THIRD CHECK TO ANTINOMIANISM;

IN A LETTER

TO THE

AUTHOR OF PIETAS OXONIENSIS.

BY THE VINDICATOR OF THE REV. MR. WESLEY'S MINUTES

Reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long suffering and (Scriptural) doctrine; for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, 2 Tim. iv, 2, 3.

Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. But let brotherly love continue, Tit. I, 13; Heb. xiii, 1.

HONOURED AND DEAR SIR,-- Accept my sincere thanks for the Christian courtesy with which you treat me in your Five Letters. The title page informs me, that a concern for "mourning backsliders, and such as have been distressed by reading Mr. Wesley's Minutes, or the Vindication of them," has procured me the honour of being called to a public correspondence with you. Permit me, dear sir, to inform you, m my turn, that a fear lest Dr. Crisp's balm should be applied, instead of the Balm of Gilead, to Laodicean loiterers, who may haply have been brought to penitential distress, obliges me to answer you in the same public manner in which you have addressed me.

Some of our friends will undoubtedly blame us for not yet dropping the contested point. But others will candidly consider, that controversy, though not desirable in itself, yet, properly managed, has a hundred times rescued truth, groaning under the lash of triumphant error. We are indebted to our Lord's controversies with the Pharisees and scribes for a considerable part of the four Gospels. And, to the end of the world, the Church will bless God for the spirited manner in which St. Paul, in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, defended the controverted point of a believer's present justification by faith; as well as for the steadiness with which St. James, St. John, St. Peter, and St. Jude carried on their important controversy with the Nicolaitans, who abused St. Paul's doctrine to Antinomian purposes.

Had it not been for controversy, Romish priests would to this day have fed us with Latin masses and a wafer god. Some bold propositions, advanced by Luther against the doctrine of indulgences, unexpectedly brought on the reformation. They were so irrationally attacked by the infatuated Papists, and so Scripturally defended by the resolute Protestants, that these kingdoms opened their eyes, and saw thousands of images and errors fall before the ark of evangelical truth.

From what I have advanced in my Second Check, it appears, if I am not mistaken, that we stand now as much in need of a reformation from Antinomianism as our ancestors did of a reformation from Popery; and I am not without hope that the extraordinary attack which has lately been made on Mr. Wesley's anti-Crispian propositions, and the manner in which they are defended, will open the eyes of many, and check the rapid progress of so enchanting and pernicious an evil. This hope inspires me with fresh courage; and turning from the lion, and Rev. Mr. Shirley, I presume to face (I trust in the spirit of love and meekness) my new respectable opponent.

I. I thank you, sir, for doing Mr. Wesley the justice in your first letter of acknowledging, that "man's faithfulness is an expression which may be used in a sober, Gospel sense of the words." It is just in such a sense we use it; nor have you advanced any proof to the Contrary.

We never supposed that "the faithfulness of God, and the stability of the covenant of grace, are affected by the unfaithfulness of man." Our Lord, we are persuaded, keeps his covenant when he spews a lukewarm, unfaithful Laodicean out of his mouth, as well as when he says to the good and faithful servant, "Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." For the same covenant of grace which says, "He that believeth shall be saved;-- he that abideth in me bringeth forth much fruit," says also, "He that believeth not shall be damned;-- every branch in me that beareth not fruit, is cast forth and burned."

Thanks be to Divine grace, we make our boast of God's faithfulness as well as you, though we take care not to charge him, even indirectly, with our own unfaithfulness. But from the words which you quote, "My covenant shall stand fast with his seed," &c, we see no more reason to conclude that the obstinately unfaithful seed of Christ, such as Hymeneus, Philters, and those who to the last "tread under foot the blood of the covenant wherewith they were sanctified," shall not be cast off; than to assert that many individuals of David's royal family, such as Absalom and Amnon, were not cut off on account of their flagrant and obstinate wickedness.

We beseech you, therefore, for the sake of a thousand careless Antinomians, to remember that the apostle says to every believer, "Thou standest by faith; behold therefore the goodness of God toward thee, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off." We entreat you to consider, that even those who admire the point of your epigram, "Whenever we say one thing, we mean quite another," will not be pleased if you apply it to St. Paul, as you have done to Mr. Wesley. And when we see God's covenant with David grossly abused by Antinomians, we beg leave to put them in mind of God's covenant with the house of Eli. "Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I chose thy father out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest; [but thou art unfaithful] thou honourest thy Sons above me. I said indeed, that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever: but now be it far from me; for them that honour me, I will honour; and they that despise me, shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy house; and I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in my heart," 1 Sam. ii.

II. Your second Letter respects working for life. You make the best of a bad subject, and really some of your arguments are so plausible, that I do not wonder so many men should commence Calvinists, rather than be at the trouble of detecting their fallacy. I am sorry, dear sir, I cannot do it without dwelling upon Calvinism. My design was to oppose Antinomianism alone: but the vigorous stand which you make for it upon Calvinian ground, obliges me to encounter you there, or to give up the truth which I am called to defend. I have long dreaded the alternative of displeasing my friends or wounding my conscience; but I must yield to the injunctions of the latter, and appeal to the candour of the former. If impetuous rivers of Geneva Calvinism have so long been permitted to flow through England, and even deluge Scotland, have not I some reason to hope that a rivulet of Geneva anti-Calvinism will be suffered to glide through some of Great Britain's plains; especially if its little murmur harmonizes with the clearest dictates of reason, and loudest declarations of Scripture?

Before I weigh your arguments against working for life, permit me to point out the capital mistake upon which they turn. You suppose, that free preventing grace does not visit all men; and that all those in whom it has not prevailed, are as totally dead to the things of God, as a dead body is to the things of this life: and from this unscriptural supposition you very reasonably conclude, that we can no more turn to God than corpses can turn themselves in their graves; no more work for life, than putrid carcasses can help themselves to a resurrection.

This main pillar of your doctrine will appear to you built upon the sand, if you read the Scriptures in the light of that mercy which is over all God's works. There you will discover the various dispensations of the everlasting Gospel; your contracted views of Divine love will open into the most extensive prospects; and your exulting soul will range through the boundless fields of that grace which is both richly free in all, and abundantly free for all.

Let us rejoice with reverence while we read such scriptures as these:

"The Son of man is come to save that which is lost, and to call sinners to repentance. This is a true saying, and worthy of all acceptation,-- worthy of all men to be received,-- that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. To this end he both died and rose again, that he might be the Lord of the dead and living. He came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved, and that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord."

"Bound every heart, and every bosom burn," while we meditate on these ravishing declarations: "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life, lie was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law," that is, all mankind; unless it can be proved that some men never came under the curse of the law. He is the Friend of sinners, the Physician of the sick, and the Saviour of the world: "He died, the just for the unjust; he is the propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. One died for all, because all were dead. As in Adam all die, even so in Christ," [during the day of their visitation,] all are blessed [with quickening grace, and therefore in the last day] "all shall be made alive," to give an account of their blessing or talent. "He is the Saviour of all men, especially of them that believe:" and the news of his birth are "tidings of great joy to all people. As by the offence of one judgment came upon all men, even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men; for Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man; he is the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world: therefore God commandeth all men every where to repent,-- to look unto him and be saved."

Do we not take choice jewels from Christ's crown, when we explain away these bright testimonies given by his free grace? "It pleased the Father by him to reconcile all things to himself. The kindness and pity of God our Saviour toward man has appeared. I will draw all men unto me. God was in him reconciling the world unto himself." Hence he says to the most obstinate of his opposers, "These things have I spoken unto you, that ye might be saved. If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin, [in rejecting me,] but now they have no cloak for their sin," no excuse for their unbelief.

Once indeed, when the apostles were on the brink of the most dreadful trial, their compassionate Master said, "I pray for them, I pray not for the world." As if he had said, Their immediate danger makes me pray as if there were but these eleven men in the world, "Holy Father, keep them." But having given them this seasonable testimony of a just preference, he adds, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them who shall believe, that they all may be one," may be united in brotherly love. And he adds, "that the world may believe, and may know that thou hast sent me."

If our Lord's not praying, for a moment, on a particular occasion, for the world, implies that the world is absolutely reprobated, we should be glad of an answer to the two following queries:-- (l.) Why did he pray the next day for Pilate and Herod, Annas and Caiaphas, the priests and Pharisees, the Jewish mob, and Roman soldiers; in a word, for the countless multitude of his revilers and murderers? Were they all elect, or was this ejaculation no prayer, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do?" (2.) Why did he commission St. Paul to say, "I exhort, first of all, that supplications, prayers, and intercessions be made for all men; for this is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all?"

Without losing time in proving that none but artful and designing men use the word all to mean the less number, and that all, in some of the above-mentioned passages, must absolutely mean all mankind, as being directly opposed to all that are condemned and "die in Adam;" and without stopping to oppose the new Calvin Ian creation of "a whole world of elect;" upon the preceding scriptures I raise the following doctrine of free grace:-- If Christ tasted death for every man, there is undoubtedly a Gospel for every man, even for those who perish by rejecting it.

St. Paul says, that "God shall judge the secrets of men, according to his Gospel." St. Peter asks, "What shall be the end of those who obey not the Gospel of God "and the apostle answers, "Christ, revealed in flaming fire, will take vengeance on them who obey not the Gospel," that is, all the ungodly who "receive the grace of God in vain, or turn it into lasciviousness." They do not perish because the Gospel is a lie with respect to them, but "because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." God, to punish their rejecting the truth, results that they should believe a lie; "that they all might be damned, who, to the last hour of their day of grace, believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

The latitude of our Lord's commission to his ministers demonstrates the truth of this doctrine: "Go into all the world, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." hence those gracious and general invitations, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, [after happiness,] come ye to the waters; if any man thirst, [after pleasure,] let him come to me and drink. Come unto me, all ye that labour, [for want of rest,] and I will give it to you. Whosoever will, let him come and take the water of life freely. Y adulterers,-- draw nigh unto God, and he will draw nigh unto you. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man open, I will come in and sup with him. Go out into the highways and hedges, preach the Gospel to every creature; and lo, I am with you to the end of the [world."]

If you compare all the preceding scriptures, I flatter myself, Hon. sir, you will perceive, that as the redemption of Christ is general, so there is a general Gospel, which is more or less clearly revealed to all, according to the clearer or more obscure dispensation which they are outwardly under.

This doctrine may appear strange to those who call nothing Gospel but the last dispensation of it. Such should remember that as a little seed, sown in the spring, is one with the large plant into which it expands in summer; so the Gospel, in its least appearance, is one with the Gospel grown up to full maturity. Our Lord, considering it both as sown in man's heart, and sown in the world, speaks of it under the name of "the kingdom of heaven," compares it to corn, and considers first the seed, then the blade, next the ear, and last of all the full corn in the ear.

1. The Gospel was sown in the world as a little but general seed, when God began to quicken mankind in Adam by the precious promise of a Saviour; and when he said to Noah, the second general parent of men, "With thee will I establish my covenant;" blessing him and his sons after the deluge.

2. The Gospel appeared as corn in the blade, when God renewed the promise of the Messiah to Abraham, with this addition, that though the Redeemer should be born of his elect family, Divine grace and mercy were too free to be confined within the narrow bounds of a peculiar election: therefore, "in his seed," that is, in Christ the Sun of righteousness, "all the families of the earth should be blessed;" as they are all cheered with the genial influence of the natural sun, whether he shines above or below their horizon, whether he particularly enlightens the one or the other hemisphere.

3. The Gospel word grew much in the days of Moses, Samuel, and Isaiah; "for the Gospel," says St. Paul, "was preached unto them as well as unto us," though not so explicitly. But when John the Baptist, a greater prophet than any of them, began to preach the Gospel of repentance, and point sinners to "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world," then the ear crowned the blade, which had long been at a stand, and even seemed to be blasted.

4. The great Luminary of the Church shining warm upon the earth, his direct beams caused a rapid growth. The Favonian breathings and sighs which attended his preaching and prayers, the genial dews which distilled on Gethsemane during his agony, the fruitful showers which descended on Calvary, while the blackest storm of Divine wrath rent the rocks around, and the transcendent radiance of our Sun, rising after this dreadful eclipse to his meridian glory; all concurred to minister fertile influences to the Plant of Renown. And on the day of pentecost, when power came from on high, when the fire of the Holy Ghost seconded the virtue of the Redeemer's blood, the full corn was seen in the mystical ear; the most perfect of the Gospel dispensations came to maturity; and Christians began to bring "forth fruit unto" the "perfection" of their own economy.

As some good men overlook the gradual display of the manifold Gospel grace of God, so others, I fear, mistake the essence of the Gospel itself. Few say, with St. Paul, "The Gospel of which I am not ashamed, is the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth,-- with the heart unto righteousness," according to the light of his dispensation. And many are afraid of his catholic doctrine, when he sums up the general everlasting Gospel in these words: "God was not the God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also; because that which may be known of God," under their dispensation, "is manifest in them, God having showed it unto them. For the grace of God, which bringeth salvation," or rather, [xp'c, o'wc,pio], the grace emphatically saving, "hath appeared unto all men; teaching us to deny all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, justly, and godly, in this present world."

"But how does this saving grace teach us?" By proposing to us the saving truths of our dispensation, and helping our unbelief, that we may cordially embrace them; for "without faith it is impossible to please God." Even the heathens who "come to God, must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; for there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, the same Lord over all being rich unto all them that call upon him."

Here the apostle starts the great Calvinian objection: "But how shall they believe, and call on him, of whom they have not heard?" &c. And having observed that the Jews had heard, though few had believed, he says, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," which is nigh, even in the mouth and in the heart of all who receive the truth revealed under their dispensation. Then resuming his answer to the Calvinian objection, he cries out, "have not they" (Jews and Greeks) all "heard" preachers, who invite them to believe that God is good and powerful, and consequently that he is the rewarder of those who diligently seek him? "Yes, verily," replies he, "their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the end of the world."

If you ask, "Who are those general heralds of free grace, whose sound goes from pole to pole?" The Scripture answers with becoming dignity: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handy work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. There is no speech or language [no country or kingdom] where their voice is not heard. Their [instructing] line went through the earth, [their vast parish,] and their words to the ends of the world," their immense diocese. For "the invisible things of God, [that is, his greatness and wisdom, his goodness and mercy,] his eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [and preserved,] so that [the very heathens, who do not obey their striking speech,] are without excuse; because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful."

This is the Gospel alphabet, if I may be allowed the expression. The apostle, like a wise instructor, proceeded upon the plan of this free grace, when he addressed himself to the heathens: "We preach unto you," said he to the Lycaonians, "that ye should turn from these vanities to serve the living God, who made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things therein; who, even when he suffered all nations to walk in their own ways, left not himself without witness;" that is, without preachers, according to that saying of our Lord to his disciples, Ye shall be my witnesses, and teach all nations. And these witnesses were the good which God did, "the rain he gave us from heaven, and fruitful seasons, and the food and gladness with which he filled our hearts."

St. Paul preached the same Gospel to the Athenians, wisely coming down to the level of their inferior dispensation: "The God that made the world, dwells not," like a statue, "in temples made with hands, nor hath he need of any thing; seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. He hath made of one blood all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth," not that they might live like atheists, and perish like reprobates, but "that they might seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him." Nor is this an impossibility, as "he is not far from every one of us; for in him we live, and move, and have our being, as certain of our own poets have taught," justly asserting that "we are the offspring of God." Hence he proceeds to declare that "God calls all men every where to repent," intimating that upon their turning to him, he will receive them as his dear children, and bless them as his beloved offspring.

These, and the like scriptures, forced Calvin himself into a happy inconsistency with Calvinism: "The Lord," said he, in an epistle prefixed to the French New Testament, "never left himself without a witness, even toward them unto whom he has not sent any knowledge of his word. Forasmuch as all creatures, from the firmament to the center of the earth, might be witnesses and messengers of his glory unto all men, to draw them to seek him; and indeed there is no need to seek him very far, for every one might find him in his own self."

And no doubt some have; for although "the world knew not God" by the wisdom, that is "earthly, sensual, and devilish;" yet many have savingly known him by his general witness, that is, "the wonderful works that he doth for the children of men; for that which may be known of God," in the lowest economy of Gospel grace, "is manifest in them," as well as shown unto them.

"What! Is there something of God inwardly manifest in, as well as outwardly shown to, all men?" Undoubtedly: the grace of God is as the wind, "which bloweth where it listeth;" and it listeth to blow with more or less force successively all over the earth. You can as soon meet with a man that never felt the wind, or heard the sound thereof, as with one that never felt the Divine breathing, or heard the still small voice, which we call the grace of God, and which bids us turn from sin to righteousness. To suppose the Lord gives us a thousand tokens of "his eternal power and Godhead," without giving us a capacity to consider, and grace to improve them, is not less absurd than to imagine, that when he bestowed upon Adam all the trees of paradise for food, he gave him no eyes to see, no hands to gather, and no mouth to eat their delicious fruits.

We readily grant, that Adam, and we in him, lost all by the fall; but Christ, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Christ, the repairer of the breach," mightier to save than Adam to destroy, solemnly gave himself to Adam, and to us in him, by the free everlasting Gospel which he preached in paradise. And when he preached it, he undoubtedly gave Adam, and us in him, a capacity to receive it, that is, a power to believe and repent. If he had not, he might as well have preached to stocks and stones, to beasts and devils. It is offering an insult to "the only wise God," to suppose that he gave mankind the light, without giving them eyes to behold it; or, which is the same, to suppose that he gave them the Gospel, without giving them power to believe it.

As it is with Adam, so it is undoubtedly with all his posterity. By what argument or scripture will you prove, that God excluded part of Adam (or what is the same thing, part of his offspring, which was then part of his very person) from the promise and gift which he freely made him of "the seed of the woman, and the bruiser of the serpent's head?" Is it reasonable to deny the gift, because multitudes of infidels reject it, and thousands of Antinomians abuse it? May not a bounty be really given by a charitable person, though it is despised by a proud, or squandered away by a loose beggar?

Waiving the case of infants and idiots, was there ever a sinner under no obligation to repent and believe in a merciful God? O ye opposers of free grace, search the universe with Calvin's candle, and among your reprobated millions, find out the person that never had a merciful god: and show us the unfortunate creature whom a sovereign God bound over to absolute despair of his mercy from the womb. If there be no such person in the world-- if all men are bound to repent and believe in a merciful God, there is an end of Calvinism. And unprejudiced men can require no stronger proof that all are redeemed from the curse of the Adamic law, which admitted of no repentance; and that the covenant of grace, which admits of, and makes provision for it, freely extends to all mankind.

"Out of Christ's fullness all have received grace, a little leaven" of saving power, an inward monitor, a Divine reporter, a ray of true heavenly light, which manifests, first moral, and then spiritual good and evil. St. John "bears witness of that light," and declares it was the spiritual "life of men, the true light which enlightens" not only every man that comes into the Church, but "every man that cometh into the world," without excepting those who are yet in darkness. For "the light shineth in darkness, even when the darkness comprehends it not." The Baptist bore also "witness of that light, that all men through it" not through him, "might believe," his, "light," being the last antecedent, and agreeing perfectly with dia auts.

Hence appears the sufficiency of that Divine light to make all men believe in Christ "the light of the world;" according to Christ's own words to the Jews, "While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you," even that total night of nature, "when no man can work."

Those who resist this internal light, generally reject the external Gospel, or receive it only in the letter and history. And too many such there have been in all ages; for Christ "was in the world, even when the world knew him not:" therefore he was "manifest in the flesh." The same sun which had shined as the dawn, arose "with healing it his wings;" and came to deliver the truth which was held in unrighteousness, and to help the light which was not comprehended by the darkness. But alas! when "he came to his own," even then "his own received him not." Why? Because they were reprobates? No: but because they were moral agents.

"This is the condemnation," says he himself, "that light came into the world, but men" shut their eyes against it. "They loved darkness rather than light, because their works were evil." They would go on in the sins which the light reproved, and therefore they opposed it till it was quenched, that is, till it totally withdrew from their hearts. To the same purpose our Lord says, "The heart of this people is waxed gross, their ears are dull of hearing, and their eye have they closed" against the light, "lest they should see with their eyes, and understand with their hearts, and should be converted, and should heal them." The same unerring Teacher informs us, that "the devil cometh" to the way-side hearers, and "taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." And "if our Gospel be hid," says St. Paul, "it is hid to them that believe not and are lost, whose minds the god of this world hath blinded, lest the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine unto them."

From these scriptures it is evident that Calvin was mistaken, or that the devil is a fool. For if a man is now totally blind, why should the devil bestir himself to blind him? And why should he fear "lest the Gospel should shine to them that are lost," if there be absolutely, no Gospel for them, or they have no eyes to see, no capacity to receive it?

Whether sinners know their Gospel day or not, they have one. Read the history of Cain, who is supposed to be the first reprobate and see how graciously the Lord expostulated with him. Consider the old world: St. Peter, speaking of them, says, "The Gospel was preached to them also that are dead; for Christ went by the Spirit and preached even to those who were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited one hundred and twenty years in the days of Noah." Nor did the Lord wait with an intention of having them completely fattened for the day of slaughter; far be the unbecoming thought from those who worship the God of love! Instead of entertaining it, let us "account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation," that is, a beginning of salvation; and a sure pledge of it if we know and redeem the accepted time: for "the Lord is long suffering to us-ward, and not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Nor does God's long suffering extend to the elect only. It embraces also those "who treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath, by despising the riches of Divine goodness, and forbearance, and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads them to repentance." Of this the Jews are a remarkable instance "What could God have done more to his Jewish vineyard? He gathered the stones out of it, and planted it with the choicest vines and yet when he looked that it should have brought forth grapes, brought forth wild grapes; when he sent his servants to receive the fruits, they were abused and sent away empty." Hence it is evident that the Jews had a day in which they could have brought forth fruit, or the wise God could no more "have looked for it" than a wise man expects to see the pine apple grow upon the hawthorn.

Nay, the most obstinate, Pharisaic, and bloody of the Jews had a day, in which our Lord in person "would have gathered them" with as much tenderness "as a hen gathers her brood under her wings." And when he saw their free agency absolutely set against his loving kindness, he wept over them, and deplored their not having "known the things belonging unto their peace, before they were hid from their eyes."

Our gracious God freely gives one or more talents of grace to every man: nor was ever any man "cast into outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth," but for the not using his talent aright, as our Lord sufficiently declares, Matt. xxv, 30. Alluding to that important parable, I would observe, that the Christian has five talents, the Jew two, and the heathen one. If he that has two talents lays them out to advantage, he shall "receive a reward," as well as he that has five: and the one talent is as capable of a proportionable improvement as the two or the five. The equality of God's ways does not consist in giving just the same number of gracious talents to all; but, FIRST, in not desiring "to gather where he has not strewed," or, "to reap" above a proportion of his seed; and, SECONDLY, in graciously dispensing rewards according to the number of talents improved, and the degrees of that improvement; and in justly inflicting punishments according to the number of talents buried, and the aggravations attending men's unfaithfulness. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

We frequently speak of God's secret decrees, the knowledge of which is as useless as it is uncertain, but seldom consider that solemn decree so often revealed in the Gospel:-- " To him that has grace to purpose, more shall be given; and from him that has not," that has buried his talent, and therefore in one sense has it not, "shall be taken away even that which he hath" to no purpose: according to our Lord's awful command, "Take the talent from him" that hath buried it, "and give it to him that hath ten," for the good and faithful servant shall have abundance.* he who says, "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," is too just to look for an increase from those on whom he bestows no talent; and as he calls for repentance and faith, and for a daily increase of both, he has certainly bestowed upon us the seed of both, for he "gives seed to the sower," and. does not desire "to reap where he hath not sown."

[ * I must do the Calvinists the justice to observe, that as our Lord says, "Ask and have;" so Elisha Coles says, "Use grace and have grace," which is all that we contend for, if the inseparable counterpart of the axiom be admitted, "Abuse grace and lose grace."]

Methinks my honoured opponent cries out with amazement, "What! have all men power to repent and believe?" And in the meantime a Benedictine monk comes up to vouch, that this doctrine is rank Pelagianism. But permit me to observe, that if Pelagius had acknowledged, as we do, the total fall of man, and ascribed, with us, to the free grace of God in Jesus Christ, all the power we have to repent and believe, none of the fathers would have been so injudicious and uncharitable as to rank him among heretics. We maintain, that although "without Christ we can do nothing," yet so long as the "day of salvation" lasts, all men, the chief of sinners not excepted, can, through his free preventing grace, "cease to do evil, and learn to do well," and use those means which will infallibly end in the repentance and faith peculiar to the dispensation they are under, whether it be that of the heathens, Jews, or Christians.

If the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, and father Walsh, deny this, they might as well charge Christ with the absurdity "of tasting death for every man" in order to keep most men from the very possibility of being benefited by his death. They might as well assert, that although "the free gift came upon all men," yet it never came upon a vast majority of them; and openly maintain, that Christ deserves to be called the destroyer, rather than the Saviour of the world. For if the greatest part of mankind may be considered as the world, if repentance and faith are absolutely impossible to them, and Jesus came to denounce destruction to all who do not repent and believe, let every thinking man say whether he might not be called with greater propriety the destroyer than the Saviour of the world; and whether preaching the Christian Gospel is not like reading the warrant of inevitable damnation to millions of wretched creatures. But upon the scheme of what you call the "Wesley orthodoxy," Christ is really "the Saviour of all men, but especially of those that believe:" for he indulges all with a day of salvation; and if none but believers make a proper use of it, the fault is not in his partiality, but in their own obstinacy.

In what a pitiful light does your scheme place our Lord! Why did he "marvel at the unbelief" of the Jews, as if they could no more believe than a stone can swim? And say not, "he marveled as a man;" for the assertion absolutely unmans him. What man ever wondered that an ass does not bray with the nightingale's melodious voice? Nay, what child ever marveled that the ox does not fly above the clouds with the soaring eagle?

The same observation holds with regard to repentance. "Then he began," says St. Matthew, "to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not." Merciful Saviour, forgive us! We have insulted thy meek wisdom, by representing thee as cruelly upbraiding the lame for not running, the blind for not seeing, and the dumb for not speaking!

But this is not all: if Capernaum could not have repented at our Lord's preaching, as well as Nineveh at the preaching of Jonas, how do we reflect upon his mild equity, and adorable goodness, when we represent him as pronouncing woe upon woe over the impenitent city, and threatening to sink it into a deeper hell than Sodom, "because it repented not!" and how ill does it become us to exclaim against Deists for robbing Christ of his divinity, when we ourselves divest him of common humanity.

Suppose a schoolmaster said to his English scholars, "Except you instantly speak Greek you shall all be severely whipped," you would wonder at the injustice of the school tyrant. But would not the wretch be merciful in comparison of a Saviour, (so called,) who is supposed to say to myriads of men, that can no more repent than ice can burn, "Except ye repent, ye shall all perish?" I confess, then, when I see real Protestants calling this doctrine the pure Gospel, and extolling it as free grace, I no more wonder that real Papists should call their bloody inquisition the house of mercy, and their burning of those whom they call heretics an auto de fe; (an act of faith.)

OBJECTION. "At this rate our salvation or damnation turns upon the good or bad use which we make of the manifold grace of God: and we are in this world in a state of probation, and not merely upon our passage to the rewards, which everlasting love, or to the punishments, which everlasting hatred, has freely allotted us, from the foundation of the world."

ANSWER. Undoubtedly; for what man of sense, (I except those who through hurry and mistake have put on the veil of prejudice,) could show his face in a pulpit, to exhort a multitude of reprobates to avoid a damnation absolutely unavoidable; and invite a little flock of elect, to lose no time in making sure an election surer than the pillars of heaven?

Again: who but a tyrant will make the life of his subjects turn upon a thing that is not at all at their option? When Nero was determined to put people to death, had he not humanity and honesty enough not to tantalize them with insulting offers of life? To whom did he ever say, "If thou pluckest one star from heaven thou shalt not die; but if thou failest in the attempt, the most dreadful and lingering torments shall punish thy obstinacy?" And shall I,-- shall my Christian brethren, represent the King of saints as guilty of (what my pen refuses to write) that which Nero himself was too merciful to contrive?

OBJECTION. "You do not state the case fairly. If all have sinned in Adam, and the wages of sin is death, God did the reprobates no wrong when he condemned them to eternal torments, before they knew their right hand from their left; yea, before the foundation of the world."

ANSWER. The plausibility of this objection, heightened by voluntary humility, has misled thousands of pious souls: God give them understanding to weigh the following reflections:--

1. If an unconditional, absolute decree of damnation passed upon the reprobates before the foundation of the world, it is absurd to account for the justice of such a decree, by appealing to a sin committed after the foundation of the world.

2. If Adam sinned necessarily according to the secret will and purpose of God, as you intimate in your fourth letter, many do not see how he, much more his posterity, could justly be condemned to eternal torments for doing an iniquity which "God's hand and counsel determined before to be done."

3. As we sinned only seminally in Adam, if God had not intended our redemption, his goodness would have engaged him to destroy us seminally, by crushing the capital offender who contained us all: so there would have been a just proportion between the sin and punishment; for as we sinned in Adam without the least consciousness of guilt, so in him we should have been punished without the least consciousness of pain. This observation may be illustrated by an example: If I catch a mischievous animal, a viper for instance, I have undoubtedly a right to kill her, and destroy her dangerous brood, if she is big with young. But if, instead of dispatching her as soon as I can, I feed her on purpose to get many broods from her, and torment to death millions of her offspring, I can hardly pass for the good man who regards the life of a beast. Leaving to you the application of this simile, I ask, Do we honour God when we break the equal beams of his perfections? when we blacken his goodness and mercy, in order to make his justice and greatness shine with exorbitant luster? If "a God all mercy is a God unjust," may we not say, according to the rule of proportion, that "a God all justice is a God unkind," and can never be he whose "mercy is over all his works?"

4. But the moment we allow, that the blessing of the second Adam is as general as the curse of the first; that God "sets" again "life and death" before every individual; and that he mercifully restores to all a capacity of choosing life, yea, and of having it one day more abundantly than Adam himself had before the fall; we see his goodness and justice shine with equal radiance, when he spares guilty Adam to propagate the fallen race, that they may share the blessings of a better covenant. For, according to the Adamic law, "judgment was by one sin to condemnation; but the free gift of the Gospel is of many offlices to justification. For if through the offence of one the many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto the many."

5. Rational and Scriptural as the preceding observations are, we could spare them, and answer your objection thus:-- You think God may justly decree that millions of his unborn creatures shall be "vessels of wrath" to all eternity, overflowing with the vengeance due to Adam's preordained sin; but you are not nearer the mark: for, granting that he could do it as a just, good, and merciful God; yet he cannot do it as the God of "faithfulness and truth." His word and oath are gone forth together; hear both: "What mean ye, that ye use this proverb, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? as I live, says the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb. The soul that sinneth personally shall die eternally: every one shall die for his own avoidable iniquity. Every man that eateth sour grapes," when he might have eaten the sweet, "his teeth shall justly be set on edge." When God has thrice made oath of his equity and impartiality before mankind, it is rather bold to charge him with contriving Calvin's election, and setting up the Protestant great image, before which a considerable part of the Church continually falls down and worships.

O ye honest Shadrachs, who gaze upon it with admiration, see how some Calvinian doctors deify it, decreta Dei sunt ipse Deus, "The decrees of God are God himself." See Elisha Coles advancing at the head of thousands of his admirers, and hear how he exhorts them to worship: "Let us make election our all; our bread, water, munitions of rocks, and whatever else we can suppose ourselves to want,"-- that is, Let us make the great image our God. Ye candid Meshachs, ye considerate Abednegos, follow not this mistaken multitude. Before you cry with them, "Great is the Diana of the Calvinists!" walk once around the celebrated image, and, I am persuaded, that if you can make out FREE GRACE written in running hand upon her smiling face, you will see FREE WRATH written in black capitals upon her deformed back: and then, far from being angry at the liberty I take to expose her, you will wish speed to the "little stone" which I level at her "iron-clay feet."

Think not, honoured sir, that I say about free wrath what I cannot possibly prove: for you help me yourself to a striking demonstration. I suppose you are still upon your travels: you come to the borders of a great empire; and the first thing that strikes you is a man in an easy carriage, going with folded arms to take possession of an immense estate, freely given him by the king of the country. As he flies along, you just make out the motto of the royal chariot, in which he closes, FREE REWARD. Soon after you meet five of the king's carts, containing twenty wretches loaded with irons; and the motto of every cart is, FREE PUNISHMENT. You inquire into the meaning of this extraordinary procession, and the sheriff attending the execution, answers:"Know, curious stranger, that our monarch is absolute; and to show that sovereignty is the prerogative of his imperial crown, and that he is no respecter of persons, he distributes every day free rewards and free punishments to a certain number of his subjects." "What! without any regard to merit or demerit, by mere caprice!" "Not altogether so; for he pitches upon the worst of men, and chief of sinners, and upon such to choose for the subjects of his rewards. (Elisha Coles, page 62.) And that his punishments may do as much honour to free sovereign wrath as his bounty does to free sovereign grace, he pitches upon those that shall be executed before they are born." "What! have these poor creatures in chains done no harm?" "O yes!" says the sheriff; "the king contrived that their parents should let them fall and break their legs, before they had any knowledge: when they came to years of discretion he commanded them to run a race with broken legs; and, because they cannot do it, I am going to see them quartered. Some of them, beside this, have been obliged to fulfil the king's secret will, and bring about his purposes; and they shall be burned in yonder deep valley, called Tophet, for their trouble." You are shocked at the sheriff's account, and begin to expostulate with him about the freeness of the wrath which burns a man for doing the king's will; but all the answer you can get from him is that which you give me in your fourth letter, (page 23,) where speaking of a poor reprobate, you say, "Such a one is indeed accomplishing" the king's, you say, "God's decree, but he carries a dreadful mark in his forehead, that such a decree is, that he shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the lord" of the country. You cry out," God deliver me from the hands of a monarch who punishes with everlasting destruction such as accomplish his decree!" And while the magistrate intimates that your exclamation is a dreadful mark, if not in your forehead, at least upon your tongue, that you yourself shall be apprehended against the next execution, and made a public instance of the king's free wrath, your blood runs cold, you bid the postilion turn the horses; they gallop for your life, and the moment you get out of the dreary land you bless God for your narrow escape.

**** May reason and Scripture draw your soul with equal speed from the dismal fields of Coles' sovereignty to the smiling plains of primitive Christianity! Here you have God's election, without Calvin's reprobation. Here Christ chooses the Jews without rejecting the Gentiles; and elects Peter, James, and John, to the enjoyment of peculiar privileges, without reprobating Matthew, Thomas, and Simon. Here nobody is damned for not doing impossibilities, or for doing what he could not possibly help. Here all that are saved enjoy rewards, through the merits of Christ, according to the degrees of evangelical obedience which the Lord enables, not forces, them to perform. Here free wrath never appeared: all our damnation is of ourselves, when we "neglect such great salvation," by obstinately refusing to "work it out with fear and trembling." But this is not all: here free grace does not rejoice over stocks, but over men, who gladly confess that their salvation is all of God, who for Christ's sake rectifies their free agency, helps their infirmities, and "works in them both to will and to do of his good pleasure." And from the tenor of the Scripture, as well as from the consent of all nations, and the dictates of conscience, it appears, that part of God's "good pleasure" toward man is, that he shall remain invested with the awful power of choosing life or death, that his will shall never be forced, and, consequently, that overbearing, irresistible grace, shall be banished to the land of Coles' sovereignty, together with free, absolute, unavoidable wrath.

Now, honoured sir, permit me to ask, Why does this doctrine alarm good men? Why are those divines deemed heretics, who dare not divest God of his essential love, Emmanuel of his compassionate humanity, and man of his connatural free agency? What are Dominicus and Calvin when weighed in the balance against Moses and Jesus Christ? Hear the great prophet of the Jews: "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing, heaven and hell; therefore choose life that ye may live." And "he that hath ears," not yet absolutely stopped by prejudice, "let him hear" what the great Prophet of the Christians says upon the important question: "I am come that they might have life; all things are now ready,-- but ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. I would have gathered you, and ye would not. Because I have called and ye refused, I will laugh when your destruction cometh. For that they did not choose the fear of the Lord, therefore shall they eat," not "the fruit" of my decree, or of Adam's sin, but "of their own perverse way: they shall be filled with their own doings."

If these words of Moses and Jesus Christ are overlooked, should not, at least, the experience of near six thousand years teach the world, that God does not force rational beings, and that, when he tries their loyalty, he does not obey for them, but gives them sufficient grace to obey for themselves'? Had not all the angels sufficient grace to obey? if some "kept not their first estate," was it not through their own unfaithfulness? What evil has our Creator done us, or what service have devils rendered us, that we should fix the blot of Calvinian reprobation upon the former, to excuse the rebellion of the latter? Did not Adam and Eve stand some time, by means of God's sufficient grace; and might they not have stood for ever? Have not unconverted men sufficient grace to forsake or complain of some evil; to perform, or attempt some good? Had not David sufficient grace to avoid the crimes into which he plunged? Have not believers sufficient power to do more good than they do'? And does not the Scripture address sinners, (Simon Magus not excepted,) as having sufficient grace to pray for more grace, if they have not yet sinned the sin unto death?

In opposition to the above-stated doctrine of grace, free FOR all, as well as free IN all, our Calvinian brethren assert, that God binds his free grace, and keeps it from visiting millions of sinners, whom they call reprobates. They teach that man is not in a state of probation, that his lot is absolutely cast; a certain little number of souls being immovably fixed in God's favour, in the midst of all their abominations; and a certain vast number under his eternal wrath, in the midst of the most sincere endeavours to secure his flavor. And their teachers maintain, that the names of the former were "written in the book of life," without any respect to foreseen repentance, faith, and obedience; while the names of the latter were put in the book of death, (so I call thc decree of reprobation,) merely for the sin of Adam, without any regard to personal impenitency, unbelief, and disobedience. And this narrow grace and free wrath. they recommend to the world under the engaging name of FREE GRACE.

This doctrine, dear sir, we are in conscience bound to oppose; not only because it is the reverse of the other, which is both Scriptural and rational; but because it is inseparably connected with doctrinal Antinomianism, as your fourth letter abundantly demonstrates: and, above all, because it appears to us that it fixes a blot upon all the Divine perfections. Please, honoured sir, to consider the following queries

What becomes of God's goodness, if the tokens of it, which he gives to millions, be only intended to enhance their ruin, or cast a deceitful veil over his everlasting wrath? What becomes of his mercy, which is "over all his works," if millions were for ever excluded from the least interest in it, by an absolute decree that constitutes them "vessels of wrath" from all eternity? What becomes of his justice, if he sentences myriads upon myriads to everlasting fire, "because they have not believed on the name of his only-begotten Son?" when, if they had believed that he was their Jesus, their Saviour, they would have believed a monstrous lie, and claimed what they have no more right to than I have to the crown of England. What becomes of his veracity, and the oath he swears, that "he willeth not the death of a sinner," if he never affords most sinners sufficient means of escaping eternal death? If he sends his ambassadors to every creature, declaring that "all things are now ready" for their salvation, when nothing but "Tophet is prepared of old" for the inevitable destruction of a vast majority of them? What becomes of his holiness, if, in order to condemn the reprobates with some show of justice, and secure the end of his decree of reprobation, which is, that millions shall absolutely be damned, he absolutely fixes the means of their damnation, that is, their sins and wickedness? What becomes of his wisdom, if he seriously expostulates with souls as dead as corpses, and gravely urges to repentance and faith persons that can no more repent and believe than fishes can speak and sing? What becomes of his long suffering, if he waits to have an opportunity of sending the reprobates into a deeper hell, and not to give them a longer time to" save themselves from this perverse generation'?" What of his equity, if there was mercy for Adam and Eve, who, personally breaking the hedge of duty, wantonly rushed out of paradise into this howling wilderness'? And yet there is no mercy for millions of their unfortunate children, who were born in a state of sin and misery, without any personal choice, and consequently without any personal sin. And what becomes of his omniscience, if he cannot foreknow future contingencies? If to foretell without a mistake that such a thing shall happen, he must do it himself? Was not Nero as wise in this respect? Could not he foretell that Phoebe should not continue a virgin, when he was bent upon ravishing her; that Seneca should not die a natural death, when he had determined to have him murdered; and that Crisps should fall into a pit, if he obliged him to run a race at midnight in a place full of pits'? And what old woman in the kingdom cannot precisely foretell that a silly tale shall be told at such an hour, if she is resolved to tell it herself, or at any rate to engage a child to do it for her?

Again: what becomes of God's loving kindnesses, "which have been ever of old" toward the children of men? And what of his impartiality, if most men, absolutely reprobated for the sin of Adam, are never placed in a state of personal trial and probation? Does not God use them far less kindly than devils, who were tried every one for himself, and remain in their diabolical state, because they brought it upon themselves by a personal choice'? Astonishing! That the Son of God should have been flesh of the flesh, and bone of the bone of millions of men, whom, upon the Calvinian scheme, he never indulged so far as he did devils! What a hard-hearted relation to myriads of his fellow men does Calvin represent our Lord! Suppose Satan had become our kinsman by incarnation, and had by that means got "the right of redemption," would he not have acted like himself, if he bad not only left the majority of them in the depth of the fall, but enhanced their misery by the sight of his partiality to the little flock of the elect?

Once more: what becomes of fair dealing, if God every where represent sin as the dreadful evil which causes damnation, and yet the most horrid sins "work for good" to some, and, as you intimate, accomplish their salvation through Christ? And what of honesty, if the God of truth himself promises, that "all the families of the earth shall be blessed in Christ?" when he has cursed a vast majority of them with a decree of absolute reprobation, which excludes them from obtaining an interest in them, even from the foundation of the world.

Nay, what becomes of his sovereignty itself, if it be torn from the mild and gracious attributes by which it is tempered? If it be held forth in such a light as renders it more terrible to millions, than the sovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar, in the plain of Dura, appeared to Daniel's companions, when "the form of his visage was changed against them," and he decreed that they should be "cast into the burning fiery furnace;" for they might have saved their bodily lives by bowing to the golden image, which was a thing in their power; but poor reprobates can escape at no rate. The horrible decree is gone forth; they must, in spite of their best endeavours, dwell body and soul with everlasting burnings.

And let none say, that we wrong the Calvinian decree of reprobation, when we call it a horrible decree; for Calvin himself is honest enough to call it so. Unde factum est, tot gentes, una cum liberis eorum infantibus tern morti involveret lapsus Ad absque remedio, nisi quia Deo ita visum est? DECRETUM QUIDEM HORRIBILE, fateor; inficiari tamen nemo potent, quin prscivcrit Deus quem extium habiturus esset homo, ante quam ipsum conderet, et ideo prsciverit, quia decreto suo sic ordinaret. That is, "How comes it to pass that so many nations, together with their infant children, are by the fall of Adam involved in eternal death without remedy, unless it is because God would have it so? A HORRIBLE DECREE, I confess! Nevertheless, nobody can deny that God foreknew what would be man's end before he created him, and that he foreknew it, because he had ordered it by his decree." (Calvin's Institutes, book iii, chap. 23, sec. 7.)

This is some of the contempt which Calvinism pours upon God's perfections. These are some of the blots which it fixes upon his word. But the moment man is considered as a candidate for heaven, a probationer for a blissful immortality; the moment you allow him what free grace bestows upon him, that is, "a day of salvation," with "a talent" of living light, and rectified free agency, to enable him to work for life faithfully promised, as well as from life freely imparted;-- the moment, I say, you allow this, all the Divine perfections shine with unsullied luster. And, as reason and majesty returned to Nebuchadnezzar after his shameful degradation, so consistency and native dignity are restored to the abused oracles of God.

having thus shown the inconsistency of Calvinism, and the reasonableness of what you call the Wesleyan, and what we esteem the Christian orthodoxy, (so far at least as it respects the gracious power and opportunity that man, as redeemed and prevented by Christ, has to work for life, or to "work out his own salvation,") it is but just I should consider some of the most plausible objections which are urged against our doctrine.

FIRST OBJECTION. "Your Wesleyan scheme pours more contempt upon the Divine perfections than ours. What becomes of God's wisdom, if he gave his Son to die for all mankind, when he foreknew that most men would never be benefited by his death?"

ANSWER. (1.) God foreknew just the contrary. All men, even those who perish, are benefited by Christ's death: for all enjoy, through him, a "day of salvation," and a thousand blessings both spiritual and temporal. And, if all do not enjoy heaven for ever, they may still thank God for his gracious offer, and take the blame upon themselves for their obstinate refusal of it. (2.) God, by reinstating all mankind in a state of probation, for ever shuts the mouths of those who choose "death in the error of their ways," and clears himself of their blood before men and angels. If be cannot eternally benefit unbelievers, he eternally vindicates his own adorable perfections. He can say to the most obstinate of all the reprobates, "'O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself. In me was thy help; but thou wouldst not come unto me that thou mightest have life.' Thy destruction is not from my decree, but thine own determining."

SECOND OBJECTION. "If God wills all men to be saved, and yet many are damned, is he not disappointed'? And does not this disappointment argue that be wants either wisdom to contrive the means of some men's salvation, or power to execute his gracious designs?"

ANSWER. (1.) God's purpose is, that all men should have sufficient grace to believe according to their dispensation; that "he who believeth shall be saved, and he who believeth not shall be damned." God cannot, therefore, be disappointed, even when man's free agency throws in the weight of final unbelief, and turns the scale of probation For death. (2.) Although Christ is the author of" a day of salvation" to all, yet he "is the author of eternal salvation" to none but to such as obey him, by working out their own salvation" while it is day.

If you say, that "suppose God wills the salvation of all, and none can be saved but the obedient, he should make all obey." I reply, So he does, by a variety of gracious means, which persuade, but do not force them. For he says himself, "What could I have done more to my vineyard than I have done?" "O, but he should force all by the sovereign power of irresistible grace." You might as well say that he should renounce his wisdom, and defeat his own purpose. For if his wisdom places men in a slate of probation; the moment he forces them, he takes them out of that state, and overturns his own counsel; he destroys the work of his hands; he unmans man, and saves him, not as a rational creature, but as a stock or a stone. Add to this, that forced obedience is a contradiction in terms; it is but another word for disobedience, at least in the account of Him who says, "My son, give me thy heart;" obey me with an unconstrained, free, and cheerful will. In a word, this many "are willingly ignorant of," that when God says, 1 he wills all men to be saved," he wills them to be saved as men, according to his own method of salvation laid down in the above-mentioned scriptures, and not in their own way of willful disobedience, or after Calvin's scheme of irresistible grace.

THIRD OBJECTION. "You may speak against irresistible grace, but we are persuaded that nothing short of it is sufficient to make us believe. For St. John informs us, that the Jews, toward whom it was not exerted, could not believe."

ANSWER. (1.) Joseph said to his mistress, "How can I do this great wickedness?" But this does not prove that he was not able to comply with her request, if he had been so minded. The truth was, that some of the Pharisees had" buried their talent," and therefore could not improve it; while others had so provoked God, that he had "taken it from them;" they bad "sinned unto death." But most of them obstinately held that evil which was an insurmountable hindrance to faith; and to them our Lord said, "how can ye believe who receive honour one of another?" (2.) I wonder that modern Predestinarians should make so much of this scripture, when Augustine their father solves the seeming difficulty with the utmost readiness: "If you ask me," says he," why the Jews could not believe? I quickly answer, Because they and if he blinded their eyes, their own wills deserved this also. They obstinately said, "We will not see," and God justly said at last, "Ye shall not see."

FOURTH OBJECTION. "You frequently mention the parable of the talents, but take care to say nothing of the parable. of the dry bones, which shows not only the absurdity of supposing that men can work for life, but the propriety of expostulating with souls as void of all spiritual life as the dry bones to which Ezekiel prophesied."

ANSWER. (1.) If you read that parable without comment, you will see that it is not descriptive of the spiritual state of souls, but of the political condition of the Jews during their captivity in Babylon. r hey were scattered throughout Chaldea, as dry bones in a valley; nor was there any human probability of their being collected to form again a political body. Therefore God, to cheer their desponding hearts, favoured Ezekiel with the vision of the resurrection of the dry bones. (2.) This vision proves just the reverse of what some imagine: for the dry bones are thus described by the Lord himself: "These bones are the whole house of Israel. Behold, they say," (this was the language of their despairing minds,) "our bones are dried, our hope is lost, we are cut off for our parts." here these Israelites, (compared to dry bones,) even before Ezekiel prophesied, and the Spirit entered into them, knew their misery and complained of it, saying, "Our bones are dried up." How far then were they from being as insensible as corpses? (3.) The prophecy to the dry bones did not consist in threatenings and exhortations; it was only of the declarative kind. Nor was the promise of their resurrection fulfilled in the Calvinian way, that is, irresistibly. For although God had said, "I will open your graves," that is, your prisons, "and will bring you out of them into your own land," we find that multitudes, when their graves were opened, chose to continue in them. For when Nehemiah and Ezra breathed, under God, courage into the dry bones, the Jewish captives dispersed throughout Chaldea, many preferred the land of their captivity to their own land, and refused to return: so that, after all, their political resurrection turned upon their own choice.

FIFTH OBJECTION. "We do not altogether go by the parable of the dry hones, when we affirm there is no absurdity in preaching to souls as dead as corpses. We have the example of our Lord as well as that of Ezekiel. Did he not say to Lazarus, when be was dead and buried, come forth?"

ANSWER. If Christ had called Lazarus out of the grave without giving him power to come forth, his friends would have bad some reason to suspect that he was "beside himself." How much more, if they had heard him call a thousand corpses out of their graves, denouncing to all, that if they did not rise they should be "cast into a lake of fire," and eaten up "by a worm that dieth not!" It is a matter of fact, that Christ never commanded but one dead man to come out of the grave; and the instant he gave him the command, he gave him also power to obey it. Hence we conclude, that as the Lord "commands all men every where to repent," he gives them all power so to do. But some Calvinists argue just the reverse. "Christ," say they, "called one corpse without using any entreaty, threatening, or promise; and he gave it power to obey: therefore when he calls a hundred dead souls, and enforces his call with the greatest variety of expostulations, threatenings, and promises, he gives power to obey only to two or three." What an inference is this! How worthy of the cause which it supports!

In how contemptible a light does our Lord appear, if he says to souls as dead as Lazarus in the grave, "All the day long have I stretched out my hands unto you. Turn ye, why will ye die? Let the wicked forsake his way, and I Will have mercy upon him: but if he will not turn, I will whet my sword, I have bent my bow and made it ready; I have also prepared for him the instruments of death."

I once saw a passionate man unmercifully beating and damning a blind horse, because he did not take to the way in which be would have him go; and I came up just when the poor animal fell a lamed victim to its driver's madness. How did I upbraid him with his cruelty, and charge him with unparalleled extravagance! But 1 now ask, if it is not more than paralleled by the conduct of the imaginary being, whom some recommend to the world as a wise and merciful God? For the besotted driver for some minutes expostulated, in his way, with a living, though blind horse; but the supposed maker of the Calvinian decrees expostulates "all the day long" with souls, not only as blind as beetles, but as dead as corpses. Again: the former had some hopes of prevailing with his living beast to turn; but what hopes can the latter have to prevail with dead corpses, or with souls as dead as they? What man in his senses ever attempted to make a corpse turn, by threatening it sword in hand, or by bending the bow and leveling an arrow at its cold and putrid heart?

But suppose the resurrection of Lazarus, and that of the dry bones, did not overthrow Calvinism, would it be reasonable to lay so much stress upon them? Is a dead soul in every respect like a dead body; and is moral death absolutely like natural death? Can a parabolic vision, wrested from its obvious meaning, supersede the plainest declarations of Christ, who personally addresses sinners as free + agents? Should not metaphors, comparisons, and parables, be suffered to walk erect like reasonable men? Is it right to make them go upon all four, like the stupid ox? What, loads of heterodoxy have degraded parables brought into the Church? And how successfully has error carried on her trade, by dealing in figurative expressions, taken in a literal sense!

"This is my body," says Christ. "therefore bread is flesh," says the Papist, "and transubstantiation is true." "These dry bones are the house of Israel," says the Lord. "Therefore Calvinism is true," says my objector, "and we can do no more toward our conversion, than dry bones toward their resurrection." "Lost sinners" are represented in the Gospel as a "lost piece of silver." "Therefore," says the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, "they can no more seek God, than the piece could seek the woman who had lost it." "Christ is the Son of God," says St. Peter. "Therefore," says Anus, "he is not co-eternal with the Father, for I am not so old as my parents." And I, who have a right to be as wise as any of them, hearing our Lord say, that "the seven Churches are seven candlesticks," prove by it that the seven Churches can no more repent than three pair and a half of candlesticks, or, if you please, seven pair of snuffers! And shall we pretend to overthrow the general tenor of the Scripture by such conclusions as these? Shall not, rather, unprejudiced persons of every denomination agree to turn such arguments out of the Christian Church, with as much indignation as Christ turned the oxen out of the Jewish temple?

Permit me, honoured sir, to give you two or three instances more of an undue stretching of some particular words for the support of some Calvinian errors. According to the oriental style, a follower of wisdom is called "a son of wisdom;" and one that deviates from her paths, "a son of folly." By the same mode of speech, a wicked man, considered as wicked, is called "Satan, a son of Belial, a child of the wicked one, and a child of the devil." On the other hand, a man who turns from the devil's works, and does the works of God, by believing in him, is called "a child or a son of God." Hence the passing from the ways of Satan to the ways of God, was naturally called conversion and a new birth, as implying a turning from sin, a passing into the family of God, and being numbered among the godly.

Hence some divines, who, like Nicodemus, carnalize the expressions of new birth, child of God, and son of God, assert, that if men who once walked in God's ways turn back, even into adultery, murder, and incest, they are still God's dear people and pleasant children, in the Gospel sense of the words. They ask, "Can a man be a child of God to-day, and a child of the devil to-morrow? Can he be born this week, and unborn the next?" And with these questions they as much think they have overthrown the doctrine of holiness, and one half of the Bible, as honest Nicodemus supposed he had demolished the doctrine of regeneration, and stopped our Lord's mouth, when he said, "Can a man enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

The questions of our brethren would be easily answered, if, setting aside the oriental mode of speech, they simply asked, "May one who has 'ceased to do evil, and learned to do well to-day, cease to do well, and learn to do evil' to-morrow?" To this we could directly reply, If the dying thief, the Philippian jailer, and multitudes of Jews, in one day went over from the sons of folly to the sons of wisdom, where is the absurdity of saying, they could measure the same way back again in one day; and draw back into the horrid womb of sin as easily as Satan drew back into rebellion, Adam into disobedience, David into adultery, Solomon into idolatry, Judas into treason, and Ananias and Sapphira into covetousness? When Peter had shown himself a blessed son of heavenly wisdom, by confessing Jesus Christ, did he even stay till the next day to become a son of folly, by following the "wisdom which is earthly, sensual, and devilish?" Was not our Lord directly obliged to rebuke him with the utmost severity, by saying, "Get thee behind me, Satan?"

Multitudes, who live in open sin, build their hopes of heaven upon a similar mistake; I mean, upon the unscriptural idea which they fix to the Scriptural word sheep. "Once I heard the Shepherd's voice," says one of these Laodicean souls; "I followed him, and therefore I was one of his sheep; and now, though 1 follow the voice of a stranger, who leads me into all manner of sins, into adultery and murder, I am undoubtedly a sheep still: for it was never heard that a sheep became a goat." Such persons do not observe, that our Lord calls" sheep" those who hear his voice, and "goats" those who follow that of the tempter. Nor do they consider that if Saul, a grievous wolf," breathing slaughter" against Christ's sheep, and "making havoc" of his little flock, could in a short time be changed both into a sheep and a shepherd; David, a harmless sheep, could, in as short a time, commence a goat with Bathsheba, and prove a wolf in sheep's clothing to her husband.

Pardon me, honoured sir, if, to make my mistaken brethren ashamed of their argument, I dedicate to them the following soliloquy, wherein I reason upon their own plan:--

"Those very Jews whom the Baptist and our Lord called 'a brood of vipers and serpents,' were soon after compared to 'chickens,' which Christ wanted 'to gather as a hen does her brood.' What a wonderful change was here! The vipers became chickens! Now, as it was never heard that chickens became vipers, I conclude that those Jews, even when they came about our Lord like 'fat bulls of Bashan,' like 'ramping and roaring lions,' were true chickens still. And indeed, why should not they have been as true chickens as David was a true sheep when he murdered Uriah? I abhor the doctrine which maintains that a man may be a chick or a sheep to-day, and a viper or a goat to-morrow.

"But I am a little embarrassed. If none go to hell but goats, and none to heaven hut sheep, where shall the chickens go? Where 'the wolves in sheep's clothing?' And in what limbus of heaven or hell shall we put that 'fox Herod,' the dogs who 'return to their vomit,' and the swine, before whom we must 'not cast our pearls'?' Are they all species of goats, or some particular kind of sheep?

"My difficulties increase! The Church is called a dove, and Ephraim a silly dove. Shall the silly dove be admitted among the sheep? Her case seems rather doubtful. The hair of the spouse in the Cantides is likewise said to be like 'a flock of goats,' and Christ's shepherds are represented as 'feeding kids, or young goats, beside their tents.' I wonder if those young goals became young sheep, or if they were all doomed to continue reprobates! But what puzzles me most is, that the Babylonians are in the same verse compared to 'lambs, rams, and goats.' Were they mongrel elect, or mongrel reprobates, or some of Elisha Coles' spiritual monsters?"

I make this ridiculous soliloquy, to show the absurdity and danger of resting weighty doctrines upon so sandy a foundation as the particular sense which some good men give to a few Scriptural expressions. stretched and abused on the rack of my countryman. Calvin; especially such expressions as these, "A child of God, a sheep, a goat," and, above all, "the dead in sin."

Upon this last expression you seem, honoured sir, chiefly to rest the merit of your cause, with respect to working for life. Witness the following words:-- " That we are to work for life is an assertion most exceedingly self contradictory, if it be a truth that man is 'dead in trespasses and sins." Had you given yourself the trouble of reading, with any degree of attention, the forty-second page of the Vindication,* you would have seen your difficulty proposed and solved: witness the following words, which conclude the solution: "In this Scriptural view of free grace, what room is there for the ridiculous cavil, that Mr. Wesley wants the dead to work for life?" Had I been in your place, I confess, honoured sir, I could not have produced that cavil again, without attempting at least to wipe off the ridicule put upon it. I should think truth has better weapons with which to defend herself than a veil. I grant that the reverend divine, whose second you are, has publicly cast a veil over all my arguments under the name of mistakes: but could you possibly think that his veil was thick enough to cover them from the eyes of unprejudiced readers, and palliate your answering, or sterning to answer me, without taking notice of my arguments? But if you cast a veil over them, I shall now endeavour to do yours justice, and clear the matter a little farther.

[ * Page 30 of this volume.]

I. Availing yourself of St. Paul's words to the Ephesians and Colossians, "You hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; and you, being dead in your sins, hath he quickened together with him;" you dwell upon the absurdity of "expecting living actions from a dead corpse," or living works from a dead soul.

1. I wonder at the partiality of some persons. If we assert, that "strong believers are dead TO sin," they tell us very properly that such are not so dead, but they may commit sin if they please, or if they are off their watch. But if we say, that "many who are dead IN sin, are not so dead, but in the strength imparted, together with the Light that enlightens every man, they may leave off some of their sins if they please," we are exclaimed against as using metaphysical distinctions. and dead must absolutely mean impotent as a corpse.

2. The word dead, &c, is frequently used in the Scriptures to denote a particular degree of helplessness and inactivity, very short of the total helplessness of a corpse. We read of the deadness of Sarah's womb, and of Abraham's body being dead; and he must be a strong Calvinist indeed, who, from such expressions, peremptorily asserts, that Sarah's dead womb was as unfit for conception, and Abraham's dead body for generation, as if they both had been" dead corpses." Christ writes to the Church of Sardis, "I know thy works; thou hast a name to live, and art dead." But it is evident, that dead as they were, something remained alive in them, though like the smoking flax, it was "ready to die." Witness the words that follow: "Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die." Now, sir, if the dead Sardines could work for life, by "strengthening the things" belonging to the Christian "which remained" in them: is it modest to decide è cathedra, that the dead Ephesians and Colossians could not as well work for life, by "strengthening the things that remained and were ready to die," under their own dispensation? Is it not evident that a beam of" the Light of the world" still shone in their hearts, or that the Spirit still strove with them? If they had absolutely quenched him, would he have helped them to believe? And if they had not, was not there something of "the Light which enlightens every man" remaining in them; with which they both could, and did work for life, as well as the dead Sardians?

3. The absurdity of always measuring the meaning of the word dead, by the idea of a dead corpse, appears from several other scriptures St. Paul, speaking of one who grows wanton against Christ, says, "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth." Now, if this means that she is entirely devoid of every degree of spiritual life, what becomes of Calvinism? Suppose all that live in pleasure are as dead to God as corpses, what became of the everlasting life of Lot., when be lived in pleasure with his daughters? of David with Bathsheba, and Solomon with his idolatrous wives? When the same apostle observes to the Romans, that their "body was dead because of sin," did he really mean they were already dead corpses? And when he adds, "Sin revived and I died," did Calvinian death really pass upon him? Dead as he was, could not he complain like the dry bones, and ask, "Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" Again: when our Lord says to Martha, "He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live," does he not intimate, that there is a work consistent with the degree of death of which he speaks'? A believing out of death into life? A doing the work of God for life, yea, for eternal life?

4. From these and the like scriptures, it is evident, that there are different degrees of spiritual death, which you perpetually confound. (1.) Total death, or a full departure of the Holy Spirit. This passed upon Adam, and all mankind in him, when he lost God's moral image, fell into selfish nature, and was buried in sin, guilt, shame, and horror. (2.) Death freely visited with a seed of life in our fallen representative, and of course in all his posterity, during the day of their visitation. (3.) Death oppressing this living seed, and holding it "in unrighteousness," which was the death of the Ephesians and Colossians. (4.) Death prevailing again over the living seed, after it had been powerfully quickened, and burying it in sin and wickedness. This was the death of David during his apostasy, and is still that of all who once believed, but now live in Laodicean case or Sardian pleasure. And, (5.) The death of confirmed apostates, who, by absolutely quenching "the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," the second Adam, are fallen into the miserable state of nature and total helplessness, in which the first Adam was when God preached to him the Gospel of his quickening grace. These are said by St. Jude to be twice dead; dead by Adam's total apostasy from God, and dead by their own personal and final apostasy from "the Light of the world."

II. The foundation of the Crispian Babel is literally laid in confusion. When you have confounded all the degrees of spiritual death, we may naturally expect to see you confound all the degrees of spiritual life, which our Lord meant when he said, "I am come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly." "All that are quickened," do you say, "are pardoned and justified!" As if a man could not be quickened to see his sins and reform, before he is quickened so to believe in Christ as to receive the pardon and justification mentioned Col. ii, 13, and Rom. v, 1.

If you read the Scriptures without prejudice, you will see that there are several degrees of spiritual life, or quickening power. (1.) The living "Light which shines in the darkness" of every man during the day of his visitation. (2.) The life of the returning sinner, whether he has always lived in open sin, as the publican, or once walked in the ways of God, as David. (3.) The life of the heathen, who, like Cornelius, "fears God and works righteousness" according to his light, and is accepted in his dispensation. (4.) The life of the pious Jew, who, like Samuel, fears God from his youth. This degree of life is far superior to the preceding, being cherished by the traditions of the patriarchs, the books of the Old Testament, the sacraments, priests, prophets, temples, Sabbaths, sacrifices, and other means of grace, belonging to the Jewish economy. (5.) The life of the feeble Christian, or disciple of John, who is "baptized with water unto repentance for the remission of sins," and believing in "the Lamb of God," immediately pointed out to him, enjoys the blessings of the primitive Christians before the day of pentecost. And, (6.) The still more abundant tie, the life of the adult or perfect Christian, imparted to him when the love of God, or power from on high, is plentifully shed abroad in his believing soul, on the day that Christ "baptizes him with the Holy Ghost and with fire, to sanctify him wholly, and seal him unto the day of redemption."

III. When you have overlooked all the degrees of spiritual death and life, what wonder is it that you should confound all the degrees of acceptance and Divine favour, with which God blesses the children of men! Permit me, honoured sir, to bring also this article of the Christian faith out of the Calvinian tower of Babel, where it has too long been detained.

1. 1 have already proved, that in consequence of the love of benevolence and pity, with which "God loved the world," and through the "propitiation which Christ made for the sins of the whole world, the free gift of an accepted time, and a day of salvation, came upon all men." In this sense they are all accepted, and sent "to work in the vineyard of their respective dispensations. This degree of acceptance, with the seed of light, life, and power that accompanies it, is certainly previous to any work; and, in virtue of it, infants and complete idiots go to heaven, for "of such is the kingdom of God." As they are not capable of burying or improving their talent of inferior acceptance, they are admitted with it to an inferior degree of glory.

2. While many abandoned heathens, and those who follow their abominable ways, bury their talent to the last, and lose it, together with the degree of acceptance they once enjoyed in or through "the Beloved;" sonic, by improving it, are accepted in a higher manner, and, like Cornelius, receive tokens of increasing favour. The love of pity and benevolence which God bore them, is now mixed with some love of complacence and delight.

3. Faithful Jews, or those who are, under their dispensation, improving a superior number of talents, are accepted in a superior manner, and as a token of it they are made "rulers over five cities," they partake of greater grace here, and greater glory hereafter.

4. John the Baptist and his disciples,-- I mean Christians who have not yet been "baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire,"-- are yet more highly accepted: for John, and the souls who live up to the height of his dispensation, are "great in the sight and favour of the Lord." They exceed all those who attain only to the perfection of inferior economists.

5. But those Christians who live in the kingdom of God, which was opened to believers on the day of pentecost, whose hearts burn with his love, and flame with his glory, are accepted in a still higher degree. For our Lord informs us, that great as John himself was, "the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he:" and as a token of superior acceptance, he shall be made "ruler over ten cities;" he shall enter more deeply "into the joy and glory of his Lord."

Although concurrence with trace given is necessary, in order to these four last degrees of acceptance, none enjoys them but in and through "the Beloved:" for as his blood is the meritorious spring of all our pardons, so his Spirit is the inexhaustible fountain of all our graces. Nor are we less indebted to him for power, to "be workers together with God" in the great business of our salvation, than for all the other wonders of his unmerited goodness and redeeming love.

Let nobody say, that the doctrine of these degrees of acceptance is founded upon metaphysical distinctions, and exceeds the capacity of simple Christians: for a child of ten years old understands that he may be accepted to run a race before he is accepted to receive the prize; and that a man may be accepted as a day labourer, and not as a servant; be as a steward, and not as a child; as a friend, and not as a spouse. All these degrees of acceptance are very distinct, and the confusion of them evidently belongs to the Calvinian Babel.

IV. As we have considered three of the walls of your tower, it will not be amiss to cast a look upon the fourth, which is the utterly confounding of the four degrees that make up a glorified saint's eternal justification:--

1. That which passes upon all infants universally, and is thus de. scribed by St. Paul: "As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, unto present justification from original sin, and future justification of life;" upon their repenting and "believing in the light, during the day of their visitation." In consequence of this degree of justification, we may, without impeaching the veracity of God, say to every creature, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, to reconcile them unto himself, not imputing to them" original sin unto eternal death, and blotting out their personal transgressions in the moment "they believe with the heart unto righteousness."

2. The justification consequent upon such believing, is thus described by St. Paul:-- This blessing of "faith imputed for righteousness" shall be ours, "if we believe on Him that was raised from the dead for our justification. We have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," &c.

3. The justification consequent upon bringing forth the fruit of a lively faith in the truths that belong to our dispensation. This justification is thus mentioned by St. James:-- " Rahab the harlot was justified by works. Abraham our father was justified by works. Ye see then how by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

And, 4. Final justification, thus asserted by our Lord and St. Paul In the day of judgment "by thy words shalt thou be justified, and by thy words shalt thou be condemned. Circumcision and uncircumcision avail nothing, but the keeping of the commandments; for the doers of the law shall be justified."*

[ * These four degrees of a glorified saint's justification are mentioned in the preceding Checks, though not so distinctly as they are here. If treating of our present justification by faith, and of justification by works in the day of judgment, I have called them "our first and second justification," it was not to exclude the other two, but to attack gradually reigning prejudice, and accommodate myself to the language of my honoured opponent, who called justification in the day of judgment "a second justification." I should have been more exact first; but I was so intent in demonstrating the thing, that I did not think then of contending for the most proper name. Nor did I see then of what importance it is to drag the monster error out of the den of confusion, in which ho hides himself.]

All these degrees of justification are equally merited by Christ. We do nothing in order to the first, because it finds us in a state of total death. Toward the second we believe by the power freely given us in the first, and by the additional help of Christ's word and the Spirit's agency. We work by faith in order to the third. And we continue believing in Christ and working together with God, as we have opportunity, in order to the fourth.

The preaching distinctly these four degrees of a glorified saint's justification is attended with peculiar advantages. The first justification engages the sinner's attention, encourages his hope, and draws his heart by love. The second wounds the self-righteous Pharisee, who works without believing; while it binds up the heart of the returning publican, who has no plea but "God be merciful to me a sinner!" The third detects the hypocrisy and blasts the vain hopes of all Antinomians, who, instead of "showing their faith by their works, deny in works the Lord that bought them, and put him to an open shame." And while the fourth makes even a "Felix tremble," it causes believers to "pass the time of their sojourning here in humble fear" and cheerful watchfulness.

Though all these degrees of justification meet in glorified saints, we offer violence to Scripture if we think, with Dr. Crisp, that they are inseparable. For all the wicked who "quench the convincing Spirit," and are finally given up to a reprobate mind, fall from the FIRST, as well as Pharaoh. All who "receive the seed among thorns," all who "do not forgive their fellow servants," all who "begin in the Spirit and end in the flesh," and all "who draw back," and become sons or daughters of" perdition," by falling from the THIRD, lose the SECOND, as Hymeneus, Philetus, and Demas. And none partake of the FOURTH but those who "bear fruit unto perfection," according to one or another of the Divine dispensations; "some producing thirty-fold," like heathens, "some sixty-fold," like Jews, "and some a hundred-fold," like Christians.

From the whole it appears, that although we can absolutely do nothing toward our first justification, yet to say that neither faith nor works are required in order to the other three, is one of the boldest, most .unscriptural, and most dangerous assertions in the world; which sets aside the best half of the Scriptures, and lets gross Antinomianism come in full tide upon the Church.

Having thus taken a view of the confusion in which Calvin and Crisp have laid the foundation of their schemes, I return to the arguments by which you support their mistakes.

I. 'If you suppose," you say, "that there are any conditional works before justification, these works must either be the works of one who is in a state of nature, or in a state of grace, either condemned by the law or absolved by the Gospel."

'A new sophism this! No works are previous to justification from original sin, arid to the quickening "light which enlightens every man that comes into the world." And the works that a penitent does in order to the subsequent justifications, such as "ceasing to do evil, learning to do well," repenting, and persevering in obedient faith, are all done in a state of initial, progressive, or perfected grace; not under the Adamic law, which did not admit of repentance, but under the Gospel of Christ, which says, "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, who will abundantly pardon his sins, cleanse him from all unrighteousness," and even "fill him with the fullness of God."

II. You proceed: "If a man in a state of nature do works in order to justification, they cannot please God, because he is in a state of utter enmity against him."

What, sir! do you think that a man in a state of utter enmity against God will do any thing in order to recover his favour? When Adam was in that state did he so much as once ask pardon? If he had, would lie not have evidenced a desire of reconciliation, and consequently a degree of apostasy short of what you call utter enmity?

III. You quote Scripture: "He that does something in order to justification cannot please God, because he 'is alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in him, because of the blindness of his heart.'"

An unhappy quotation this! For the apostle did not speak these words of those honest heathens, who, in obedience to "the Light of the world," did something in order to justification; but of those abandoned Pagans, who, as he observes in the next verse, "being past feeling, had given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness." Thus, to prove that men have not a talent of power to "work the works of God," you produce men who have buried it, that they might "work all uncleanness" without control, yea, "with greediness."

You would have avoided this mistake if you had considered that the heathens mentioned there by St. Paul were of the stamp of those whom he describes, Rom. i, and whom he represents as "given up" by God "to a reprobate mind, because when they knew God they glorified him not as God, and did not like to retain him in their knowledge." Here we may observe, (1.) That those reprobate heathens had once some knowledge of God, and, of course, some life: for "this is eternal life," to know God. (2.) That if they were given up, because they did not use that talent of Divine knowledge, it was not because they were eternally and unconditionally reprobated; whence I beg leave to conclude, that if eternal, unconditional reprobation is a mere chimera, so is likewise eternal, unconditional election.

You might have objected, with much more plausibility, that when the Ephesians were in the flesh they were "without hope, without Christ, and without God in the world:" and if you had, I would have replied, that these words cannot be taken in their full latitude, for the following reasons, which appear to me unanswerable:-- (1.) The Ephesians, before their conversion, were not totally without hope, but without a good hope. They probably had as presumptuous a hope as David in Uriah's bed, or Agag when he thought the bitterness of death was past. (2.) They were without Christ, just as a man who has buried his talent is without it. But as he may dig it up and use it if he sees his folly in time, so could, and so did the Ephesians. (3.) If they were in every sense without Christ, what becomes of the doctrine maintained in your fourth letter, that they "were for ever and for ever complete in Christ?" (4.) They were not entirely without God: "for in him they lived, moved, and had their being." Nor were they without him as absolute reprobates; for they "knew the day of their visitation" before it was over. It remains, then, (5.) That they were without God, as the prodigal son was without his father when "he fed swine in a far country;" and that they could and did return to their heavenly Father as well as he.

IV. You go on: "He who does something in order to justification, not being grafted in Christ the true vine, cannot bring forth any good fruit; he can do nothing at all."

I beg, sir, you would produce one man who has not" sinned the sin unto death." that can absolutely do nothing, that cannot cease from one sin, and take up the practice of one duty. You will as soon find a saint in hell as such a man upon earth. Even those who in their voluntary humility say perpetually that they can do nothing, refute their own doctrine by their ver confessions: for be who confesses his helplessness, undoubtedly does something, unless by some new rule in logic it can be demonstrated that confessing our impotence, and complaining of our misery, is doing nothing. When our Lord says, "Without me ye can do nothing," does he say that we are totally without him? When he declares, that "no man cometh unto him unless the Father draw him," does he insinuate that the Father does not draw all? Or that be draws irresistibly? Or that those who are drawn at one time, may not draw back at any other? Is it right to press Scripture into the service of a system, by straining its meaning so far beyond the import of the words?

Again: though a man may not be "grafted in Christ," according to the Jewish or Christian dispensation, may he not partake of his quickening sap, according to the more general dispensation of that "saving grace which has appeared to all men?" May not the branches in which that "saving grace appears," have some connection with Christ, the

heavenly vine, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, as well as Job and his friends, Melchisedec, Plato, the wise men, Cornelius, some of his soldiers, and many more who brought forth fruits according to their dispensation? Does not the first general justification so graft all men in Him that if they bear not fruit during their "accepted time," they

are justly "taken away, cast forth, and burned," as barren branches?

V. Your knowledge of the Scripture made you foresee this answer, and to obviate it, you say: "If you tell me that I mistake, that although we must cease from evil, repent, &c, yet you are far from supposing ice can perform these things in our own natural strength. I ask then, In whose strength are they performed? You say, In the strength of Christ, and by the power of the holy Ghost, according to these scriptures: 'I can do all things through Christ strengthening me, being strengthened with might in the inner man.'"

Permit me to tell you, honoured sir, that I do not admire your quoting Scripture for me. You take care to keep out of sight the passages I have quoted, and to produce those which are foreign to the question. To show that even a sinful heathen may work for) as well as from life, I could never be so destitute of common sense as to urge the experience of St. Paul, "a father in Christ;" and that of the Ephesians, who were Christians" sealed unto the day of redemption."

To do justice to free grace, instead of the above mentioned improper scriptures, you should have produced those which I have quoted in the Vindication:-- Christ is "the Light of the world, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world. I am come that they might have life. Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. The grace of God, which bringeth salvation, hath appeared unto all men. God's Spirit strives with man, even with those who perish. He commands all men every where to repent; nor does he desire to reap where he has not sown."

VI. Such scriptures as these would have been to the purpose. But I excuse your producing others: for if these had appeared, you would have raised more dust in six lines than you could have laid in sixty pages; and every attentive reader would have detected the fallacy of your grand argument: "As soon may we expect living actions from a dead corpse; light out of darkness; sight out of blindness; love out of enmity; wisdom out of ignorance; fruit out of barrenness, &c, &c, &c, as look for any one good work or thought from a soul who is not" (in some degree) "quickened by the Holy Ghost, and who has not yet found favour with God:" so far at least as to be blessed with "a day of salvation," and to be a partaker of "the free gift, which is come upon all men."

But, I pray, who is guilty of these absurdities? Who expects living actions from a dead corpse, &c, &c 1 You, or we? You, who believe that the greatest part of mankind are left as graceless as devils, as helpless as corpses; and yet gravely go and preach to them repentance and faith, threatening them with an aggravated damnation if they do not turn? or we, who believe that "Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man;" and that his "saving, quickening grace hath appeared unto all men?" Who puts foolish speeches in the mouth of the "only wise God?" You, who make him expostulate with souls as dead as corpses, and say, "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life?" or we, who assert, upon the testimony of the Holy Ghost, that God, by "working in us both to will and to do," puts us again in a capacity of "working out our salvation with fear and trembling?" Will not our impartial readers see that the absurdity, which you try to fix upon us, falls at your own door; and if your doctrine be true, at the door of the sanctuary itself?

VII. You pursue: "It is most clear that every soul who works in the strength of Christ, and by the power of the Holy Ghost, is already a pardoned and justified soul; he already has everlasting life."

Here is some truth and some error; let us endeavour to separate them. Every soul who works in the strength of Christ's preventing grace, and by his Spirit "convincing the world of sin," is undoubtedly interested in the first degree of justification: he is justified from the guilt of original sin, and, when he believes, from the guilt of his own actual sins; but it is absurd to suppose he is justified in the day of judgment, when that day is not yet come. He hath a seed of life, or else he could not work; but it is a doubt if this seed will take root; and in case it does, the heavenly plant of righteousness may be "choked by the cares of the world, the deceitfulness of riches, or the desire of other things, and by that mean become unfruitful."

As many barbarous mothers destroy the fruit of their womb, either before or after it comes to the birth, so many obstinate sinners obstruct the growth of the spiritual "seed that bruises the serpent's head;" and many flagrant apostates, in whose heart "Christ was once formed, crucify him afresh, and quench the Spirit" of his grace. Hence the many miscarriages and apostasies, for which Elisha Coles is obliged to account thus: There are "monsters in spirituals, in whom there is sonic-thing begotten in their wills, by the common strivings and enlightenings of the Spirit, which attains to a kind of formality, but proves in the end a Jump of dead flesh." Surely that great Calvinian divine was brought to a strait when he thus fathered formality and dead flesh upon the Holy Ghost!

VIII. I follow you: "Therefore all talk of working for life, in order to find favour with God, is not less absurd than if you were to suppose that a man could at the same moment be both condemned and absolved."

What, sir, may not a man be justly condemned, and yet graciously reprieved? Nay, may not the judge give him an opportunity to make the best of his reprieve, in order to get a full pardon and place at court? At Geneva, we think that the absurdity does not consist in asserting, but in denying it. "Awake and asleep!" What, sir, is it an absurdity to think that a man may be at the same moment awake in one respect, and asleep in another I Does not St. Paul say, "Let us awake out of sleep "But this is not all; even in Geneva people can be drowsy, that is, half awake and half asleep. "Dead and alive!" I hope you will not fix the charge of absurdity upon Christ, for saying that a certain man was left "half dead," and of course half alive; and for exhorting the people of Sardis who were dead, to "strengthen the things which remained and were ready to die:" nor yet upon St. Paul, for saying that the "dead body" of Abraham begat Isaac, and for speaking of a woman who was "dead while she lived."

IX. You go on and say, that "it is as absurd to talk of working for life, as to assert that we can be at the same time loved and hated of God."

But you forget, sir, that there are a thousand degrees of love and hatred; and that, in Scripture language, loving less is called haling:

"Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated. Except a man hate of sin are destroyed, and "God is all in all" to that just man "made perfect in love."

XII. You add: "If a man is not in a state of enmity, then he must be in a state of pardon and reconciliation."

What, sir! Is there no medium between these extremes? There is, as surely as the morning dawn intervenes between midnight and noonday. If the king say to some rebels, "Lay down your arms, surrender, kiss my son, and you shall be pardoned," the reconciliation on the king's part is undoubtedly begun. So far "was God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," But can it be said that the reconciliation is begun on the part of the rebels, who have not yet laid down any of their arms? Does not the reconciliation gradually take place, as they gradually comply with the king's terms? If they are long in coming to kiss the king's son, is not their full reconciliation suspended till they have fulfilled the last of the king's terms? And though the king made the overtures of the reconciliation, is there the least absurdity in saying, that "they surrender, and kiss the son, in order to find reconciliation?" Nay, is it either sense or truth to assert, that "they are absolutely to do nothing toward it?"

XIII. What you say about the thirteenth article of our Church is answered beforehand. (Vindication, p. 37.) But what follows deserves some notice: "Whenever God puts forth quickening power upon a soul, it is in consequence of his having already taken that soul into covenant with himself, and having washed it white in the blood of the Lamb slain."

This is very true, if you speak of the covenant of grace, which God made with our first parent and representative after the fall; and of the washing of all mankind white in the blood of the Lamb from the guilt of original sin, so far as to remit the eternal punishment of it. But you are dreadfully mistaken, if you understand it of the three subsequent degrees of justification and salvation, which do not take place, but as we "work them out with fear and trembling, as God works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

XIV. In the next page you ask some Scriptural questions, which I shall Scripturally answer: "What did the expiring thief do?" Some hours before he died he obeyed this precept, "To-day if ye will hear his voice harden not your heart;" he confessed his sin and believed in Jesus.

"What did Mary Magdalene do?" She forsook her lovers, and followed Jesus into Simon's house.

"What Lydia?" She "worshipped God, and resorted where prayer was wont to be made."

"What the Philippian jailer?" He ceased from attempting self murder, and "falling at the apostle's feet, inquired what he must do to be saved?"

"What the serpent-bitten Israelites?" They "looked at the brazen serpent."

"What Paul himself?" "For this cause I obtained mercy," says he, "because I did it ignorantly in unbelief," 1 Tim. i, 13. But this was not all; for he "continued praying three days and three nights;" and when Ananias came to him he tarried no longer, but "arose and washed away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

"What did the Corinthians do?" They "heard and believed," Acts viii, 8.

"And what the Ephesians?" They "trusted in Christ, after that they heard the word of truth," Eph. i, 13.

XV. In the next paragraph, (page 6, line 28,) you gravely propose the very objection which I have answered, (Vindication, page 26,) without taking the least notice of 'my answer. And in the next page you advance one of Dr. Crisp's paradoxes: "Wherever God puts forth his power upon a soul, (and he does so whenever he visits it even with a touch of preventing grace,) pardon and reconciliation are already obtained by such a one. He shall never come into condemnation."

Young penitents, beware! If you admit this tenet, you will probably stay in the "far country," vainly fancying you are in your "Father's house," because you have felt a desire to be there. Upon this scheme of doctrine, Lot's wife might have sat down at the gate of Sodom, concluding, that because the angels had taken her by the hand she was already in Zoar. A dangerous delusion this, against which our Lord himself cautions us by crying aloud, "Remember Lot's wife!"

I would take the liberty to expostulate with you, honoured sir, about this paradox, if I had not some hope, that it is rather owing to the printer's mistake than your own. If you wrote in your manuscript, "Pardon is already obtained for," not by, such a one, we are agreed; for "Christ made upon the cross a sufficient sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world." But what he procured for us, is not obtained by us, till the Holy Ghost makes the application by faith. "If I had a mind," said the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, "to hinder the progress of the Gospel, and to establish the kingdom of darkness, I would go about telling the people, they might have the Spirit of God, and yet not feel it;" or, which is much the same, that the pardon which Christ procured for them, is already obtained by them, whether they enjoy a sense of it or not.

XVI. In the next paragraph, page 7, (who could believe it?) you come fully into Mr. Wesley's doctrine of "doing something, in order to obtain justification." You was reminded (First Check) that "St. Paul and Mr. Wesley generally mean by justification, that wonderful transaction of the Spirit of God in a returning prodigal's conscience, by which the forgiveness of his sins is proclaimed to him through the blood of sprinkling." Nevertheless, speaking of the sense of pardon, and the testifying of it to a sinner's conscience, you grant that "this knowledge of our interest in Christ," (this experienced justification,) "is certainly to be sought in the use of all appointed means; we are to seek that we may find, to ask that we may have, to knock that it may be opened unto us. In this sense," (the very sense we generally fix to the word justification,) "all the texts you have brought to prove that man is to do something in order to obtain justification, and to find favour with God, admit of an easy solution:" that is, in plain English, easily demonstrate the truth of Mr. Wesley's proposition, which has been so loudly exclaimed against as dreadfully heretical!

o prejudice, thou mischievous cause of discord, why didst thou cast thy black veil in June, and the following months, over the easy solution, which has been found out in December? And what a pity is it, dear sir, you did not see this solution before you had attempted to expose our gray-headed Elisha, by the publication of that weak and trifling dialogue with the Popish friar at Paris!

XVII. Page 10. After showing that you confound the atonement with the application of it, the work of Christ with that of the Holy Ghost, you produce one of my arguments, (the first you have attempted to refute,) brought to prove, that we must do something in order to justification. I had asserted that we must believe, faith being previous to justification. You say, "I deny the assertion!" Do you, indeed, honoured sir? Upon what ground? "The Holy Ghost teaches," say you, "that all who believe are justified." And does this prove the point? The king says to a deserter, "Bow to my son, and thou shalt not be shot." "Bow to the prince," adds an officer; "all who bow to him are pardoned." Must the soldier conclude from the words, "are pardoned," that the pardon is previous to the bow? Again:

you are sick, and your physician says, "Take this medicine; all who take it are cured." "Very well!" answers your nurse, "you need not then distress and perplex my master, by making him take your remedy. The taking of it cannot possibly be previous to his recovery; for you say, All who take it are cured." This is just such another argument as that of my honoured friend. O sir, how tottering is that system, which even such a writer as yourself cannot prop up, without putting so forced a construction upon the apostle's words, "All that believe are justified?"

Now we have seen upon what Scriptural ground you maintain, that believing cannot be previous to justification, permit me, honoured sir, to quote some of the many scriptures which induce us to believe just the reverse: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;" that is, in the lowest sense of the word, thou shalt be justified: for God justifies the ungodly that believe in Jesus. "We have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ-- whom he hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the remission of sins that are past. As Moses lifted up the serpent, even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish;" should be pardoned, &c. "Faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness, if we believe on him who raised up Jesus. Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God. Without faith it is impossible to please God. He that believeth not," far from being justified, as is insinuated, "shall be damned; the wrath of God abideth on him; he is condemned already," John iii, 18. Light cannot be more opposite to darkness, than this doctrine of Christ to that which my honoured friend thinks it his duty to patronize.

XVIII. When you have ineffectually endeavoured to defend your sentiment from Scripture, you attempt to do it from reason. "Faith," say you, "can no more subsist without its object than there can be a marriage without a husband."

This is as proper an argument as you could a4vance, had you in. tended to disprove the doctrine you seem studious to defend; for it is evident that a woman must be married before she can have a husband, So sure then as marriage is previous to having a husband, faith is previous to receiving Christ: for we receive him by faith, John i, 12. However, from this extraordinary argument, you conclude that "the doctrine of believing before justification is not less contrary to reason titan it is to Scripture;" but I flatter myself that my judicious readers will draw a conclusion diametrically opposite.

XIX. A quotation from St. Augustine appears next, and secures the ruin of your scheme. For if faith be compared to a lantern, and Christ to the light in the lantern, common sense tells us we must have the lantern before we can receive the candle which is to give us light. Or, in other words, we must have faith before we can receive Christ:

for you very justly observe, that "faith receiveth Christ, who is the true Light."

XX. St. Augustine's lantern makes way for the witticism with which you conclude your second epistle. "No letters," says my honoured friend, "were sent through the various provinces against old Mordecai for supposing that the woman, Luke xv, lights a candle, &c, in order to find