLUTE, But a metaphysical tendency is also in one respect absolute, while in another hypothetical, Being and goodness, or ‘the infinitely good Being, aLone, exists of dbsolute necessity ; but every other being and goodness must needs be contingent or hypothetical, as depending on the first will. Nevertheless, 1F a contingent being be supposed to exist, his tendency to nihility is absolute. ‘While the being is contingent, the tendency 1s perfectly absolute, independent of — all will. To give being is optional, but not so to give to that being freedom from tendency. PAGE 90. The spread of the gospel among the Heathen.] When this part of the work was penned, and even printed, little did the . author - The hypothetical nature of things. 503 author think, that a missionary spirit would appear so soon, and to such a glorious extent as at present; and much less that he should have to address so large a number of missionaries, as the first fruits of those exertions which have been made. His expectations of immediate success were not then sanguine ; and his views of the ultimate result continue unaltered. PAGES 176, 177, 340. | The hypothetical NATURE oF THINGS.] This phrase, -‘¢ The nature of things,” is here used in the metaphysical, that : in the highest sense, including all possibles as well as actuals; a sense very different from wnat has been sometimes given Bf, it, Dr. Beatrit’s explanation of it, for instance, is this: “ If J be asked, what 1 mean by the nature of thengs, I cannot other- wise explain myself than by saying, that there is in my mind something which induces me to think, that every thing existing | in nature, is determined to exist, and to exist after a certain manner, in consequence of established laws ; and that whatever is agreeable to those laws is agreeable to the nature of things, because by those laws the nature of all things is determined.”* It must be plain to the discerning reader, that this description embraces only physical nature, as actually constituted by divine appointment. But, surely, this is a very confined sense of the phrase; for it is sufficiently obvious, that all things must have a nature antecedent to, and independent of their establishment.. On this important subject I solicit the reader’s ek attention to the subjoined observations. “ . What is possible has a nature, whether it receive exist- ence or not; and my perception assures me, that no mathe matical axiom can be more certain than this. _ 2. The nature, for instance, of God, of goodness, of truth, and of defect, cannot possibly depend on voluntary appoint- ment, without identifying opposite natures, and thereby in- -volving the most absurd contradictions. : | Van 3. If it be asked, whether there be any nature of things independent of God? We reply, No; not independent of his existence. For, if there were no, God, there could be no nature of things. On the contrary, they who allow of the nature of things, but deny the being of a God, act a part most Kk4 absurdly # Beatrie on Trutlf, p. 34, * € 504 ADDITIONAL NOTES AND riseaiennet Se absurdly inconsistent; for they admit. a fact which has not even a shadow of evidence. 4, As the nature of Gop is not the effect of his will, sO every possible nature cONTRASTED with his must, for the same reason, be perfectly independent on mere will, though every created existence must be absolutely ebendent For God’s nature, being absolute, excludes the possisitiry of another absolute nature. 5. We know that evil exists ; not only physical, which i Is merely relative ; but also metaphysical, which is absolutely attached to contingent existence ; and :oral, which in strictness is the only real evil. — 6. We know, with evidence not less clear and certain than that of our own existence, that evil was posszble before it became actual; and that whatever is possible has an antecee dent nature as the ground | of possibility. 7. My conviction is equally clear and certain, that an sien nature, which alone is divine, is good, and only good ; or, in other words, that in God there is not both a good and an evil nature, from whence good and evil might proceed, alike, to possible and actual existence. Therefore, 8. I can as soon deny the evidence of a mathematical axiom, of common sense, or any sense or principle whatever, as deny that there is a “ nature of things” from whence evel proceeds, as distinct from, and contrasted with, the first abso- lute nature. 9. This representation is so far from symbolizing with the Manichean sentiment, that it is the most effectual confutation of that error. For that which exists only by contrast, cannot exist absolutely ; and that which is not absolute cannot be self- existent. 10. When “ the hypothetical nature of things” is repre- sented as the source of moral evil, nothing is implied in it inconsistent with another statement (p. 346, &c.) which makes the immediate origin of sin to be passive power united with liberty, or free will. For passive power, and its in- fluence in reference to the event of sin, are included in the hypothetical nature of things, as now explained. A a ae PAGE Sin the parent of pain. §05 PAGE 378. : Sin merely the parent of pain—witt BE NoTICED.] This: was a part of the author’s original plan, in opposition to the doctrine of Harriey, PriesTLey, and others of that school. But having edited President Epwarns’s masterly Treatise on God’s last end: in the creation of the World, with some exs planatory notes, the investigation is thought needless in the present work. Besides, if the principles already stated and proved be duly weighed, the sentiment in question, it 1s presumed, must appear alike unscriptural, irritational, and contrary to existing facts. | APPENDIX: IN WHICH ARE NOTICED OBJECTIONS AND ERRONEOUS STATEMENTS He RADE BY DIFFERENT WRITERS, IN REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE AUTHORS SENTIMENTS. co Aaa bad gee ; ie tied Wy Telit Py A res APPENDIX, &c. | odorants contemplations of divine Equity and Sovereignty led me, while endeavouring to sepa- rate the real doctrine of ‘* Predestination to Life” from all zmpure mixtures, in a Discourse on that subject with explanatory notes, to give my thoughts on the causation of Evit as well as of Good. In deaning the pre-dispos- ing, metaphysical cause of moral evil, I called it “a tendency to defection” which would have such influence on the free agent as must ensure his wrong manner of choice, if not graciously prevented. The first edition of that Discourse excited some zngwry ; but when a second was called for, it created alarm. The idea seems to have gone forth, that I had some ‘‘ new thco- logical tenet” which must not be suffered to pass without critical examination. na eee IRL ee le IN nme This resolution to examine, gave rise to a Manuscript, without the author’s name, which within two years past has obtained an extensive circulation; and being soon recognized, from internal evidence aid other circum- stances, to be the production of the late Rev. ABRAHAM Boortu, it made a considerable impression on some who read it. To this an immediate reply was written, with a view that those who had perused the one, might have an opportunity of seeing the other. It was well known that Mr. Boor had read much on theological subjects, and that his character stood high as an orthodox divine. Hence many who, from their own acknowledgements, were little accustomed to think on the subject with precision, or even in any manner to satisfy themselves, were set afloat. It seems they thought that HE who had 7 turned 510 APPENDIX. turned over so many volumes ancient and modern, Popislr and Protestant, foreion and domestic, latin and english, must needs be right, and therefore were emboldened. But, in reality, so little was that good man accustomed to contemplate the truth of ideas, in their general and abstract nature, that he could not even perceive the. difference between a metaphysical ‘tendency to moral evil,” and a morally evil tendency ; and that in reference to the ORIGIN of moral evil! But his reasoning, whick ’ some others appear to have tamely followed, can have no real force against my professed and explained senti- ments. Such a torch ¢an only answer the purpose of. setting fire to a combustible image of their own fabrica- tion. The mode which Mr. Booru adopted, arising from an entire misconception and misrepresentation of the argument, though well adapted to sound an alarm, is only calculated to prove, that he was either extremely _ ill versed in the subject on which he wrote, or else acted from a motive which I should be unwilling to ascribe to him. | | The first printed opposition of any moment which was made to the argument for the origin of moral evil lying exclusively in ourselves, appeared in the CHRISTIAN OBSERVER, (March, 1806) where fourteen closely printed pages were devoted to the subject. But though an immediate reply was written, the glaring want of can- ‘dour manifested in the review, in connection with an evident ignorance of the true hinge of the controversy, ‘were at the time deemed sufficient reasons by many of my friends, for treating the anonymous writer with silent neglect. As however, I am now noticing my oponents in succession, I shall not pass by the OspsEeRvER, but devote a few pages to the exposure of his contradictions and absurdities. Indeed he seems not to have known his own, mind; for what he advances in the text, he appears to recant in a concluding note! And while he declaims The Christian Observer. Sik declaims against metaphysics, he seems not a little at a loss for any first principles on which to rest. Truth is one and consistent ; bet error is multiferm and con- tradictory. | The investigation of the abstruser subjects connected with theology is not indeed wholly discouraged by this writer, though he considers the object of his critique “‘ censurable for excess.” But the reader should be aware, that the Sermon on the Scriptural doctrine of Predestination does little more than glance at the origin of evil, because I concluded that additional notes would be more suitable for such discussion. On the former the Reviewer is almost silent: while with respect to the latter he professes to take an alarm “at the boldness, not of the speculations, but of the conclusions,’ But if the conclusions be fairly drawn, what is there in them to be dreaded ? He allows that the subject is ‘‘ not forbidden ground ;”” and if it be discussed at all, how is it possible to avoid. ‘‘ abstruse investigation??? The propricty of diffidence, as wellas the acknowledgement of difficuéty, must depend upon circumstances. Had I expressed a hest- tating diffidence, or a sense of difficulty not surmounted, I must have belied my convictions, and resisted the force of evidence. Twenty years ago, I should have heen disposed to profess both : but closer investigation ; the discussion, and to my own mind the satisfactory answer of innumerable objections; with the incalculable - advantages resulting from a conviction of the importance of my conclusion, in favour of experimental and practical religion, and in the solution of controversial questions ; (beside its superior consistency with the sacred scriptures and with itself;) have contributed to give me more “confidence” than the Reviewer is willing to Justify, and raised me above difficulties with which he seems greatly embarrassed. But, it seems, he was persuaded a prior’ that the question “will, in all likelihood, de. scend to posterity with all its difficulties on its head.” With 512 _ APPENDIX. With such a persuasion, fair investigation is exeluded ; ; the cause is already prejudged. A person so disposed, is not a humble inquirer after truth, but a sceptical objector, who probably would ee his. time on another subject, or in the plainer duties of his calling, to much better advantage. T have not ed myself very explicitly respect- ing the ABSTRACT NATURE of stm in the notes to the Sermon; but since my sentiments on this head are clearly implied in what is said on the origin of moral evil, the OBSERVER has made free strictures on them. What he principally objects to, is the idea of sin being, in its abstract nature, PRIVATIVE. But by denying it, the novelty of opinion lies with. him ; since the general cur- rent of moralists and divines consider it abstractedly. as a defect, or a want of what ought to be. . Or if we say, It is concretively what ought not to be, the result is the same; the idea conveyed is of a privative nature. » When we regard the idea as positive, we must include the physical act, in union with its obliquity, or defective manner. We do not say, that the physical part of a sinful action is privative; nor has it ever been proved that the sinfulness of an act is not privative. Mr. Locke’s remark, produced by the OpsERvER, deserves notice : ‘ It will be hard to determine whether there be really any ideas from a privative cause, till it be determined whether rest be any more a privation than motion.’ With due deference to this great man, I do not see much difficulty in making the, determination ; though my want of diftidence may , be censured by the OpsERVER. ‘The precise question is, Which is the most proper representation ; to say, Rest is a privation of motion, or, Motion 2s a privation of rest ? To my mind it is a plain principle, that all motion is derived from the first mover, who is an eternally active cause, to the utter exclusion of all passiveness. And it is a_prineiple equally plain, that no being in the universe can be said to The Christtan Observer. 513 to be at rest, which had not, ina corresponding sense, a prior motion. Hence we see the OBSERVER’s mistake when he says, ‘ Every thing may be considered by the mind either privatively, or positively, at pleasure.”” On the contrary, the most important object in the universe can- not; without the grossest abuse of language, be considered privatively ; not even by those who plead for Atheism. An atheist may raise objections against the actual exist. ence of a Gop ; but no one possessed of common sense will question, whether the idea of a Gop supposed to exist be privative or not. é ‘This critic manifestly confounds 1DEAs and APPELLA- TIONS ; maintaining that because ideas may receive either a privative or a positive appellation,” the ideas themselves may be so denominated. What privative appellation would this writer apply to Gop? To esti. mate ideas as positive or privative by terms applied to them which are either positive or negative, is fallacious in the extreme. A child in grammar, and the youngest logician knows, that ideas decidedly positive are often _ expressed by negative terms; and vice versd. Surely the application of the term “ restless” to a moving body, can never make the zdea of motion Jess positive. Were ideas themselves altered. by the application of terms to them, we should have nothing to trust to in ratiocina- tion, and the consequence would be universal scepticism. It is granted that in many instances it is extremely diffi. cult to ascertain accurately, whether an idea be positive, negative, or privative. But this is no good reason why an idea in its own nature should not be one of these rather than another. In the scale of existence; indeed, every rank between the highest genus and the lowest species may be regarded, by changing the relation, as either genus or species, at pleasure ; the reason is, such classifications are mere creatures of the mind ; but not so the nature of ideas, whose archetypes are causes and effects, and other metaphysical relations, And though L | int 514, APPENDIX. ina less accurate sense we should say, that in many instances, the same principle may be considered as a cause of one thing and as an effect of another; yet we cannot infer that the idea of that thing, in its own pro- per nature, is ¢ndifferently either positive or negative. Few things are more clear, than that the word’ sin” is a concrete, and the word ‘ sinfulness’’ an abstract term ; yet the OBSERVER constanily confounds them. ‘thus be states and reasons: ‘* The abstract term szm seems vati- ously used to denote, either a particular class of mental qualities, or a particular class of actions, or perhaps more generally, a particular state or habit of the mind. But in what sense, or with what propriety, either a class of mental qualities, or a class of actions, ora state of mind, can be affirmed to be zn tts own nature privative, we are ata loss to determine.”’ But why ata loss? ‘The difficulty is of the critic’s own making. The true question to be decided is, not whether sin in the concrete, but whether sin in the aéstract, or the sinfulness -of a moral action, be not privative? The OBSERVER distinguishes between ‘‘ mental qualities” anda‘ state of mind ;” but donot mental qualities constitute the state of the mind? However, may not both be defective ? And is not defect, or the want of what ought to be, a privative consideration ? Nor will it avail to say, iat sm implies the presence of what ought a to be; for this would be only to use the term ‘¢ sin’? in a concrete form, concern- ing which there is no ground of ditlerence. Hence, the futility of the following observation: ‘* Vice is very commonly considered under the metaphor of a disease, and virtue as the health of the soul: but nothing can be more usual than to define health privatively, as the absence of all disease ; and perhaps in all languages it is no less natural to designate virtue by such negative terms as znocence or spotlessness, than to associate with vice such negative epithets as impious or -unprincipled.”’ What is this but saying, either (what nobody questions) that The Christian Observer. 514 | that language is capricious; or, that there is mo such thing asa positive and negative idea zn étsed of considered ? But if so, there is no greater impropriety in calling the sinfulness of an act privative, than there is in calling it positive. Were the real nature of ideas capable of ae thus metamorphosed by the use of terms, virtue itself might be stamped as a privative idea ; any effect might become a cause 5 and any cause an effect; of nothing could we be certain, and every step in our pursuit of truth would be marked with sceptical indecision. But by what rale shall we determine on the nature of ideas, since terms often confound rather than assist us? In my apprehension, we need only ascertain what is the perfect state of any thing, of any action, or manner of action, in order to arrive at certainty, Kvery degree of resemblance to that state is positive; but the want of resemblance, whether it. be expressed by negative or positive terms, is a privativye idea. Now virtue {or holiness) is perfective of the nature of man, and belonged to bis primitive state ; and vice, in every degree, implies a want of resemblance to that per- - fect state. Hence the idea of the former -is positive, and that of the latter negative, by whatever terms expressed. Again, activity has a greater character of perfection than inactivity, as not ap bearing a greater resemblance to, but also actually proceeding far the first cause ; and thus the want of activity is a privative - idea, The same remark is applicable, for instance, to light, life, and health, “These are more perfect states, pag the resemblance they bear to the nature and agency of Gop, who is perfect act, is, irrespectively of terms, far ereater than that of their opposites, darkness, death, and disease. Oy. In brief, the great source of mistake in the OxpsEr- veER, throughout, lies in his confounding the nature of adeas with the terms by which they are expressed ; not reflecting, that the foymer are unchangeable, while the Lia latter 516 APPENDIX. latter admit of perpetual variation, ‘This is evident from the following passage. ‘*'The word create, origi- nally referring to material objects, and vulgarly bearing a positive character, retains this character in its metaphy- sical use, and therefore cannot, without violence, be associated with words of a simply privative form.” But the point in debate is. not whether the word ‘ create” bear, either vulgarly or learnedly, a positive character, -~ but whether the zdea to create be or be not strictly positive? And who that has not a desperate cause to» serve can deliberately question it ? When we say, “‘ The man who just now walked freely out of the room created his own absence,’ we use the words figuratively, that is, emproperly. The act of walking is dignified with the terin creating, and the relative effect of that act, which is a non-entity, is also dignified with a positive name as if it were a real existence. But surely one who justly discriminates, would not infer from this, that the real idea, stripped of the figure, is any thing else than privative. When Jehovah says, ‘‘I am the Lord, and there is none else ; I form the light, and create darkness ; { make peace, and create evil ;’? the mode of expression is figurative. The substitution of affirmative terms can never alter the nature of the thing expressed. Divest the ideas of their figurative clothing, and their genuine nature will appear. ‘‘I create darkness.”’ Here the act of removing the light is figuratively called creating, and the effect of that act is properly called darkness. ‘The word “create” alone is here figurative. Again, I create evil.” Here, even supposing this term to refer to moral as well as to physical evil, the expression is evidently figurative, and the figure lies in the -word create being substituted for the act of removing good. And the plain reason of the figurative mode is, that it represents more forcibly Gop’s dominion over light and darkness, joy and sorrow, good and eyil. | Thus, The Christian Observer: 517 Thus, if I mistake not, it is plain, that the OpsErRvER is totally wrong in his notion of the sinfulness of actions, or the abstract nature of sin ; and is as remote from sound reason and critical accuracy, as he is opposed to the generality of intelligent writers on the subject. The ‘* Hypothesis,” (or more properly the argument for the origin of moral evil being exclusively in ourselves) which he attacks, he candidly acknowledges to be “ the result of some thought, and supported with some acuteness,” With what acuteness it is supported, it is not for me to decide ; but I may declare that it is “ the result of some thought,” since it has long occupied, at intervals, my most'serious attention and minute investigation. I have endeavoured to view it in all its bearings, relations, and consequences; through every possible medium, and under every variety of moral feeling ; paying a due regard to all that ingenuity could advance against it. My aim has been to investigate the truth of ideas, and the reality of things; regarding words and phrases no further than as they tend to convey my meaning. 4 ‘ As Bites rst tie é Pe Very different, in some respects, is the production of the Rev. WILLIAM BENNET, in a series of Letters addressed to me, respecting the Origin of moral Evil. Vor the civil and kind manner in which he expresses himself, on the score of personal respect, he has my friendly and -grateful acknowledgements, _ Yet his me-__ thod of investigation is not quite fair, however fairly intended ; for thongh he produces my words, yet he puts his own meaning on them, That sort of sophism which is called. imperfect enumeration appears : peculiarly Mr. Bennet’s ** Remarks.’ $2) peculiarly prominent in most, if not in all his arguments and objections. For if, while enumerating the different acceptations of tendency, power, and the like, he include only their physical, to the exclusion of their metaphysical acceptations, eyen contrary to an explicit caution against such conduct, his argument must needs be sophistical. if an author, when under the necessity of employing words capable of different meanings, be not at liberty to fix upon those that suit his purpose, to the exclusion of all others, there is an end of all fair discussion. If, for instance, Iam not at liberty to use the word “ ten- dency” sometimes in a physical, at other times in a moral, or in a metaphysical sense, according to the nature of the subject ; but asense is given it by an opponent totally different from the avowed general design of the argument ; fair discussion is converted into logomachy, the primary principles in debate are confounded, and every thing is enveloped in obscurity and confusion. Mr. B. must know, that Ido not contend about words, —whether ‘* tendency,” ‘ passive power,”’. or any other —provided the ideas be ailowed, and appropriate words be adduced to convey them. Surely the expressions ** tendency to nihility, physically considered,” and * ten- dency to defection, morally considered,” could not be understood to mean a physical tendency and a moral ten- dency, but by an entire oversight of the nature of the subject ; which was to shew the certain connection be- tween contingent existence, both physical and moral, and defection, when that contingent existence is consi- dered in its own proper nature. Physical defection is mhility, and moral defection is transgression. Now the sentiment maintained is (if haply I may be rightly understood) that there is in the nature of every contin- gent existence a certain connection with nihility, which connection immediate divine energy alone can prevent. And is not this implied in the commonly received doc-. trine of providential conservation? And why a hypoe thetically “5022 . APPENDIX, thetically certain connection with nihility, may not be expressed by a metaphysical tendency to nihility, it is difficult to guess. 3 But Mr. BENNET’s principal objection, and indeed the substance of his book, lies against that branch of the subject which relates to transgression. J have uniformly maintained, in effect, that the divine volition alone pre- vents a physical contingent existence from ceasing to be. Now as there is but one absolute existence; as the goodness of a creature is no less of a contingent nature than the being in which it inheres ; and as the very idea of a contingent nature is, that it exists only by the will of another; is it not evident, that such is the connec- tion between mental goodness and ceasing to be good (cood, I mean, as to its physical existence) that nothing keeps them asunder but the sovereign will of God? Suppose a mind righteous and holy, at any time, or in any world; suppose it possessed of physical powers capable of producing moral acts; suppose it also en- dowed with suitable objects and unrestrained freedom of choice. | The question is now fairly put, Is there any certain connection between this contingent goodness, considered in zfs own nature, and the abuse of free will, or trangression ? In other words, is. there any thing beside the sovereign will of God to prevent the connec. tion? Is it chance? There is no such thing. Is it some power or principle in the mind? That is contingent. But to be contingent, as before shewn, is to be kept from the opposites of being or well-being, that is, from nihility or transgression, only by the continued, will of him whose nature is absolute. Now what is the unavoid- able inference? It is, That all our good 1s of God, and alt our evil from ourselves. ‘These are the legitimate conse. quences of my sentiments, and nothing worse ; and yet Mr. BeNNeET trembles for consequences !! | Far greater cause have I to tremble for the conse- quences of the opposite system 3 as confounding, in some Mr. Bennet’s * Remarks.’ some important respects, the essential difference between Creator and creature—as implying that the goodness of men and angels is not contingent—as ascribing to ‘* the old idol free. will” what Bathates to the grace ae Gop— as transferring to ‘‘ the new goddess cont: agency’ what properly belongs to ourselves—as instituting a series of self-inconststencies calculated to generate scepticism and infidelity—as leading the inquisitive mind to a broad sea, without affording it either compass or rudder—as exalt- ine self to such a degree, that we are not more the cause of our evil than of our good-—as casting a foul aspersion on the divine character, that he was Jownd to afford men and angels what he has not zn fact atlorded—as attempt- ing to wrench from us the use of intuitive knowledge, and the strongest argument for the being and perfections of Gop—as offering insult to demonstrative and primary truths—as instituting a kind of defectibility which has no cause in the nature of things—as giving such a view of morality as is incompatible with scripture—as allowing the fact of moral evil, for which result there was no tendency of any kind, no predisposing adequate cause in the universality of things —and as charging the Deity with cruelty and injustice, because he déds not cive to his creatures more than their due !—These, and innumerable other horrible consequences, it would be easy to prove, are the genuine offspring of Mr. BENNET’S opposing scheme. But it is needless to illustrate such consequences, after what Mr, Gitperr has published, in aseries of Letters to Mr. BENNET ; whose arguments have been left unanswered in Mr- B.’s Appendix, amidst a very impr ‘oper and undeserved severity of remark. There is one passage, however, (p. 94—96.) not sufficiently noticed by Mr. Ginpertr; which requires some animadversion. ‘* In your statement of the caus- ation of sin as predicated of man,” says Mr. B. ‘‘ there seems to be great logical inaccuracy ; in that the converse of your first proposition is not properly stated.” By a 5g APPENDIX. By “logical inaccuracy” Mr, B. must mean something in the statement that affects the import of the proposi- tion; for he has too much good sense and learning to suppose that an author is obliged to wear the trammels of logical forms, in statements and reasonings. At that rate, every deviation in argument from figure and mood would be “logical inaccuracy ;” and in order to be ogial a man must be pedantic. The objection therefore must be against the sense of the second proposition. Now let us examine that sense, and see wherein it differs from what Mr. B. assigns it. My two explanatory pro- positions are these : ‘< Freedom’ terminating on a good disposition, supported by sovereignty, produceth holy wets alone.” Here, by the way, the reader should keep in mind that “ freedom” is used for free-will, or the will considered as free ; and the words ¢ terminating en” contain a mathematical allusion to the formation of an angle by one line terminating on another. For as ene line cannot form an angle, nor yet two lines when there is.no terminating junction ; so liberty alone, or the state of the mind alone, witheut a terminating junction, ean produce no moral effect. Now what is the second proposition ? Itis this : ‘¢ But a mind or disposition (i. e. ay vaind or disposition, however good) not supported by sovereignty, but left in equity to its native passive power, being now the subject, and freedom terminating upon it in that state, becomes instantly the seat of moral evil.” These are the two propositions, expressed with- out the least intention of evading any difficulty, or of stating the latter as formally the converse of the former. How then would Mr. B, have ir expressed ? Thus ; “ but freedom, though terminating on a good disposition, if not supported by sovereignty, necessarily produceth evil only.” If Mr. B. can gain any advantage from this mode ef expression, he is welcome to it. But probably the impartial reader will judge with me that in point of argument he will not be benefited. However, Mr, Bennet’s * Remarks.’? 5235 However, Mr, BENNET’s grand objection to the statement in the second proposition is, that I ascribe te “¢ mere sovereignty” what he apprehends to be ¢ ground. ed in divine wisdom and equity.” I allow, and main- tain, no less than the objector, that it was wise, equitable, and becoming, for an accountable creature to be formed righteous, holy, and good. It is also allowed, that his righteousness, integrity, or perfection, could not depart from him but by the free act of his own will, Now what is the ‘* moot point?’’ It is, to ascertain the proper cause why a perfect creature came to act morally wrong? Or, Why a temptation to evil, whether strong or weak, succeeded on the mind of a creature confessedly perfect ? Instead of answering this question, Mr. B. contends that a perfect creature is made so in divine wisdom and equity! and that while he contenued so, he was « not supported by sovereignty,” but by ‘a becomingness aud moral meetness in the conduct of Gop towards his accountable creatures.”” It seems then, as a fair cense. quence, that, as far as Gop is concerned in the business, when a perfect creature becaine sinful, the operations of wisdom, equity, becomineness and moral meetness were suspended ! oui | Will Mr, BENNET contend, that though a good dis- position was not supported by sovereignty, nor yet by equity, after it was first formed, yet the perfect creature supported ttself ? Surely not ; for it would be to contend forthe rankest Pelagianism that ever complimented a creature, or insulted sovereign grace. And yet, how can the consequence be avoided? There is but one _ Way ; and that is, that the goodness of a perfect creature, in every degree and in every period, is supported by sovereignty, or sovereign benevolence. If Gop were under obligation, either in wisdom, in equity, in becom- ingness, or in moral meetness, to continue the coodness once bestowed ; it must. have always remained. unim- paired. But if the goodness first given did not dn fact continue ~~ 526 . APPENDIX. continue, and the divine character is infinitely remote from willing the sinfulness of sin, the perfect creature, it will be said, was /eft to its own fate, and it happened to fall! This will not suffice; it is to fly from the face of glorious truth to the gloomy covert of ignorance.. — Happened to fall! This is to transfer the cause. of 9 from ourselves to ‘the new goddess, contingency.” -And were this admitted, the converse of it must be ad- mitted also ; the perfect creature happened to continue good till it fell. Happened to continue! This also will not do ; it is to offer incense to “‘ the old idol free will,” to place it on the throne of sovereign benevolence, aa to acknowledge it as the cause of good and happiness to a perfect creature.» | It has been observed befora, ‘that most of Mr, BEN- NET’s objections arise from a false apprehension of my terms; but it is fair to ask, Was he not at hber- ry to. learn, without much trouble, whether that sense of terms which he adopted was mzne ? Was he not aware also, when about to print and publish those letters, that my life was despaired of by. my friends ; and that, for some time after, to engage in controversy, ee any public pledge, might Rok cost me a dangerous relapse Why then should he indulge complaints that a reply was made to this Letters by another hand, rather than nry own? He was privately assured, that no want of personal respect, nor any affected contempt of his production, induced me to decline an immediate notice of it; and the real cause was thus assigned: ‘‘ ‘The precarious state of my health, as J before stated to you, together with the uniform advice of medical and other (eon prevented my engaging in any work which required close applosion.: of writing, or extra exer- cise of mind; especially so near the time when I had been ea attacked the two preceding winters. Your work therefore was to be answered by another, or not at all, on its first appearance.””—~Whatever view Mr, Mr. Bennet?s “ Remarks.” 527 Mr, BENNET is pleased to take of Mr. GILBERT as an opponent, I consider him as a very able advocate of gospel truth, and especially of consistent Calvinism ; and his answer to Mr. BENNET, as far as argument is concermed, as a masterly performance. eee EER PL TER screen Beside the Appendix to his Letters, so unworthy of his pen, Mr. BENNET has recently published « Thoughts on the primary condition of Intelligent accountable Creatures, &c. ;” which he supposes, in his advertise. ment, ‘* may furnish a positive substitute for that hypo- thesis against which the reasoning of his Remarks was directed.” Here I expected to finda ¢ digested view”’ of this respectable author’s thoughts, something like a consistent system ; but in this I was greatly disappointed : for very little appears beside an avowal of some important truths, and a modest zenorance of almost every point of difficulty; a rehearsal of old ‘objections, already an. swered, in a form somewhat different; with a number of references, and quotations at the end, principally from ‘TURRETIN, and a few from K’pwarbs, Cavin, Boston, Ames, Wirstus, REyNotps, Owen, and Guyse, which in my view are very little to the main purpose. . Among the important points avowed, the following gave me no small pleasure: “* The primary and essential cause of holiness in all intelligent creatures, is that influ- ence which God imparts to their derived nature 5 Aa oad and again, ‘ these pure intelligences existed in a state of dependence on their Creator, and could not exercise their faculties and principles without influence from Him the infinite original essence.” (p. 10.) But then it ‘is soon added, ‘it is absurd to speak of their having a ‘tendency to nihility, physically considered ;’ since the all-efficient wilt of Jehovah hath unchangeably esta- blished, as to all that stands connected with their phy- sical existence, a direct contrary tendency.” A singular argument ; 528 APPENDIX. argument; a creature has no tendency to nihility, a2 atself considered, because it has the contrary tendency from the will of another / Surely a physical tendency to exist by another’s will, is not inconsistent with a meta- physical or hypothetical tendency to nihility. However, it is further acknowledged, that, ‘‘ although their concreated principles of action were habitually good, yet as they derived these, together with their _ being, from him the first cause of all things, and had their. Gnbiidual subsistence as created essences in a dependence upon him, as the fountain of life and good- ness, these very habits or principles of action could only be cherished and kept in lively exercise, and ina full direction to their proper ends, by a continued communi- cation of holy influence from himself; even as the living branches of a tree flourish and bear their fruit by mcans of a constant supply from the root, or from the soil through the medium of the root.” (p. 12.) But it soon follows, ‘‘nor have we hitherto seen any thing tn their nature and constitution, as holy perfect crea- tures, that should in the least militate against, or indis- pose them to, the fullest exercise of such mofal depen- dence” as before described. If, however, there was nothing in their nature, nor yet in the nature of God, to indispose them to continue holy, it must have been ampossible for them to change for the worse; which is offering defiance at once to sound reason and to matter of fact. For they did change for the worse, and there must have been a cause for it en themselves, except moral deterioration be impiously charged upon God. Were there no such cause in Meh eile the non-commuaunica- tion of efficacious grace would not, could not, produce the effect; for no creature can change from holy to sinful but by his ow act. Sei Mr. BENNET apprehends we have not ‘‘ any sub- stantial ground to suppose that Adam, after the first moment of his existence, was undér any sach positive divine Mr, Bennet’s “*Thoughts.” 529 divine influence ag efficaciously ‘ controlled’ any one principle in his holy nature ; any more than we have reason to imagine that there existed in his nature, as a pure and perfect creature, any principle, however latent, which needed such control.” What is this, in effect, but saying, that by chance he stood, and by chance he fell? it is worthily acknowledged, respecting’ our first parents, that ‘ there was much grace and benignity inter- mingled with the whole of that original constitution, under which they were placed as moral probationers ;” ({p. 20.) and yet there was a « permission”’ of their defection, (p. 22.) Are we then to infer that they would certainly transgress, of permitted ? or, that per- chance they would fall? Is there any medium ?—It js further urged, that if < any divine communication, which had been once imparted to the creature, was withdrawn, or withheld, antecedently to his abuse of liberty as a moral agent, the creature, from that moment, ceased to be what he was, when he came into existence,”” But * ceasing to be what he-was,” must not be con- founded with his * ceasing to be righteous.” The for- mer might be, and he remain innocent and righteous 3 but the latter could take place only by his own act. Mr. BENNET institutes,a contrast, or some important difference, between ¢ positive efficiency”? and divine communication ;”? and allows that the former might be suspended, but not the latter. His words dreg 26 Ti respect of positive efficiency, and of that only, we may conceive of a suspension of divine influence, or rather we may call it the NON-EXERTION OF CONFIRMING GRACE,” (p. 22.) But what is this << confirming erace?” The author had before stated (p. 9.) that « holiness in creae tures, as arising from divine communication, may be viewed, either as a transient effect, or an imparted princes. ple and moral habit of the mind.” It is natural to ask, with which of these should «€ confirming grace”? be class. ed? Is it a transient effect? or is it an enrparted prince. M m ple? 830 APPENDIX. ple? If the laiter, the author must contradict himeelf. If the former, it could not be suspended, for it was never given ; except we say that confirming grace was given to creatures which at the same time were permitted to fall ; which will be thought nothing short of a contradiction in terms, But perhaps Mr. B.’s meaning is, that the posi- tive efficiency producing transient effects, which would have confirmed perfect creatures, was noé everted. If so, I have the pleasure to agree with him. | I must however enter a protest against the sentiment, that Adam had no “ positive efficiency” given him for: the production of holy acts, during his integrity ; for reasons assigned in different parts of this publication. Not that I suppose a perfect creature’s will is controlled in his holy acts ; but rather, as repeatedly noticed, that his nature or state of mind, from which, or according to which the will freely acts, was the subject of positive in- fluence, as the sole cause why the free will chose aright rather than amiss; or, which amounts to the same thing, why the soul’s real good appeared to be so, and a crea- ture whose views were limited, amidst an endless variety of comparative eood, chose the right. — Thus his acts were strictly his own, as being voluntary and uncontrol- led ; while the disposition, habit, or xature from whence they sprung was the effect of grace. 1 must also enter my protest against Mr. B’s notion of ‘* confirming grace,” if thereby he means any thing different in its nature (as con- tradistinguished from continuance or degree) from what Adam had in his perfect state. If there be any differ- ence allowed between what he calls ‘* holiness as a transient effect,” and ‘* holiness as-an imparted principle,” each ‘arising from divine communication ;” does that difference consist in the nafwre of the inQuence, in its continuance, or in its degree ? If in the first, it should have been shewn from scripture, from principles of rea- son, or some source of evidence. If in either of the two last, we are agreed, Will it be said, that the nafwre of the Mr. Bennet’s * Thoushgs.” 531 the “ divine. communication” must be different, since the effects are different? The argument is not good, ex- cept on supposition of continued sameness, or at least an exact similarity of state in the subject on whom it is conferred ; which is not admitted. A distinction, with respect to grace, far more import- ant in my view, as well as more accurate, is that which divines have commonly denominated objective and subs jective, These are perfectly and clearly distinct in their nature. The one consists in an exhibition of divine favour to the agent; the other, in a communication of holy influence. The former is the instrument of moral government, the latter is the process of sovereign erace, But to denominate a variety of holy divine communica- tions by * that sort of momentary impulse, or fleeting impression, which leaves no fixedness of character, or well crounded sentiment in the mind,” and ‘ a conge= niality of the mental state with the nature of truth, and with the obligation and reasonableness of duty ;” appears to me neither just nor useful. Is the continuance of the ** congeniality” in question maintained, or is it conceiv= able that it should be maintained, except by a ‘* momen- tary impulse,” after the manner of providential sustenta- tion ? Nay, was.it not providential sustentation itself > Is it not very generally if not universally allowed, that as ** providence is as it were a continued creation,” so it~ extends to well-being or holiness no less than to personal existence? Mr. B. however supposes that there is a ** distinction to be made, between the sustentation of providence, and the efficiency of grace.” In one re. spect, indeed, this may be allowed, but not in another. To sustain or continue concreated holiness (except per- adventure it could continue of ctsedf) must have been an act of providence, including what is expressed by ** the efficiency of grace.” But when this last phrase is made to signify divine energy, ‘ quickening those who were dead in trespasses and sins,’’ it resembles more an act of M m 2 ‘ creation 532 APPENDIX. creation than the operation of providence. But the con« tinued support of this divine life, as well as the other, must be a providential operation, As to give original existence and form is creation ; so, to continue that which exists already is the function of providence, whatever be the object.» Speaking of intelligent creatures in a state of original probation, Mr. B. very justly remarks, ‘* it cannot be inferred from any sound principles of reason or justice, that the divine author of their being Was any. way obliged to deal with them in a way of benevolence only.” Very true ; for then they would not have failed in their allegiance. But if ‘benevolence only” was not due to them, it deserves our serious consideration how much benevolence was their due? This is not the place for discussing the question ; ; and it has been considered in the Rssay, One thing, however, may be observed, that | I believe they were favoured with more benevolence, grace, and benignity, than Mr. B. is willing to allow them. ior, [maintain that they had not only objective erace in its fullest conceivable extent, without any sisbaackaie but aiso, while they stood, Li diseus (ieee by virtue of which they exercised all holy affections; whereas he only considers them ‘ as originally possessing concreat- ed principles of moral rectitude, without any positive divine influence absolutely determining their proper exer- cise.”’ Is not this to say, in effect, that there was no more benevolence shewn them than was their creation- due? Also, that in the evercise of their concreated holi- ness, while it lasted, they were supplied from some inexplicable se if sufinenc y 2 This respectable author lays creat stress on the circumstance, that no “ divine com- munication, which had been once imparted to the crea- ture, was withdrawn, or withheld, antecedently to the abuse of liberty.” But is not such communication for 4 season, even during the whole term of rectitude, better than none? If no such influence was yiven aé all, as he . maintains, Mr. Bennet’s “ Thoughts.” 533 maintains, it is plain it was not due to them 3 and if they had determining influence, for a season, it was the fruit of pure denennde jee Now if it be a reflection on the divine character to afford such influence only for a season, how much more so, not to afford it at all? The fact is, that in neither case does it imply any reflection on the divine character; but according to the sentiment of determining influence as a necessary predisposing cause of holy exercises, more benevolence is ee than in the other case. , | However, our author is not accurate when he ascvibes to my sentiments ‘* a soverezgn withholding of confirming grace from creatures in a state of moral probation ;” (p. 54.) for what I maintain is * an eguttable withhold- ing” of that grace which would have confirmed them. For sovereignty, which implies in my view of it a su- preme right of exercising benevolence ad extra, has for its object exclusively the creature’s welfare. Nor is he more accurate when he imputes to my creed “ a with- drawment of all that influence which was the sole and exclusive cause of their holiness.”? -I do not believe that there was any ‘ withdrawment” as contradistinguished from ‘¢ withholding.” To withdraw properly implies an aptitude to continue in the thing withdrawn; or that it would remain were it not for the wea wiNehE: inde- pendently of his will who withdraws. Thus water com- municated to a reservoir, or money deposited in a bank, But benevolent influence leaves no such stock, which might remain, detached from the will which imparted it, Such influence may be compared rather to a fountain communicating a running stream; which withdraws no part of what bie already ‘awed, when it wethholds a fu- ture supply. Or it resembles a beam of light emitted by the sun, which is not capable of being withdrawn, though its continuance may be withheld. When used in a lax manner, the two terms may be taken interchange. ably ; as when we say, a person withdraws a stated con- M m 3 ) tribution 534 APPENDIX. tribution or a wonted favour. But the meaning evidently is, withholds the future, but not recalls the past. It is, as TURRETTIN expresses it, ‘ subtractio, non privativa, quum Deus gratiam antea datam tollit; sed NEGATIVA, quum non dat novam gratiam ad perstandum necessariam.”’ Nor is it at all essential to my argument that ALL sove- relon influence (however equitable that would have been) was suspended or not exerted, at the commence. ment of moral evil; because not giving what would zn Jact overcome the temptation is all that it requires, As to what some have expressed by the term ‘* creation- due,”? meaning original righteousness and holiness, to withdraw it was impossible from the nature of the case ; Jor this was the very thing which they were to preserve, or not to preserve, as moral probationers. And indeed for God to wethdraw it (were such a thing conceivable) would be the same as to discharge them from all. obliga- tion to preserve it. P er Mr. B. says, respecting the point wherein he sup- poses me to differ from the authors he’quotes, ‘ It is one of the most objectionable parts of Dr, WILLIAMs’s hypo- thesis, respecting the origin of moral evil, that he intro- duceth—a withdrawment of all that influence which was the sole and exclusive cause of their holiness, while they stood in uprightness, and this antecedently to their abuse of liberty.” I have already observed that his state- ment is not accurate ; but as he lays so much stress on this point, it may be proper to shew that his own account of influence affords him no relief. For illustration, let _his own degree of benevolent influence afforded to a per- fect creature be represented by the number seven, let the force of temptation stand for eught, and his confirming srace not given stand for mime. It plainly follows that his cwn degree is not, efficiently adequate any more than if none had been given. So that were I to maintain this last idea (which I do not) it would not be more infallibly | connected Mr. Bennet’s “* Thoughts.” 535 connected with the event of transgression than what he himself maintains. ‘ . Mr. BENNET seems to object to any sentiment which makes “‘ God’s act the occasion of the creature’s sin 3” but with what propriety it is difficult to guess, _ Does not. this objection recoil upon himself? He maintains a ‘¢ withholding of confirming grace ;” and is not. this the equitable occasion of transgression? And is not the oreatest instance of benevolence that ever was conferred by the Almighty upon the world, an occasion of aggrayat- ed transgression? The gift of his Son, and the preaching of the gospel, is a full proof of it. ) Aware, it seems, that the charge of making the crea- ture self-sufficient would be brought against him, Mr. Benner contends for “a derived dependent sufficiency for what was required of them as moral agents, if duly exer- cised and improved.” . Safficiency and insufliciency are very equivocal terms. © Properly, to be derived and de- pendent are characters of insufficiency ; but in a compara- five sense, what is insufficient for one thing may be said to be sufficient for another thing. To be sufficient as an efficient cause is one thing ; but to be sufficient for moral agency is another. Were not this the fact, there could be but one moral agent in the universe ; for it is abund- antly demonstrable that there is but one efficient positive cause. What is really sufficient to constitute moral agen cy and accountableness, I have shewn elsewhere ; In my notes on Epwarps, and at the beginning of this work. To constitute suffictency, in a proper sense, there should be the characters of underived and independent exist- ence. When speaking of God’s ** znfinty of moral ex- cellence,” our autlior adds, “+ ‘The creature’s inadequacy to this, therefore, is not strictly and properly to be view ed as an essential defect of his nature ; otherwise every work of God had been necessarily imperfect.” But is not this inference an important truth, reflecting the highest honour on Jehovah ! Compared with him, is not Mm 4 Q every 536 APPENDIX. every work of his necessarily imperfect ? The truth is, there is a great difference between possessing a nature both essentzally and comparatively defective ; and posses- sing a nature defective as to due perfection. ‘To possess the former, is to be the subject of imperfect, existence, which some call ‘* metaphysical evil,”? and others ‘ pas- sive power ,”’ and to possess the latter, is to be the sub- ject of moral evil, or a defection from perfect virtue, And as it is the glory of Jehovah to be free from the former by absolute necessity, and as the removal of it from other beings is no object of choice; so it is his glory to continue or to restore the latter, namely due perfection of nature, : | Most cordially, however, do I agree with my respects able opponent, that creatures possessed of due perfection “¢ were under no positive influence ad extra, either from the decretive will of God, or from the effective energy of his providence, impelling them to any sinful yoli- tions.” (p. 30.) But when he speaks of their conduct, including the goodness of it, as « self-determined,” I am constrained to dissent, for the reasons before adduced in my answers to WHITBY and FLETcHER. And when he speaks of their having nothing in ¢heir nature but what might “ with high probability have terminated in their adherence to virtue and happiness ;”’ it is but fair to ask, | whose nature, or from what cause was it, then, that they . went contrary to this “ high probability,” and actually failed “in their adherence to virtue and happiness ?”? We agree that it was not from God? was it then from chance? Mr. B, does not call in question ‘* the eventual certainty of the creature’s defection 3’ is chance then a cause of certainty ? The truth is, that the absurdities and contradictions arising from a denial of the creature’s passive power, both as to being and well-being, are endless. However, in the following statement we har. moniously accord, “ that God’s foreknowledge, sim. ply considered, had not the least causal influence on | the Mr. Bennet’s “ Thoughts.” w. 537 the declination of the creature’s mind from a state of perfect rectitude.” (p. 33.) And yet there was a causal influence somewhere—yea, it was in the creature him- self—and it is capable of innumerable demonstrations, (those I mean which are called aeductio ad absurdum ) that nothing in a creature cowld have such causal influ- | ence but his passtve power in connection with his Sree will, Before I conclude my Remarks on Mr. BENNET’s ** Thoughts,” one thing more (which I have also hinted at in the Preface) may be noticed, wiz, That there is a great distinction between the modus of :sin’s origination and the cause of it. This is probably one reason why the subject has been thought by many to be ¢ncapable. of a satisfactory solution. But the difference is wide and essential. The mode of sin’s origin must be col. lected from revealed data and probable inference only ; it is not the subject of demonstrative evidence, properly speaking. Where the scripture is silent, the argument, if we argue at all, must needs be, from the nature of the subject, only conjectural, And this, no doubt, is the chief reason why it is inferred by my respected opponent and others, that an investigation of the subject, and even a convincing proof of it, if possible, is of no great use. On this point there is no ground of difference. The com. parative importance of such a discovery would be small, though the result of the most laborious and successful enquiry. For what is the knowledge of the manner and circumstances of a fact, compared with the knowledge of | its cause ; any further than as the former might asszst the latter. But when a cause of such radical importance is discovered, it opens to us a new scene, it exhibits to us wonderful truths as inseparably connected with it, truths of the greatest interest and the most beneficial nature, as I have endeavoured to shew in my ** Conclu- sion,” But what I wish’ may be particularly noticed is, that the cause or true origin of a fact may be capable of the 538. ® APPEN DIX. the strictest demonstration, while the imode of the same fact may remain in much obscurity. And this I main- tain is the case as to the fact of sin’s origination. It would be easy to illustrate this remark as to other sub- jects. For instance, the sanner of divine holy influence on the mind, and of providential sustentation of our being and well-being must be collected from sacred writ, and probable inference from revealed data, and after all the subject may remain in much obscurity ; but the cause of these important facts is capable of demen- strattve evidence. Hence our Lord’s remark to Nicode= mus, that the mode of the Spirit’s operation on the mind may remain obscure, while the cause is decidedly divine influence. From the effects we tnay demonstrate the cause, though not the manner. Again, the modus of the world’s formation must be gathered from revealed data and probable conjecture, and after all our conjectures, a veil of impenetrable difficulty may continue over it; and therefore to bestow much time and pains upon the investigation 1s not a mark of true wisdom, any further than as it contributes to discover the cause. And yet who, except Athiests and Sceptics, can question that the true cause of the world’s formation is capable of metaphy- sital demonstration ? that is, the greatest certainty con- eeivable, and of which mathematical evidence itself is but a branch.—I hope my learned and respected oppo- nent will consider my remarks with candour, and rest assured of my friendly regards. ~ The next author who has thought proper to attack my areument for the origin of moral evil being found ecclustvely tr ourselves, and not at all in our Maker, was the Rey. WILLIAM Parry, in what he denominates, ‘< Strictures on the Origin of Moral Evil, &c.” This — learned and respectable gentleman also has my grateful’ acknow- Mr. Parry’s * Strictures.” | 539 acknowledgements for professions of respect; but his manner of treating the subject is at least equally ex- ceptionable with that of Mr. BENnNeT, and in some re- spects much more so. As the “ Strictures’” were not addressed to me, any more than to the public at large, they were open to observation from any person ai should think proper to reply. This is now done by the Rev. THomas Hitt, in his ‘* Animadversions’’ lately published.—While due candour and decorum are pre- served in the discussion, I hope that religion and moral science will be advanced by it; and especially that the true ground of the acknowledged axioms—‘* All good is from God’’—and, ** All moral evil is from ourselves” — will become more familiar to the thoughtful and devout christian. _ crea —-——- i Another publication which has echoed the popular ‘cry, that the subject is inscrutable, and not much calculated for the purposes of practical godliness, is the TueoLogicaL Review. The anonymous critic displays some candour, and gives conciliating expressiuns of re- spect, in his opposition to my sentiments, while reviewing Mr. BENNET’s ‘* Remarks,” Mr, Parry’s ‘* Strictures,”’ and Mr. GILBERT’s ** Reply” to Mr. BennEr.* Observy- ing in the first of these critiques some wrong statements of my views, I thought it but justice to vac and to what I deem to be important truth, to take some notice of them by writing to the Editor of that work, through the medium of the Publisher: and as representations equally unfair and injurious were repeated, 1 renewed my remon- strances. Some of these were candidly inserted, but the last letter was suppressed. As the material parts of the whole of them will not occupy much room, as they may cast some additional light on my real sentiments, and * Inthe Numbers for February, May, and June, 1808, 540 APPENDIX. and as my friends may wish to see them all at one view, I regard them as a suitable close to this Appendix, LETTER 1 SiR, . The Reviewer of ‘* Remarks on a recent Hy pothesis, | respecting the Origin of Moral Evil, &c.”? has conveyed ‘some ideas to the public which want to be rectified. When he says, that I am ‘* an advocate for many of those doctrines which are generally called calyinistic,” it might be inferred, that I hold. some doctrines which are not so denominated. . I am not conscious of holding any which are inconsistent with the doctrinal articles of the church of England, or that beautiful summary of chris- tian doctrines, the shorter Assembly’s Catechism. The Reviewer asserts, that I “ differ from Calvinists respect- ing the Origin of Moral Evil.” This is not accurate i agree with the major part of authors who are so termed, as far as they go; particularly Turrerrix, Wirslus, STAPFERUS, OWEN, Goopwin, Howe, Epwarps, &ce, &c. Many Calvinists have indeed thrown out hints with a “* perhaps,”’ that “ this is a problem, all the difficulties of which will never be removed in the present state,”’ as the Reviewer has done ; but surely, while I establish no principles, and assume no data, but what all consistent Calvinists admit, this ground is too slight to support his assertion, To point out the wrong inferences that some draw from their own premises, and to establish legiti- mate conclusions, cannot with the least accuracy or pro- priety be termed a difference with regard to doctrine. It is NO part of my present design to expose the mistakes into which Mr. BENNET has fallen in his letters addressed to me, through an entire misconception of my ferms,.and consequently of my areuments; but I must entreat your indulgence to a few strictures on the conduct of the Reviewer in introducing a quotation from Dr. OWEN, as if inconsistent with my sentiments. The Doctor’s argu- ment is forcible against the following doctrine of Ar- MINIUS 3 The Theological Review. 544 Minius ; ‘* Lnclinatio ad peccandum ante lapsum in homine Suit, licet non ita vehemens ac tnordinaia ut nunc est ;?? and which is conveyed in different words by Corvinus. But {deny that any thing maintained or ever published by me, is either consistent with what ARMINIUS held, or inconsistent with Dr. OweEn’s doctrine implied in the quotation. There is indeed a similarity of sound, but not of sense, between some of my terms and those on which Dr. O. animadverts. The reasoning is conclusive against | a voluntary, a physical, or a concreated duciination : but not so against hypothetical certainty, a metaphysical ten- dency, or a deficient cause of mutability. What I con- tend for is, that defectibility zself does not arise from chance, but from an assignable cause as well as indefecti- bility. On that assignation is established a fair solution, _or what I have ventured to call a demonstration of the problem, Whence comes moral evil ? I fully acquiesce in the sentiment of the Reviewer, that “ the origin of evil is a subject which ought never to be conversed about in a light and thoughtless manner, &c.”’ but can by no means allow that it ought to be viewed, as insinuated by some, in any other light than what is highly interesting to the cause of godliness and real virtue. In my view, the true solution of the question includes the very essence of self- knowledge, humility, and gratitude. On the whole, the Reviewer seems not to compre. hend the nature of my argument and the real ideas con- tained in the terms I have employed. By mserting these remarks in your next number, you will oblige, Sir, your most obedient, Ik. WILLIAMS, Rotherham, Feb. 11, 1808. LETTER IT. Sin, The Reviewer in reply to my observation, * that I was not conscious of holding any doctrines inconsistent with the Assembly’s Catechism, &c,” brings forward two , specific 542 APPENDIX. specific charges, in evidence of my having abandoned some calvinistic doctrines. ‘The first is, ‘* That man, in his state of innocence, possessed such an universal rectitude of all the faculties of the soul, as to have no tendency of any kind to evil ; and that while he continued in that state, he was able to perform all the duties which were required of him.” On this charge, I beg leave to make a few remarks. (1.) This proposition is so worded, as to include some- thing which all consistent Calvinists hold ; and some- _ thing which none of them do. The truth of this remark I hope to substantiate in what follows. (2.) I firmly believe, with all Calvinists, ‘‘ That man in his state of innocence possessed universal rectitude of all the faculties of the soul.” For the divine record testifies that man was made ‘‘in the image of God;” or, as the same record explains it, ‘¢ in righteousness and true holi- ness.”? And this, I apprehend, includes that he was perfectly sinless; that’ he had no sinful bias, bent, inclination, or tendency whatever. He was made up- right ; his righteousness and holiness were concreated with him; not first made a creature, and afterwards made holy. He knew God and himself clearly ; loved God with all his heart, and every other lovely object for his sake ; and was therefore profoundly humble, warmly erateful, and promptly obedient. (3.) I believe, with all consistent Calvinists, ‘* that whilst he continued in that state he was able to perform all the duties which were required of him,” in their explained sense of ability. No‘one, without impiety, much less a consistent Cal- vinist, can say that man was independently able. He was able with divine assistance; by participation. To ascribe to him ability beyond this, is to fix him on an _egual throne with him whose name is Jehovah. He had the ability of choosing the objects which appeared in his view the best for him; of adopting without any foreign constraint the means of his own happiness. But as man’s ability The Theological Review. 543 ability was derived, it needed support. Therefore, (4.) The Reviewer is under a great mistake in supposing man ‘to have no tendency of any kind to evil” to bea Calvinistic doctrine. Where is an author to be found, British or foreign, owned as a brother by the denomina- tion in question, wlto maintains, that Adam’s ability to act well, was unsupported by a cause distinct from, and infinitely above him? But if there was not a tendency of some kind, what need was there of support § ? The ideas of support without need, or of need without any ten- dency, are perfectly incompatible. Some indeed have attempted an objection to this most important branch of calvinistic doctrine, by making a difference between a support of our physical powers and of a good disposition. They who admit the former, but deny the latter, are as remote from Calvinism, as they are from scripture and reason. Was nota “ good disposition,” concreated with man, a part of his phajsical existence? From the manner in which some people talk of physical powers, and moral powers, they afford great room to suspect, that they ‘know not what cise say, nor whereof they affirm.” Is not every power of the soul a physical power? If any power could deserve the name of moral, it would be the we// ; but is it not obvious, that the will is only a physical power, though capable of producing moral effects 2 ‘The supposition that the souj has fwo sets of powers, the one physical and the other moral, has no foundation in truth. In a less accurate sense, indeed, the state of the mind has been called moral, when only considered as good antecedent to allacts; but Gf we consult the truth of zdeas, morality is the manner o action. ‘The action abstracted from the manner, has no moral quality. But because an action is called good when conformable to rectitude, and gcod also or 4 degree of happiness) is the result ofa right manner of choosing ; hence many confound antecedent goodness and morality. ‘The poverty of language, also, betrays men 544. : APPENDIX. men into an error when they want to contrast physical goodness, in the common acceptation of the term, with that state of mind which is inseparably connected with right volitions. Hence, for the want of due considera- tion, has an outcry been made against a phrase I have used, in accounting for the origin of evil ; ‘‘a tendency to dekecnan ribrally considered.” The nature of the argument shews, that I was speaking of a tendency antecedent to choice ; and therefore it could not possibly have a moral ee When I say * morally con- sidered,” who but those who seek occasion to excite popular prejudice, would suppose that I could mean any thing else than to characterize the kind of defection, and not me kind of tendency, by these words? Annihilation being one kind of defection, and moral evil another, what I designed to assert is, that man had need of sup- port In BOTH respects ; that he could no more be sel/- sufficient in the one case than in the other. Much has been said about moral ability and inability ; but in my view the term moral thus connected, is not. well adapted to convey the ideas designed. For if moral ability be made to express a good antecedent state of the mind, and if morality be the manner in which the will attaches itself to an object of choice, that ability, however excellent, cannot, in strictness, be called moral, except as the effect of a former choice. The same distinction is applicable to moral inability. An antecedent state of the mind can be termed ‘ moral inability” only as it is the effect of a perverted choice ; but that kind of inability which is antecedent to all dbbiee cannot be moral. » Hence, a tendency to evil in a perfect nature, cannot be a morally evil tendency. These remarks have been occasioned by the Reviewer’s questions, “ Whoeiein, we ask, does this tendency to moral evil differ from a bias to sin ?”’—** Is not a tendency to moral evil,’ an anomie, and so a thing sinful 2?” What I believe and assert is, that man, in the most perfect state conceivable, needed The Theological Review, 545 needed support for the Soodness of his disposition, con- created with him, no. less than for his existence; ‘T'o Suppose him supported as to his being, but not as to his goodness, in order to secure a happy result of his moral acts, 1s both antiscriptural and irrational ; and in fact is nothing but the old Pelagian heresy, so often and so suc. cessfully refuted, And if his Sood disposition required support, what would be the consequence, if God thought it right not to afford it, beyond a certain degree, in the hour of temptation? As a motive was proposed by the tempter, and man’s good disposition was such only while supported ; and as that support could be only in the way of benevolent influence antecedent to all choice; there remains no assignable reason why the support by such influence, should be stronger or weaker than the tempta. — tion ; why Adam should be victorious or vanquished ; but the sovereign pleasure of God. If God was obligated, on any consideration Whatever, to support him from yielding to the tempter, he would have done it ; but ‘he did not ; therefore his fall was equally certain and eguit- able. With God, fact and right coincide. | Words are very imperfect vehicles of thought, how- ever well chosen, when we want to express any thing out of the familiar routine of ideas ; but when words are defined, and definitions are given in different words and forms, all concurring to express the same idea; and when words capable of different interpretations, are limited by the nature of the subject ; it seems a peculiar infelicity that no explanation succeeds, How could the Reviewer, or any candid, intelligent person confound my use of the words *< tendency to defection” with a « sin. ful tendency,” or with any thing inconsistent with Calvinism? I confess it is inconsistent with the latitudi- narian self-sovereignty of the will, uninfluenced by the pre- Vious state of the mind in its elections ; and the self. Sufficiency of man to preserve his rectitude, Let any one come fairly forward, and own God’s absolute sovereignty N n in 516, sa) 9 REDD LX in preserving, as well as in imparting the goodness of all creatures 3 and that divine favour alone is the cause of their ‘continued goodness ; or, Which amounts to the same thing in idea, let him own the absolute dependence (in a passive sense) of a perfect creature for his vood~ ness, on the sovereign pleasure of God;—and [ can easily overlook all smaller differences. The truth is, that many wish to be thought Calvinists, while they deny this fundamental and most important principle of the denomination. The view 1 hold of the origin of sin, brings the creature too low, exalts grace too hich, and stands too closely connected with predestina- tion to life, to be relished by those who call themselves <¢ moderate, Calvinists.” Nor can it be relished by the mere philosophical necessitarians, who ascribe. cood and evil alike to God, and thereby, in effect, deny the very existence of a moral system, and the distinctive charac- ters of sin and holiness, virtue and vice. But I am fully persuaded, the more the sentiment here stated is fairly examined, and fully understood, the more will it appear that the life and soul of true, experimental godliness is involved in it:—-I remain, Sir, your most obedient, : E. WILLIAMS. Rotherham, March YO, 1808. | A Di Bes Bh ew oneal a 8 SIR, Pat The other charge adduced. by the Reviewer is, that I renounce the following Calvinistic doctrine—‘* That the divine purpose or plan comprehends all events.” This doctrine, however, I believe in the fullest sense, and sin- cerely rejoice in it. I believe there is no act whatever of. a free agent, past, present, or to come, which is not comprehended in the divine purpose. But it is the peculiar advantage of the sentiment I defend, to do this without ascribing to God the svnfulness of those acts. This is what all consistent Calvinists are solicitous to maintain ; The Theological Review, 541 maintain ; and when the assembly of divines’ state, that God has “ foreordained whatsoever comes to pass,” all judicious expositors of their meaning carefully observe this distinction. All acts are worthy of the divine con- currence, and therefore of the divine purpose ; but it is utterly abhorrent from scripture, reason, and piety, to say that he has purposed the sinfulness of any act; tho’ that also is under his absolute controul, and from eternity foreseen in its deficient cause. Beside, the assembly explain their doctrine, when they say, ‘ Our first parents _ being deft to the freedom of their own will, sinned :’* words without meaning if God purposed the sinfulness of the acts of free agents. ‘I'he moral evil which attaches to any act is equitably pernutied, though it might have been sovereignly prevented ; and is thus permitted for the glorious and everlasting display of Justice and of mercy. The quotations from Dr, OWEN and Mr. Gas so far from opposing my statement, plainly express it as Jar as they go. 1 fully believe with Dr. OWEN that “ naturé and grace before the fall complied in a sweet union and harmony in the way of obedience,”” Man then had a steady, VOLUNTARY fendency to all that was right and good: yet neither Dr. Owen nor any other consistent Calvinist maintains, that either man’ or angel was not LIABLE to evil of two kinds—annihilation and defection. To a perfect moral agent annihilation would be a great evil ; and yet if there were no LIABILITY, no hypothetical tendency to this evil, he could need no support, no pre- servation in being. Again, that perfect man was LIABLE to moral defection, is sufficiently evidenced by the mere Jact of his actual defection, He sinned, and was there. fore liable to sin 3 nor could he be thus liable without Some cause of it. This cause must be either in God or in himself. Tf in God, it must be from his decree, and Whatever he decreed he effects. Now to effect. any thing by an act of the w77/ (implied in decree) is to be the author of that thing. For the will of God to be iu the Nng wrong 548 | APPENDIX. — wrong manner of the act, 1s to make God the author of the vitiosity and blameworthiness as well as of the physi- cal part of the act. From such premises the irresistible inference would be, that, no moral alternative being left, inan’s freedom would be destroyed, and the necessitated sin must attach to Him whose will was most free in the defection of the choice.—Moreover, if the cause of /za- bility to evil be in MAN, it must be in him either as 2 positive or negative cause. Not positive, for that would destroy his moral alternative, his freedom and account ability ; would make God the impelling agent, and mati only his mere instrument, in the evil of his deeds. God being the author of our active nature, if his predetermin- ing influence be no more in the goodness of volitions, than in the evil of them, he would be as much the source of evil as of good ;—a notion which no pious mind can - admit, and which is replete with contradictions. The cause of liability to sin in man, is therefore negative 3 and must needs be the state of his mind con- sidered as absolutely dependent for his determining good- ness on that Being who alone 1s self-existent, independ- ent, and. all-sufficient. This liability to defection, arising from our deficient nature alone, I have called (and every consistent Calvinist may safely call it), in a metaphysical sense, a tendency to defection ; and I will venture to say that the denial of it is attended with manifest absurdity. It is allowed that man did actually sin; now if this took place without any tendency, then here is an effect without a cause. ‘T’o say that it sprung from free will, unconnected with and uninfiuenced by the deficient cause before mentioned ; would be to make God the author and primary agent in moral evil: for, he being the author of the active power, and his concourse and energy alone supporting and directing the physical part of every action, it would follow irrefragably, that God would be the moral agent in the evil. Where the manner of the act, as well as the act itself, is of divine 3 positive The Theological Review. 549 _ positive appointment and causation, morality in the crea- ture 1s excluded ; and moral good and evil are but names without signification. On the other band, let that defi- cient passive cause, which is implied in every dependent nature, be taken into the account, and we have an ade- guate cause to produce the effect : a cause which, though negative, is an infallible ground of certainty and pre- ’ science. Were the true cause of the first perversion of choice of an active nature, it could be traced from man up to God; but being passive and negative, it cannot possibly have a higher origin than contingent or de- pendent existence, | | With whatever important truth of divine revelation we connect the present view of SIN and its ORIGIN, it will be uniformly found a doctrine according to godliness. Through this medium we see the full extent of these edifying truths—‘ all good is from God alone,” and “* all evil is from ourselves alone’’—truths of radical int. portance in every christian’s experience. Enabled, thro’ sovereign grace, to exercise faith on the divine testi- mony, to receive the Saviour as held forth in the eospel, and walk in him with loving and grateful obedience, we are further invited, by a just view of the origin of moral evil, to a most interesting and profitable acquaintance with the ineffable glories of the divine character, In the plan of salvation revealed in the gospel ; in each particu. lar doctrine; in God’s covenant and_ his dispensations ; in the grounds of moral obligation, and the nature of penal sanctions ; we behold an additional beauty. We may sce how the several parts of trae moral science har- moniously accord with evangelical truth; we have: a radical principle by means of which to detect and expose innumerable heretical errors, and advantageously to establish every truth of the gospel; and particularly we more Clearly behold the nature of sin, and of equitable suffering as the effect of sin. By such contemplations every christian temper is invigorated ; and the necessity | Nn3 ee OF 550 APPENDIX. of a simple, humble dependence on God, in the way of his appointment, appears with brighter ey idence. The life of faith becomes doubly important ; while self-know- ledge, humility, profound reverence, and the most unre- served resignation of our all into the custody and protec- tion of the: infinitely amiable Jehovah, through time and eternity, are abundantly encouraged and advanced. — I am, Sir, your’ 8, ! E. WILLIAMS, Rotherham, April 8, 1808, raliet LETTER Iv. SIR, Soci | I did not intend to trouble you any more in this way; but the same reason still: existing in your last num- ber (for May) I am constrained to solicit your ‘insertion, of a few lines, My design i is not to vindicate my senti- ments or modes of expression, but to undeceive your . readers by substituting my real sentiments, instead of what the. Reviewer, afer Mr. Parry, ‘ thinks” to be mine. ‘The first charge, indeed, is of less moment than some others, but as it tends to excite prejudice (which I do not say was. designed by the Reviewer) it Is of some importance. When speaking of Catvin, TURRETTIN, WITSIUS, and Gate, he adds, “* we regret that Dr. W. has aban- doned their luminous lantoaee: % This is not the fact ; for when these writers, or any otha: use appropriate ee guage, I am not conscious ‘that I ever use a different “¢ dialect”? in expressing the same ideas. If indeed it be unlawful to acquire and express any new ideas, to depart from their ¢ Juminous language” is matter of regret ; but to use their words, precisely in their sense, when eds are different, wonld be a mode of i improving science edially novel and censurable. The Reviewer says, ‘* We think that. it is the opinion | of Dr. W. that holiness is not due to acreature, asa creature, Dhl heological Review. | bt preahines but after having entered on a state of sate. tion.” ‘This is no¢ my. opinion, in the objectionable sense of this representation ; tho” in one sense it is mine, as it must be that of every person of reflection, and the Re- viewer himself of course. An apostate angels is a creature 5 and if holiness is due to a creature “ as a bese? it must be due to him, which is absurd. But the connection shews that the Reviewer intends a creature at the moment of creation. But so far am | from supposing ‘ that if God dealt with them in strict equity, the whole intelli- gent creation would have been created destitute of holi- ness, and therefore miserable,” that I think the very yeverse to be the truth, and that the supposition appears neither scriptural nor consistent with just views of either equity or sovereignty. ‘To make an intelligent, account- able, immortal creature miserable eibdut! his own fault, would in my view be inconsistent with moral govern- . Ment, and no part of supreme dominion. The Reviewer seems to confound my use of the term << inevitable” as to argument, and ‘ inevitable’ as to choice. Surely a consequence may be pr operly expressed by the words inevitable, unavoidable, certain, necessary, infallible, or any others expressing a connection that exists between that consequence and an antecedent, how-. ever evitable or avoidable the consequence might have been with respect to the manner of the choice itself, as perfectly free, 1F the agent pleased. Though Adam did not sin against his will, but dy its exercise, yet this is no good reason why any term whatever, expressive of the strongest connection between the antecedent and its con. sequence may not be used. 4 : E.. WILLIAMS. May 20, 1808. Pa ioe The above letter not appearing in the number for June, | was given to understand, that if I had any 1 fur- ther communication to make, on a review contained in N n 4 that 552 APPENDIX. that Number of ‘* Mr. GitpErt’s Reply to Mr. Bex. NET,”’ both would probably be inserted In the next. Accordingly I sent to the publisher the following Remarks as a continuation of the former ; but the insertion was declined. - It is therefore here given as , LETTER V. OER GC ics : ty Cres In your 6th Number, for June, the Reviewer asks, whether passive power ought to be called a <« na- tural evil”? The term “ natural,” in that connection, is used according to the common distribution of evils, as either moral or natural, that is, ‘any evil which is nof moral ; and not according to the more philosophical dis- tribution of evils into physical, moral, and metaphysicat, But in strictness, passive power is metaphyswal evil; as frequently used by foreign philosophers and_ divines. But the Reviewer asks, ‘Is it an evil, in any sense, for a creature not to be God?” That it is an evil, in a com- parative sense, is as true, as that to possess being without it isa good. By English authors, it is called the evil of ce emperfection, and the evil of wmperfect existence; and as its opposite requires praise, so this demands self-abase- ment.—It is again asked, ‘¢ Cana holy God create an unholy creature?” No. ‘ Or can he, by’ ceasing’ to support its holiness, reduce a creature which has never sinned, to a state of unholiness?? In this question, several things are blended, which ought to be kept separate. It consists of three parts, 1. Is it worthy of - God to reduce a creature to a state of unholiness ? No. 2. Can a creature, which has never sinned, be reduced to unholiness, by any other way than by a voluntary act? No. 3. Is the ceasing to support its holiness the cause Why a creature sins? No. What then is the cause? Its passive power and free will. And no surer does a right line, terminating on another right line, form an anele, than the union of these, without’ sovereign erace, gener- i ates ~ The Theological Review. 553 ates moral imperfection. Hence the supposition blend- ed with the Reviewer’s question, that ‘‘ ceasing to sup- port” would be the cause of ‘* reducing a creature to a state of unholiness,” even without its own fault, implies a total misconception of my sentiments. The Reviewer again states, ‘‘ Support may be ad- mitted, and yet tendency may be denied.” Yes, it may be denied; but not with truth and evidence. The appeal is made to common sense, whether support be needed, where there is no tendency toa different state? Let com- mon sense decide.—But another question, connected with an erroneous view of my sentiments, is, “ Whether the Divine Being, if a holy creature never offended him, could, consistently with his moral perfections, cease to conserve its holiness?’ If ‘* ceasing to conserve its holiness’? mean anything different from permitting ut to sin, the meaning is beyond my present ken. ‘I suppose that this 7s the sense. But is it good sense? The ques- tion, in fact, is this: Could the Divine Being permit a holy creature to sin, “‘ if this holy creature never offend- ed him ?”? It seems, then, that a creature first sts, beforc he is permitted to sin!—The Reviewer proposes an amendment of my phrase ‘‘ tendency to moral defection,” by another, viz. *¢ tendency to want of holiness prior to the first sin.”? Had he comprehended my meaning, he could never have made such a proposal ;—I was going to say, had he comprehended his own meaning. ‘‘ Want of holiness prior to the first sin!’ Does any one comprehend it? Is it comprehensible? But “* tendency to moral defection” is not liable to such inconsistency. Moral defection is an effect of some’ cause ; and that cause, be it what it may, if common sense may judge, has a ¢endency to produce that effect. The Reviewer evidently has not yet divested himself of the false notion, that all tendency must possess a physical character, and therefore is ulti- mately reducible to the divine will. Until, however, he can rise superior to this prejudice, he is not qualified to ‘Myvestigate ae APPENDIX. investigate the origin of evil. He attempts a solution of the difficulty thus: ‘¢ In the hour of combat, Adam possessed all the holiness and wisdom which were con- created with him; but they were finite, and external temptation, being mightier than they, prevailed: Adam, in consequence, voluntarily sinned.”’ If this can satisfy any, as a solution of the problem, I do not envy them their satisfaction. Iam satisfied with it too, as a truism: but does it fairly meet the question, What was the true cause why temptation prevailed? To say that Adam’s holiness and wisdom were finite is no sufficient reason ; for so they were during the time he stood, and so they are now. What inconsistency is there between being jimite and being morally perfect ? There are, I believe, but two things conceivable, by which Adam could be influenced, exclusive of the external object and his free will: the one, concreated holiness; the other, his passive power. Without his free will, he could not sin. Now which of these two principles contributed to his wrong choice? Was it concreated holiness? Absurd. Or was it passive power? Yes, That is, turn the subject which way you please, and view it in whatever light, it still appears, that the true origin of moral evil is passive power united with liberty; or, liberty under the influence of pas- stve power : In other words, the reason why the free will of a perfect creature chose morally wrong, was, the in- fluence of passive power. And I will venture to say, that every other attempt of solving the awful problem, is fairly reducible to an absurdity.—Had the R. under- stood me and TURRETTIN, he could not have put this question : Is not the passage out of TURRETTIN ‘ in direct opposition to Dr. W.’s hypothesis !”” No. It is perfectly consistent, as far as it goes. . TURRETTIN pro- perly states, that ‘* new grace, necessary for his support, was not given” to Adam. But neither this nor any thing else advanced by that valuable writer fairly meets the question, Why did this desertion terminate in sin? No The Theological Review. 555 No desertion conceivable could be the cause of sin, For had Adam been fofally deserted, this could not have constituted him a sinner without his free choice, To make an act of desertion, however total, to influence Adam’s wrong choice, rather than his own passive power, is to confound cause and occasion. By the bye, the R. understands TuURRETTIN to mean, that Adam dost CONFIRMING grace! However accurate Turrertin’s dis- tinctions might be,—potentia non peccandi and efficax gratia,—and I do not dispute their accuracy, they leave the zmmediate cause of sin untouched, i Thad asserted, while stating the respective causes of sin and holiness, “ that the will, in the exercise of its freedom, when producing moral effects, is the instrus ment’of the disposition ; and that the character of the effect bears an infallible and exact proportion to that of the pre-disposing cause.”” (Epw. vol. i. p. 400.) The connection shews my meaning to be, that a disposition under more or less benevolent influence, in the exercise of free volition, produces more or less holiness, in an infallible and exact proportion ; and that the disposition which is more or less under the influence of passive power, is more or less the cause of sin, ina similar pro- portion. Here are two causes, and also two effects, of different characters, exactly corresponding and propor. - tionate. Benevolent influence cannot be the cause of sin, nor can passive power he the cause of holiness, in any measure; but the contrary is true in the exactest degree. What then can more plainly express the senti- ment than the words I have employed, “ that the cha- racter of the effect,” as either sin or holiness, ** bears an infallible and exact proportion to that of the pre-dis- posing cause,” as either benevolent influence in the disposition, - or passive power? But who, possessing © candour and discernment, would infer thence, that my statement implies a szmarity of moral character between sin and the cause of sin? May there not be an exact proportion BBB Ne. OA BRE WDIX. ~ proportion between sin and its cause, without that cause being sinful 2? Or, who would ingraft on my words the absurd sentiment, that, because the character of the effect is moral evil, and because there is an infallible and exact proportion between the character of an effect and its cause, therefore the character of the cause of moral evil, is moral evil /—I had also asserted, that “a suspension of ‘sovereign, holy influence, towards a moral agent, is to deal with him in mere equity ; Pon vol. v. p. 210. ) and, in another connection, (PRED. p. 46.) ‘¢ that then ee can moral agents fall into sin, when dealt with in pure equity.” Here the R. fancies a contradiction between my assertions and Mr. GiLBERT’s statement of them ; but itis nothing more than fancy. For any: one who chooses may see that ‘ mere equity” and ‘ pure equity,’’ are in their respective connections, very differ- ent ideas, The former expresses the supposed absence of sovereign benevolence towards a moral agent; the latter, the comparative influence of equity and sove- reignty when combined. They therefore are a direct answer to these very different questions: What may we call. that perfection of the divine nature which is exercised towards a moral agent, when sovereign beneyo. lence is supposed to be absent? Mere equity. When equity and sovereignty are exercised, in any supposed proportion, towards a moral agent, and he falls into sin by his abuse of liberty, which of them is concerned in the affair, equity alone, sovereignty alone, or both com- bined ? Pure equity—only equity. If needful, it would be easy to illustrate my meaning from objects in nature, Were I speaking of the guantiy of matter, to the exclu- ston of magnitude, the SpBice of the definition would be ‘< mere quantity of matter.” But were I to speak of the quantity of matter and of magnitude in a combined form, and which of the two had an influence on gravitation, I might say, ‘‘ quantity of matter only.” Again; were I speaking of vital air, to the exclusion of. all other air, the The Theological Review. ater «| the subject of my definition would be ‘‘ mere vital air.” But were the enquiry respecting different airs combined, and which of them respectively had an influence in pro-_ moting combustion ; the answer might be, vital: air only ; or, it was purely vital air. | it iain How any one could suspect, from my sermon on Predestination, or from any thing I have written, that I did not acknowledge the divine purpose to- comprehend all events, is to me a mystery ; except sim, or the sznful- ness of acts be included in the term ‘ events.’ But the idea of God purposing the sinfulness, the obliquity, the moral pravity of the act, is what my soul abhors, as the first born of heresies ; as what, in its just consequences, is demonstrably subversive of all religion and morality. The R. speaking of human volitions, asserts, ‘‘ if they are foreknown, they must be included in the divine purpose.” But though all human volitions are included in the divine purpose, the mere fact of their being foreknown is no sufficient proof of it; for the sinfulness of an act is fore- known; is it therefore purposed? He adds, ‘* every thing which has a beginning is an effect of a pre-existing cause—and effects must flow fiom the divine will fore- ordaining them.” Does the sinfudness of human voliti. ons, then, ‘‘ flow from the divine will??? But there 1s another exception. Passive power has a beginning no less than the sinfulness of actions; but does it flow from the divine will? Prior to created existence it could have no place; nor could a creature exist without it. There- fore it does not follow, that what does not flow from the First Cause ‘¢ must be necessary and eternal.” Nor is it true, that “‘ there is no necessity without divine foreordi- nation.’ He who does not comprehend the falsity, of that assumed idea, does not comprehend the true origin of evil. To maintain ‘‘ the divine precourse or pre- motion of human aetions, and the foreordination of them” as actions, is one thing; but to maintain the foreordination of the moral evil of those actions, is ano- ther. 558. ee APPENDIX. ther. The former I believe, with all consistent Calvi- nists : the latter I deny, as an error equally unphiloso- phical, unscriptural, and impious. But he who rejects. the origin of moral evil as before stated, cannot hold this distinction without virtually eineradicunes himself, I had said, that “‘the moral evil which attaches to any act is equitably permitted.” From this the R. infers that — it was purposed. But the inference is not just; for _ permission cannot imply purpose, except on the false assumption that passive power is not the true cause of the perversion of afree act. Allow this cause, and to purpose the permission of sin appears at once a contra- dictory idea, adopted for the sake of avoiding a more obvious absurdity, that is, a direct, voluntary, and eternal necessitation of moral evil, But the idea is a mere sub- terfuge, for want of an open and fair solution of this infinitely peg e and tremendous Lagacaie —l remain, Sir, your’s, &c. E. WILLIAMS. Rotherham, June 14, 1808. 3 SA ee Eaddowes, Printers, Shrewsbury. 5 pl tis oi pha ir Lh a ee oh) oe Sona yd or x eit Ny Hae is yt i 5 a sal de ey sIMy rfc PC hteei UR SL r Ye _ | ‘ ; . ; . tf aid i ves ties ie a be eatin aE NY 8 ‘ a ed 8 8 aR a a ata RRR cd Pe 4 fe! ; | ‘ At: oy & INDEX. UN. B. The hedges refer to. the Page, CA Cuarnock, his view. of eden sGor 107 ' Cote, Elisha, his: remarks on divine so- alg) ese Dy pen inability, ‘See porer vereignty, 150 ; :on particular verre Abraham; promise; to, 63. St. Paul's il- tion, 213. +: lustration of if, 645 ,observations on, 65. Conference, a thethodist, in London, 512 3 ' Adam; what would. bane been the conse- : in Bristol, 313 ; its character, 314, quence of his continued obedience, 56 ; | Consolation, Wasting. dieiw, primobed:. 4°74. «and of bis posterity, without a Saviour, Correspondences, the science of, what, 114, 57 ;' the first promise made,to, 61. Covenant, of redemption and grace, its Agent, moral, definition of, 21 perfect, internal form and external administra« 32; an accountable, 2d..in a state of } — tion, pref. viis the Abrahamic, what, original, probation, 33. 65 ; its exhibition, to whom it belonged, . Agents, free, why permitted to sin, 143, 69; the way of receiving its blessings, AMBROSE,’ St. his remark on redemption, 10: the substance, endj and glory of 223, I puts it, 71; ; its immutability, ib: the Mosaic, Angels, their standing owing had sovereign 13; dlaktrated by Jeremiah and.Paal, grace, 188. /. 74; fornaula of it, 76 ; contains an exe Antinomians, How their errors are best hibition of grace, 77; not iutended ‘to exposed, 432,435. continue, .73 ;..was of Ja preparatory Arimanius and .Oromasdes, wherein dif- nature, 79 ; Fhe gospel called a, 80. ferent from the true God, pref. aNei 5 seobenined. all rash, to be avoided, 8, 14, ArisroTie; his notion of metaphysic or D passive power, 483,485, DAvENANT, Bp. his view of deaieatont Arminzanism examined, 156, &e. an his- ‘190, toric sketch of modern, 312, &e. Decree, not exclusively the ground oficer. Arminius, the system. of, by Saurin, » 10. tain futarition, pref. ix; wherein it Assurance, a full, of faith, how best ac- differs from science and prescience, quired, 474... ! 41900, Axioms, the two grand, in thealogy, 506. ‘B ‘ 5 Demonstration, .wherein it differs from an hypothesis. pref. xii. Dependence, Fenelon’s reflections « on, 162 ; | the extent of creatural, 165 ;- Gale’s Beatriz, Dr. his answer to Hani; re- | reffections on, 166; Baxter’s reflec~ ‘marks on, pref, xx; his account of tions on, 172. metaphysics, censurable, 494, | || Design, rectoral and decretive, what, 92'; BELiamy, his controversy with Hervey, | rectoral, how frustrated, 93 ; ; dare. how best adjusted, 454, &c. tive, anfeustrable, 2b; further illug- Bennet, Rev. W. remarks on. his let. | / trated, 95, 102. ters'on the origin .of evil, 522; his, Difference; essential, between Creator and *< Thoughts on the primary condition | .' creatures, pref, xi. “of intelligent accountable creatures,” | Dispensations, of revealed religion, ‘B, answered, 021, &e. | Drrron, ‘his «remark. onthe origin, of Bootn, Mr. Abraham, his Rematks on | eyil, 184 ;on the understanding and the origin of evil’ and passive power} will, 186. animaaverted Boy 509. Dowiinion; reflections on God’s bsohate, i 169, | C: Call, the gospel, how to form just views. E.. of, 415, Boek aps: Dr. Jonathan, his auswer to Carvin; his view of decor ibist 106; not}. Dr. Chauncy, 134. © sufficiently « guarded respecting ‘the | Epwarps, President, on God’s chief end, cause of ‘sin, 323 5 and predestina- 146 ; on original sin, 160 ; his religious tion, 373, character, 3055; not sufficiently guard- ‘Cause, the true, of the certain futurition ed respecting the causation of sin, 523, of moral evil, of radical ° tie arias 345; for what kind of necessity ‘ip pref. x. - pleads, 344.) Certainty of the event, whether incom- Election, absolute, misrepiresentations of, patible with freedom, 302 ; PropnenG, refuted, 196; whether inequitable, “remarks on, 348... OS ye Chance, incompatible. with wisdom, 3. Had a chief, and an nullimate, how, they Character of God, in reference toa moral differ, 146 ; how sovereignty appears system, pref, xiii, in fixing an ‘ultimate, 148. ‘ Baxren, Mr. Richard, on creataral de. pendence, 172.’ FE NDE Ki. Den agen Fiquity, definition of the. term, | a1, tion of holy fear, ‘60. | Evil, moral, the cause of its cettain futu. -orition, of. most-radical. importance, pref. x; its ultimate cause should not be confounded» with the modus of its origination, xiii ;/its origin, a difficult ‘subject, 4, 6, 1°75 ; moral defined, 35 5 ' icbservations on the definition, 7d. ; ‘erigin, what, 175; demonstrated both a priort, and « posierior?, 176, &e. 340 5 objections answered, 181 ‘ marks:op, 184; all. from ourselves, 306 ; remarks on, 485 ; physieal, what, 7b,'; moral, what, Hele metaphysical, snghat; 467) -y Bxhabition of favours, F Fear; filial, how best dette 467," Fewneton, bis reflections ou absolute de- pendence, 162, Fiercuer, Rev. John, his religious cha- racter, 305, 306; his efforts to sup- port Arminianism, 306 celebrity, 312; his vindication of Mr. J. Wesley, 313, &c. his Checks to Antinomianism, 314; his remarkable concessions, 319, 346; his inconsist- ence in opposing President Edwards, $23, 333; his objections to Calvinism answered, 343, &c.; his mutilated notion of providence, 357; and of de- pendence, 362; his singular remark on God pe rmitting sin, 375; on divine freedom, 380, Foreknowledze, of evil, not the cause of it, 193, Sieisonpns grace, 386, freedom, in a moral agent, what the true. cause of, pref, xiii; consistent with certainty 302 ; of a decries result, 3508 ; constitute his accountability, 310 ; divine, 580, Gaus, Theophilus, on dependence, 166 ; his reflections on the creature’s passive power, 168; on God’s absolute do- minion, 169. GILL, Dr. John, his: aiswer to Whitby, 161. Grass, see Sandemanians. Gop, not the source ot evil, but of good only, prefix. Good, all from God, 306. Gospel, the, called a covenant, 80; es- sentially different from law, 81; its sanctions, what, 2b); hasa surety, 82; is the ministration of the Spirit, 83; spread of the, among the Heathen, 91; though free to ail, is peculiarly adapt- ed to certain CRIM RUY 100; its oh) servations on, 223 divine, the founda its} ; Ditton’s re- 3 his ability and the more claimed fora. creature, the ‘sreater is the certainty / a moral | agent has no more than is needful to | the _ offers to, sinners, 102; spread of the, “among ‘the Heathes » 90, Wes Government, rule of, moral, ; the pre- - sent plan of, sad presnpposes adap of grace, 60. Grace, ‘the finial aritia of: tyopap 605 the ~ display of reedeming) God’s witimate end, 1443 sovereign; the cause of “safety to angels, 188 special, stated, according to Whitby; 24.4 s actording to the assembly of divines; 2465 ob- jections to, answered, 248, &e. 5. in- fused, and. not ' acquired, Ridgeley’s remarks on, 2603 the import of the term, 385, &e.; objective, what, 390 ; required, what, 393 ; subjective ¢ what, 398; the necessity and importance of the latter, 401, &c. its nature, 409, ' Gratitude, how best cultivated, 471, LH 3 Habits, infased, whethel they supersede the use of means, 256, >... Hervey, his view ‘of gospel. iicanibne:; 19 and Bellamy, how thei difference of sentiments is best. estimated, A54, 462, &e, Hiiz, Mr. (now Sir) Richard; ay contro- versy' with Mr, Pletcher, 314, Hitz, Rev,. Rowland, his, controversy with Mr. Fletcher, Plas his friendly remarks, 369, Hinpmarsu, his lettiers to it Pacer 1143 his our ious. remarks on the num- ber of the beast, 115; and of the form of God, $23. ; Fiope, a “ively, hew-best onltineted: ATA, Horkxtys, his remark on: providence, 360 ; his view of the origin.of sin, 420, Hume, a sophist, rather thana metaphy- eSivian, pref ixxiyay sid genuine, how, best jinproved, 468, Fepoidetie, wherein it differs from Sadi. Riad pref. Xbig ‘val Sonfberas: special, hel aae by means ‘of the word, 261, &c., Invitations, sincerity of graciows, how ascertained, 442, . Ah setae the rule and process ‘of the ‘final,’ 1123 according, to the, New Jerusalem Ehitnahs 118, 120; .the ob- ject of, what, 1225 the respective in- fluence of ‘equity “and sovereignty at the, #23 further illustrated, 1@9 ; the effects and eousequences of it, igi. Justificaiion, difficulties respecting, how best adjusted, 46a 5 SHtt hay RK ¥ Kingdom, of Christ, errors ide) the, exposed, 441, . ww Law, no, could recover fallen man, 67; ENDYR, a, as a “rule ‘and’ a. ‘covenant, ih best. asce ertained, B43. Taxs, positive, their. obligation, 54, thy Lziantox, Archbp. a guotation, fiom, on the ‘ divine forcknowledge, bei) 5 bis advice to students,.7 5 his femark re- specting the or gin of evil anitadyert- ed on, 477, 480. Liberty, evidence of its existence, 3; or free will, definition of, 343 amoral agent has no more, than — is needful to “constitute his ‘accountableness, 310; and necessity; how reconciled, 417. Locke, remarks on his netion of passive power, 483; not consistent in ‘his no- tion of power, A845 his | ‘retmaik. on jdeas fr om a privative cause, examined, “519. Lave, holy, how best ‘excited, 466. ‘Masi, ie Persian, ‘their error tespecting vo eternal . principles, how, best con- *“futed, 426.° MAtepnaNcns, concerning nature and “grace, 144.~ Man, atonee.a. passive recipient atid fr ee agent, pref. vii. bis qualific ations as the subject of moral Boyer ntens 43; present. state, 2b. te 48 ;- whence his, obligations, 49, Manicheans, how their error respecting two eternal priechples | is’ best ennited, 426, Mansa, how to estimate his’ princi- ples, 458, 462. Means, moral: 68; moral, no fecurity toa free agent, 188, 218, Mediatorship, wherein it differs from. sure-_ | PotuiILt, on ‘the fectoral will of God, tyship, 105. Medilation, the author’s, in reference to | the difficulty of the subject, 17. Mercy, the display of it, 1439. fi Mefaphysics,’ the folly of opposing, pref. xix, xxi; Dr. Beattie’s view of, with respect ‘to Hume, 2b. xx; advantage. of, 2b.; remarks, on the science, of, 494, &c.; Dr. Beattie’ s account of, 494, Minutes of a London conference publish- ed by Mr. Wesley, 312; by Mr. Fletcher, HS Sa Moral agent ; see agent. Moral obligation ; ; see obligation. Moral evil; see evil. ‘ Motives, foe the doctrine of, best ascer-_ tained, 424. N "Nature, of things, Dr. Beattie’s notion of, 2b. Necessitation to good, what its true cause, pref, xitt. his} i his obligations in- | variable, AT; whence his “depravity, what God requires from, Vv indicated | remarks on the, 503;. Necessity y, not incompatible. with liberty, pref. Vili ; decretive, connected with good only, ix; defisitions of, 38 5. ‘hy- pothetical, whether inconsistent with _ freedom, 302, &e, S775 of prophecy, 3333 what kind of, maintained by President Edwards, 344. NewJerusalem church, chief tenets of thie, 114; remarks on them, 123, pide Noah, promise to, 62. yi ti Number of the beast, curious remarks ‘on the, 116. : | Onigiitidn,? moral, few have denied, ee man the subject of it, 2b. ; the abstir- < dity of denying it, ib. 3 freedom eéssen- tialto, 2;. whence it arises, 53,101 ; “to positive laws, 54; of men to re- _ceive the gospel and its blessings, 97 5 “moral, how best ascertained, 427. Observer, the ‘Christian, his objections answered, 510), &c. Offer, the gospel, remarks on, 102, the foundation of, 105. OricEN, his remarks on the origin of evil; 4; his opinion of future misery, 132. Origin of evil, very dt fferent from the mode of its origination, pref. xii ; of difficult investigation, 46 ; see earn Oromasdes and Arimanius, Wherein differs ent from the true God, pref, ix.” * Owen, Dr. John, his approbation ‘ of Polhill, 110. i O45 Patry, Dr. his notion of moral oblig gation, wherein erroneous, 429. “ae Passive power; see power, Pelagianism, its errors exposed, 440, | Perseverance, the doctrine stated, O74; and proved 277 ; not inequitable, 985, 103 ; his view of redemption, 108; his reasoning on particular redemption, 220. Positive laws; : sée laws, Power, of sinning, and of not sinning, (34 ; Adam bad no inherent, to © preseive himself, but by participation, 161 ; passive, the origin of creatural de- pendence, 168; observations on the word, 481; physical, what, 482; mee tapbysical, what, 2. ; passivé, what, 483,-&c. ; of not sinning, how applica- ble to moral agents, 484; Locke’s notion of, not consistent, 73. Prayer, consistent with sovereignty, 412. Prescience, divine, wherein it differs from science and decree, 307; how recon- ciled with free will, 42% ; ” Saurin’s re- marks on, animadverted on, 479. Proclamatzon, the whole of revelation may be considered as a, 388, Promise, the first to Adam, 613 given for Oe ‘ universal use;, 62; to Noah, 2b. ; to - Abraham, Oe ae Punishment, “future, whether eternal, 13% ; ‘objections to, eternal, answered, 135, «sR, Rectitude, perfect moral, what, " wherein different from equity, 26) Rectoral design 3: see design, Redemption, particular, stated, 211, objections to, answered, O17, 218, _St, Ambrose’s: temarks | on, extent of, how best ascertained, AAD. Regeneration, the doctrine of, how “re- heved from many difficulties, 453, Ret, Dr. his) remar on ‘the aas _ £ passive power?’ animadverted | on, 483, . Religion, personal, - what principle be- friend, 463. . Reprobation, an Dr. White sense ; of, it, _can haye no existence;, 189, 365, tb Resignation, how best. promoted, £OG,. Restoration, the doctrine of universal, . how it should be investigated, YS CARON eh Resurrection, the. New Jerusalem church's notion of the, 1.21. Revelation, its un iversal, aspect, 86; why not actually universal, 88; the duty of christians to diffuse it, 90. 36 ; 916; Kees Review, the Christian Obfer rvers, -answer- | ed, 510; &e.; theological, wrong state- ments af the, reetified, 559, &e, Ripcecey, Dr. his remarks” ou. infused | wrace, and the instrumentality of the | TOES SOD les Ae ain tere rok + Sa'vation, , the means of, 61. ' Sandemanians, their ejror exposed, 438. SAURIN) a quotation, from, op the. divine | “ade oveusy &e. 83 his abridgment, of the | ~ system ‘of Scr his and his followers, 5 | his: abridgment of the system of "Are | .Minius, 10 ; his abridgment of the ree formed doctrine, 12; his’ remark. on divine prescience and. decrees animad- verted on, 479.2, Science, wherein it differs from decree pe : prescience, 307; moral, reference to, 417, Sentiments, in what, Wrepartion valuable, 416. Surrey, the Hon, and Ry, Walter, a circular letter by;. 313. Sin, its origin, 325. 931 , 420.5 its nature, 326 5 its generation, pacortene to Mr. Fletcher, Sad TAGs answered, 329, _ &e.3 not. absolutely necessary, 539; » pertnission of, remarks on, 37) ; exist- ence of, consistent, with the perfections of Deity, 421. Socinvs, the system of, by Saurin, 9. Sovereignty, definition of the term, 25; observations on, 26; of ‘grace, in pro- posing an ultimate end, 1445 ‘the only | advantages in 223 ; the Security against sin, 142; how it ap- pears in fixing an ultimate end of a moral. system, 1485 of ‘grace, in the _ choite of 1 means, 151 sa’ divine attri- / bute, 291; “proof of the doctii ine, 294 “corollaries, from the proof, 499, Srarrer, Jobn Frederic, bis demonstra- ‘tion of malum metaphysicun,. of passive. _ power, 489. Suarelyship, wherein’ it differs’ from. media- torship, 105. SWEDENBORG, his notion of the last judge }* ment, 173, ‘118, 1205) his Sere ; revealed, 116, System, moral, how Just! notions, of a, are best ascertained, 423.) ; fe. Systems, ‘that of Socinus; 9 thal of 'Ar- ni thinius, 10; that of the Reformed, 12, T, | Tendency, metaphysical: ‘to failure, “36; erent kinds of, 499 5. physical, ‘what, S 3‘ moral, what, os letapbysical, hte 500; hypothetical, What, 502 ; : absolute, «hat, 2b. | Tendencies, hypothetical, ‘their existence, 308, Testimony, the. whole of revelation, ‘may be considered as a, "88. Theology, scriptural, how © “we. “may ‘be . assisted to form jaster views of! 432, Torrapy, Rev. Augustus,’ his edutroversy with “Wesley and Fletcher, "OL Ts” Unie gnarded, respecting the causation of sin, 393; and of necessity, S44,’ ‘ Mis- ; represented by Mr. Fletcher, 35h: ‘867; his rash’ inferenéé fioni’ pr edestination to life, 371, f " pl Vice, its nature best’ ascertained, 422, Virtue, its nature how best ascertained, 492, WwW wage Dr. his s remat ks on the, origin. of evil, nh 4.79, ‘Westey,. Rev. John,” his tinates of a “vindicated his remarkable London conference, 312; by Mr. Fletcher, 313 ; concessions, 319, Waurrsy, Dr. his ausbaihie on. the Miva points ‘examined, 156;° bis Calvinistic: education, 157 ; sin, 158. _ his view of original Will, the, whether determined by grace, 263 ; objections — to, “answered, ‘266, &e. ‘determined by grace, not incon- sistent with equity, | 71) Ke. _WINCuEsTRR, his arguments for universal restoration, answered, 435," ‘ WotFius, Christian, he demonstration of malum metapin ysicum, OF passive power, 489, &e, ¥ ZENO, his remark on fate, 7. Ad % VER \ pa “Ls or SUBSCRIBERS, Acppay, mr. 3. Kirby Hall. Abbay, Mr. R. Branton Green, i¥ Adams, Mr. James, Rotherham, | se i Allies, Mr. J. Worcester Allies, Mr. R. Ditto, , pe ty fies iv Alliott, Rev, Mr. Notting sna geritas Andrews, Mr. Wrawby . - SE caps yiakis Andrews, Mr. Hoxton. e aot OA Arundel, Rey. Mr, Whitby” ey Ash, Mr. W. Rotherham oan br ieaiadl Ashton, Mr. G. Darwin, Ask, Mr. R. Sprotsbro’ ny. Aaiibs: Mr. J. “Nottingham BU oi eit Audley, John, Esq, | a ie IML 333 ¢ we Tos zalsaslweH Barber, Rev. Mr, Londoa,, t Barber, Rey, Mr Tees en Barge, Mr. sain ‘Weedon’ Barnard, Mr. J Peace: | Barnet, Mr. F. ‘To don. av Naot” ote Barr, Mr. Worces' er map eee Barrow, Mr. Nottingham’ Bates, Mr. Ditto, Bell, Mr. James, ‘Uppingham’ Bennet, Rev. Mr. Romsey, o. t st) Bennet, Rev, Mr,, Chapel - -en-Le Frith a Berry, Mr. Cornelius, Homerton Berry, Rev. J. ‘Warminster, Simi Best, Mr. John, ‘Kidderminster Bettridge, Mr. Birmingham fe Bidlake, Mr, James, Homerton Bicknet, Rev, J, C. Welford’ Binkliff, Rev. Mr. Alfreton, 8 ini Blair, Mr. D. Birmingham *" © Boden, Rev. Mr. Sheffield Bogue, Rey, David, A. M, Gosport Book Society, Kilsby ” Book Society, Creaton ‘ Booth, Mr. James, Weedon Boothby, Mr. Doncaster. ' . Bottomley, Rev. ‘Mr, ane 5 Bowden Rev. R, Darwin | Ne Bowden, Mr, J..S, Holl’ Bowden, Mr. W. Ditto Bowman, Mr. Sheffield Brackstone, Mr. R. Homerton Bradburn, Rev. Ss. Wakefield, Bradley, Mr. B. Birtaingham - Briggs, Mr. Thomas, Brampton Briggs, Mr. ‘Wakefield Broadhurst, Mr. Canklow | Broom, Mr. S. Kidderminster Brown, Mr. Wrexham ae & dm fo ae sect Mel > fp FG i Be Be Aww a i Se » A Bis ra eae 6 wf Ss, agnté ol | pits wo rh aba ste ue ae rh | Aipae vn Pee ree ha Ligue. ft ty Wier 14 Piet a oe i oa) ett (ahi a ate | Havant Bis Mr..Gi Kenilali, aba inert, Brownlow, Mr. Retford *: ih eres | Bruce, Rev. Mr. Wakefield.” Bulmer, Mr. J. Rotherham Burder, Rev. G. London!) .F 5 Burder, Rev. Samuel, Hackney Road ‘1. Burgess, Colonel, Falmouth if, jess Burton;\Mr. Wrexham. (fo) 0 Tasted Os) “ Bees agi Cairns, E. Esq, gti Sete “ Hag Campion, Robert, Eeclicitegpot) BE Capes, Mr. Retford. Po he Carlill, Mr, J. Bull “aint y7 od Carver, Rev. W. Melbourn! © Carr, Mr. John, Rotherham, .» .. Chadwick, Mr. J. Bury 07)) Chapman, Mr. G. Spilsby. .+ Charles, Rev. Mr. Bala, 8 Churchill, Mrs. Nottingham. . Clamroch, Mr. R, Norwich, ;.. | Clark, Mr. S, Nottingham Clark, Rev. Mr. Brigg ‘Clarke, Mr. James, Rotherham. Clarke, Mr. Thomas, Rugby grounds Clarke, Mr. Thomas, Wath |. Clayton,' Mr. Retford. .. Cleaver, Richard, Esq. Newport Cleaver, Mrs. Ditto Clegg, Mr. Arthur, Manchester Clegg, Mr. Abraham, Chester Cocks, Mr. T. Birmingham... Colledge, Mr. Thomas, Kilsby Coles,, Rev. Mr. Stand Ue ee Collis, Mr. N, Kettering .».' _ | Conder, Mr. John, Homerton . | Cook, Rev. George, Reeth, 2... | Cooper, Rev.. Mr, Westbromwiok at } Cousins, Mr, Fiamoth: Craven, Mr. Wakefield | Creak, Mr. Abraham, Homerton. ie { Crookes, Mr, T. Rotherham, 30., | | Cowley, Mr, John, Kilsby 1 Crosby, Mr. W. Keisit | Cross, Mr. James, London, Custance, Mr, G. Kidderminster, D ; sh Daniel, Mr, Joseph, Derby mary Darwen, “Mr. W. Wentworth Davidson, Rev. Ralph, Bridli ngton Davies, Rev. Dr. Reading Davies, Rey. E, Hanover, Sri Davis, "Mr. J. Birmingham . Dawes, Mr. J. Handsworth. | Dawes, Mr. Wm. Gr, Houghton va LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. Denny, My Sad" ay . Green, Mr. J. Nottingham Dickenson, Mr. B eat io Nes re hGecentar Mr..R, dit Dillon, Mr, Manet eter 4 LLG eenhow). Mr. T.Keudal Dixon, Mr. J. Snaith tlk Greenwood, Mr. G. Hull Dobson, Mr. Fimothy, sen. Kidderminster~ fA, Rev. Mr. Ipswich, 8 Drinkall, Mr. J. Rustand Griffin, Rev. Mr. Portsea, 8 : Dunderdale, Mr. JisWakefidd iM oo og | Griffiths, Rey. J, Carnarvon. mae | . Dann, Mr. Thomas; Sheffield’ ewolivwoult § Griffiths, Mr: Wrexham Lai re ’ Dunn, Mr. Nottingham’ iv vest sori Lucho. Ret Jos, Weedon aM evedde. fi6t MBsI0” CaM sonia | Grundy, RE¢! "Mr, Leicester: INE ERD Earl, Rev. H. Pipi i 2 wold re ahead es tee AE PRT ES. Eccles, Rey. Wy Leeils, 89 995) »» oet | Habershon, Mr. Holmes 3 AE eae Habershon, Mf ‘Botidow 1M. 7 Both Hacking, Rev. Mr. Darwin, gh ct wh Hall, Mr. John, W akefield 98 owesh: Halliday, Mr, Alex! atlnoaedt abtith ! Eddowes, Messrs..Salop .!9iiclo9 ass: qd Edwards, Rev. B. k. Nortliampton sc Edw rads, Miss J. Cefnmine Edwards, Mro Wh “Birmiogham ot Eggington, Joseph, disq, Hull.) oiqiae | Hammond, Rev. §! Hatidsworth RE ated, ENiot, Mr. Phomas Daventry’ if .zoqst) | Harbottle, Mr. Tottlbank i yee Kilis, Mr. Wrexham |)! Sa Jivis2 | Harris, Rev. Mr. Cambridge, S y's Ely, Rev. C..Bnepdioly OM yo oe7is Hutson: Mr, Joshua, Hoxton: } Catt Evans, Rev. Wi-Stoeckport, 9. ati ried | Harrold, Mr. ‘Westbromwich 4 this Ewans, Mr. Richaray Kidderminster » | Hawksley, Mr, J. Rotherham eas Cee Ewing, Rev, Mr. Glasgow iM winoraed) | Heron, Mro-J,.Hy _Mafichester’ gtadha es gab ee eae i eoliei | Hemmington, Rev, Mr Thorp Arch*® Fitzwilham) the Right Hoa Earl, We ent? Hill, Rev, R. ACM. London” Bok y S.sed nt — worth House!) vin, ioormels | Hil, Rev. T: ‘Homiertorr sts : Hating Warmer, Rev. Mr. Leeds, 8 a alt ish > Hill, Mr. John Cottingham: bee ns ra Field, Rew H. S, Blandford” lio!) | Hinchcliffe, Mr, Holmes WB rate ; Finch; James, Esq. Little ‘Heddidigham Hobson, Rev, B, Driffield ha Fishet, Rey. H. Kirk, Hammenton,. 9.00) Hodson, Mr, G.. London i eo Fleck, Mr. Masbro’ . 0 | Hoe, Mr. J. Rotherham en eae Bletcher, Rev. Mr, A. M. Blackburn Holford, Mr. London, 8 she ig: Sean Flight, Mr. J, Worcester / Hollick, Mr. John, Creaton Ph aie! Forman, Heury, Esq. Lambeth | Holmes, Mr. J. Bury Stns? Forman, William, Esq. Greenwich. )»» | Hooton, Major, Falmouth — te Foster, Mr. G. Rotherham Horner, Mr. Wakefield 0 7" «= Foulstone, Mr. T. Brampton’ Hudson, Mr, Fe ‘Masbro? y “plant vox, Mr. Wm. Johnson, Homerton Humpage, Mx. Job, Kidderminster. wing Fox, M. D. Derby Hamphreys, Mr, Abel, Ditto : Be ia Frears, W. Esq. Birmingham Hunt, Mr. J. Wath, 2 se ae a Frears, Mr. E, Ditto Hurst, Mr. Geo, ‘Rotherham | Frears, Mr, W; jun. Liverpool AS } Frome, Rew Mr. London 4 Jackson, Rev. Mr. Creen Hammerton ee Fulla, Rev, A. Kettering. . | Jackson, Mr. Thomas, Manchester . G | James, Rev. J. A. Birmingham : Gausby, Mr. J. Birmingham { Jepbcott, Mr. Wim. Kilsby af an - Gawthorne, Rey. James, Derby ~~ 4 Inderwick, Mr, Homerton i Gilbert, Rev. Mr. Rutherham' | Johnson, Mr, William, Wakefield Gill, Rey. Joseph, Hinckley | - | Jones, Rev, Mr. Creaton’. _ é staan nl Gill, Mr. W. Wath Jones, Rev. T. Chaltord, Sai.” ar geal Gillam, Mrs. Worcester - Jones, Mr. Thomas, Ruthin, 5 5 | Gillam, Mr. R. Ditto Jones, Rev. T. Jeisby fp: daca ue Glossop, Rev, Ebenezer, ae » | Jones, Rev. D, Holywell, 13 paren Glover, Mr. Wakefiela de Glover, Mr, C, Birmingham Good, Mr. Alexander, Homerton Goodwin, Mr, Wim. Brigg Goodwin, Mr. W. Winterton Goulty, Mr. J. Nelson, Homerton; 8 Greaves, 5. Esq. Greystones, 5 { Jones, Mr, John, London, 8 ridudiah Jones, Rey, William, Tyddyndu pil | Jones, Mr. J. Brynjletrith Jones, Rev. T. Newmarket, 8 Jones, Mr. A, Ross, 4.. ame Kay, Rey. James, Kendal } {Bi LIST OF" SUBSORIDERS, Kay, R. Esq. Stand” Tech ieoreo Ny Powell; Bi Mr, Denbigh, MET aa Kidd, Rev. A, Cattinchou’: mh adktie Vy | Pritchard, Mr. Delbares i King, Rev. Mr. Revs. s¥¥5 3 Vy Rt) ae. King, Rev. Mr. Doncaster; 3 tie '| Ramsden, Rev. Richard, pe ‘ elloy of Kingsbury, Rev. dit A. My Souths Trinity College, Cambridge, nd ampton™ ye | puty Regius ec ca ae ‘Disinity Kirby; Mr. Holmes’) hodae? th | that Uuiversity © | te fee Knight, Rev, re ¥ a et ‘| Raffles, Mr. Thani Hlornayion abs Guy Ee ois 208 0 MF UT Ramsey, Rev. Mr. Boleume AME ERI Lambert, Rev. Mr. Hull Vite eich! 1 Rankin, Mr, Doncastertay |) Gh ade «| Lawtou, "Mr. W. Wakefield | Rawson, Mr. T. Notfipebann pain Lea, Mr. T. Simeox, Kidderminster '“» 4 Rawson, Mr. Moe re ae Lemorier, Mrs. MaAsbio’ ss aE ' “! 1) Rayson,- Rev. Mvi Wakefield i? 7 7, 40'¥ Lewis, Rev. J. Wrexham. - | Redford, Mrs George, Hoxton, iv Lewis, Rev. G, Llanawenllyn, 16. Pe 2 Richards, Rev. J. Hall, Oe ; % Lingford Mr. Nottingham, 2” + Roberts, Mr. Joniahy Lado 5 fig My Little, Rev. Mr.’ Birminghawn SV ~ | Roberts, Mr. R. Carnarvone: 34 rs i Lloyd, Mr, Ross, 2°20)?! Bal gh IT | Roberts, Mr. R. Ceirehig’ hep ee Lowrie, Mr. J. Wakefield” ee a, { Roberts, Rev. Mr. Lianbesnina ce ar M ua i Robinson, Benjamin,“ M. ‘D. Masbro’ Macgavin, Mr. W. Glasgow *. Robinson, Mr. J. Masbro’ ' Maclaurin, Mr. C. Rotherham Rogers, Joseph, Esq. Birnie tion Heyl Maitland, Eb. Esq. Clapham Rose, Mr William, Rotherham, Manchester, Mr. Wakefield = | Russel, Mr. Jaines; Dodford | Martin, Mr, F. Godmanchester Rust, Mr, William, ull. ° 5 Maxwell and Wilson, London, 50° S ' Melvill, Governor, Pendennis Castle Sandys, Colonel, Helston — Midwood, Mr. Wakefieid Satchell, Mr. Timothy, Kilsby Mitchel!, Rev. 'T. Leicester, 8 Moorhouse, Rev, W. Wath Morley, Mr. Womerton Morley, Mr. C. L. Nottingham Munton, Mr, } Nottingham . N ~Newham, Mr. Nottingham Newnam, Miss, Birmingham Nicklin, Rev. T. Burwell Norman, Mr. Rotherham Noteutt, Mr. William, Homerton, 2 ( O Ogle, Mr. Glasgow, 6 Orme, Mr. J. Birmingham Orton, Mr. Sheffield, 6 Osborn, Mr. W, Cork Osborn, Rev. George, Worcester Owens, Miss A. Carnarvon P Parken, Mr. John, Cottesbrook Partridge, Mr. 58, Ross Paytou, Mrs, Esther, Kidderminster Pearce, Mr. James, Homerton ; Pell, Mr. Andrew, Kilsby ‘ Pepper, Mr. W. Nottingham Perkins, Mr. Edward, Kilsby Phillips, Rev, Maurice, Rotherham: Phillips, Rev. James, Clapham Scorer, Mr. Henry, Nettinghana Scott, Mr. Wakefield Scott, Rev. Mr. Eastwood, 5 1 Scrivener, Mr. Joseph, Sewell grounds “| Shaw, MioW. Wakefield | Shillito, Mr. W. Rotherham Shuttleworth, Mr. Nottingham Smallpage, Mr. W. Doucaster Smith, Mr. E. Masbro’ Snelgar, Mr. Jacob, Hoxton | Spear, Robert, Esq. Manchester Spencer, Mrs. Bramiey Grange Spooner, Mr, Doncaster Spring, Mr. Chr. Brigg Spurr, Miss, Brigg Star, Mr, T. Retford, 2 Steill, Rev. Alexander, Kiddermirster Stephenson, Rev. W. Gumberthorix } Stephenson, Rev. Mr. Olney Stonard, Joseph, Esq. Stamford Hill Straham, Mr.. i lay Students, at Wrexhain, 7 _ Sugden, Rev. Mr. Skipton, 10 Summerfield, Mr. Kendal Sunderland, Mr. W. Wakefield Sute!-ff, Rev. Mr, Olney — se Ee | Swan, “ir. Christopher, Nottingham oe Swan, Mr. E, Ditto La ij Phipps Pickering, Mr. Vowcester gatas j : : AEE A oe Pickering, Rev. Mr. Brigstock Tait, Mr. James; Homerton) ee hae Poweil, Rev. Jonathan, Ridsmeirch . Taylor, Rev. Mr. Bradford, 8° #0 ae: Powell, Mr. Benjamin, Ditto Taylor, Mr, S, Bumingham_ i Pearse Rev. Re td glieta’® tt walt Whitfield, Revs Cs Hemsterley, & Por | Whitehead, Rey. Jos. iCoeatonatt fy Kerth amptonshire” }- eo sae | Whitmore, Mrs. Kilsby aa Hoeeit past Whittenbury, Mr. J. Hotherhurn, Ne? ee William, Esq.'M.P. Wildbore, Rev. Timothy, Penryn iris? Wildbore, Rev, J. B. Falmouth, Roary Williams, Mrs. Nottingham... “Medtind Williams, Rev. David, Swanland inte: 3 ‘Williams, Mr. D. Saethon DB até vee Wilson, Mr. J. Newcastle . "9 pied Wilson, Mr. T. Birmingham, ha Wilson, Mr. J. Shrewsbury) Winter, Rev. R. London A OE Wood, Mr. William, Swinton da ie ateys Wolley, Mrs. Nottingham, ah Hoek Wright, Mrs. H; Ditto.) 9. iy yo) Wright, Mr. James;Ditto Wright, ree Wakefield ie went ue rt Wie FTEs ome. ¢ nie eh. 43 M Yeomans, Ran Jeneph Lanes, ia M: Babee} enn ath adeno: j Pas Se ee eid aed 7 Pe NRE A, “3 et - anc Seon Bebe ae Sei Ba Pai ih wl aM afaion 4 "Walker, Miss, Saari sit ate eei d Walker, Mrs. Mary, Kidderminster % Walker, Mrs, Masbio?? Walker, ‘Mrs, Aston, 0) 1. as nbn gt Walker, Joshua, Esq. Chifton | a il Walker, T. Esq. Berry Hill ; ne) Wallace,’ Mr. James, Manchester a Ward, Rev. W. Stowmarket = Waban NN ; { # ised ee ty fe veces ey Co] : ich’ i + Be Ret | ot) 7 yf) op pelt DOE Rael eee) Aig wirild en j > : 2 re bE tral rte ‘3 at “e Pus “yah it ae ies Ut eta: ; tis VP 2591 anette te ase Bt N. B: Should any names of cabberibark be missing | through mistake 1 in. the above _ fist, on signifying their claims to either: the publisher or the. author, they” ‘shall he supplied on n subsEeIBHON terms while aint eg remain, = a f att uf “y reeg ie eR tt * ay 2 ‘ aan -% Teves | eee : tT 54 Hill tem wit a4 xy y ry SAS Me ; : R P53 t = eer ae ental se. hi ‘ ; Art ieee ee WEN eae ; t gbabhkt ¥e S| eee BI OrS vada a it; are i 4 ‘ gate fy Or a 1 “et f SPE Avy A ee ; Px P! ee od Ts seticis f . ew: " * - tars Rie ae ? es . is ayes “ ir pete ; y samen C5) 90. bere e Be To j ELS ee VI ange) 39 eas Wake 2 . 1 ‘ ¢ coe 1 ‘fa % Ssee 5G: cf Pan 9, Fig i # ae gs ala RISA TH EDC AEA Gane CF Poe ie ru eee A ¢ 4 a oe é : ¥ Ig SiS. pity pi pea : birt as tim ed t fs VENA ED x pie eee a ‘ kg 4, 4 Fi ’ 4 i § 4 Spe he BOCES HOU RTs ANG sgftagtie'¢ 4 4 FY ra] y t ‘7 4 gees ate | Ht sf tat Eddo owes, Printers, Shrewsbury, Bares woabbre:' dh BSE eens Jey woth te A od cf eatin a ; #10 ry aks 2 tb. pa I “pas { j ' ef 3 thd be gay ri 4 ‘ ‘ ? yt a 7 wh ot , . ” F208) HOTS Pie 2 Suey SO eaves t 4 eee i 5 Sa a Wael A ARIA Rt) oli a a hen ts peak td ey dgdinanl, ett = owns Pe - - Poni lt es , Th — ~*~ " gi, : Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library LO 1 1012 010