XVI. To conclude: Milton says somewhere, "There is a certain scale of duties, a certain hierarchy of upper and lower commands, which for want of studying in right order, all the world is in confusion." What that great man said of the scale of duties and commands, may with equal propriety be affirmed of the scale of evangelical truths, and the hierarchy of upper and lower Gospel dispensations. For want of studying them in right order, all the Church is in confusion. The most effectual, not to say the only way of ending these theological disputes of Christians, and destroying the errors of levelling Pelagianism, Antinomian Calvinism, confused Arminianism, and reprobating popery, is to restore primitive harmony and fulness to the partial gospels of the day; which can be done with ease, among candid and judicious inquirers after truth, by placing the doctrine of the dispensations in its Scripture light; and by holding forth the doctrines of grace and justice in all their evangelical brightness. This has been attempted in the two Essays from which these inferences are drawn. Whether the well-meant attempt shall be successful with respect to one, is a question, which thy reason and candour, gentle reader, are called upon to decide.

SECTION VI.

The plan of a general reconciliation and union between the moderate

Calvinists and the candid Arminians.

By the junction of the doctrines of grace and justice, which, I hope, is effected in the two Essays on Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism, the Gospel of Christ recovers its original fulness and glory, and the two Gospel axioms are equally secured: for, on the one hand, the absolute sovereignty and partial goodness of our Creator and Redeemer shine as the meridian blaze of day, without casting the least shade upon his truth and equity you have an election of free grace, without a reprobation of free wrath. And, on the other hand, the impartial justice of our Governor and Judge appears like an unspotted sun, whose brightness is perfectly consistent with the transcendent splendour of free grace and distinguishing love. The elect receive "the reward of the inheritance" with feelings of pleasing wonder and shouts of humble praise. Nor have the reprobates the least ground to say, that the Judge of all the earth does not do right, and that they are lost merely because irresistible power necessitated them to sin by Adam without remedy, that they might be damned by Christ without possibility of escape. Thus the gracious and righteous ways of God with man are equally vindicated, and the whole controversy terminates in the following conclusion, which is the ground of the reconciliation, to which moderate Calvinists and 'candid Arminians are invited.

Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism are two essential opposite parts of the Gospel, which agree as perfectly together as two wings of a palace, the opposite ramparts of a regular fortress, and the different views of a fine face, considered by persons who stand, some on the right and some on the left hand of the beauty who draws their attention.

Rigid Calvinists* and rigid Arminians are both in the wrong; the former in obscuring the doctrines of impartial justice, and the latter in clouding the doctrines of partial grace: but moderate Calvinists* and candid Armi. nians* are very near each other, and very near the truth; the difference there is between them being more owing to confusion, want of proper explanation, and misapprehension of each other's sentiments, than to any real, inimical opposition to the truth, or to one another. And therefore, they have no more reason to fall out with each other, than masons who build the opposite wings of the same building; soldiers, who defend the opposite sides of the same fortification; painters, who take different views of the same face; or loyal subjects, who vindicate different, but equally just claims of their royal master.

Since there is so immaterial a difference between the moderate Calvinists and the candid Arminians, why do they keep at such distance from each other? Why do they not publicly give one another the right hand of fellowship, and let all the world know that they are brethren, and will henceforth own, love, help, and defend each other as such?

* Rigid Calvinists are persons who hold the Manichean doctrine of absolute necessity, and maintain both an unconditional election of free grace in Christ, and an unconditional reprobation of free wrath in Adam. Moderate Calvinists are men who renounce the doctrine of absolute necessity, stand up for the election of free grace, and are ashamed of the reprobation of free wrath. Rigid Arminians are persons who will not hear of an unconditional election, make more of free will than of free grace, oppose God's gracious sovereignty, deny his partiality, and econdemn Calvinism in an unscriptural manner. Candid Arminians are people who mildly contend for the doctrines of justice, and are willing to hear with candour what the judicious Calvinists have to say in defence of the doctrines of grace.

In my Preparatory Essay, I have expressed myself as one, who sometimes doubts whether Arminius did see the doctrine of election in a clear light. It may be proper to account here for a degree of seeming inconsistency into which this transient doubt has betrayed me. Having been long ill, and at a distance from my books, I have not lately looked into Arminius' Works; nor did I ever read them carefully through, as every one should have done, who positively condemns or clears him. And if I have somewhere positively said, that he was not clear in the doctrine of election, I did it, (1.) Because I judged of Arminius' doctrine by that of the Arminians, who seem to me to be in general (as I had been for years) unacquainted with the distinction between the election of grace and that of justice. (2.) Because, at the synod of Dort, the Arminians absolutely refused to debate first the point of election, which the Calvinists wanted them to do. Whence I concluded that Arminius had not placed that point of doctrine in a light strong enough to expel the darkness which rigid Calvinists had spread over it. And, (3.) Because it is generally supposed that Arminius leaned to the error of Pelagius, who did not do justice to the election of grace. Mr. Bayle, for example, in his life of Arminius, says, " Arminius condemned the Supralapsarian Beza, and afterward acknowledged no other election than that which was grounded on the obedience of sinners to the call of God by Jesus Christ." If this account of Mr. Bayle be just, it is evident that Arminius, as well as Pelagius, admitted only the election of justice. However, a candid clergyman, who has read Arminius, assures me that in some parts of his writings, he does justice to the unconditional election of grace. And indeed this election is so conspicuous in the Scriptures, that it is hard to conceive it should never have been discovered by so judicious a divine as Arminius is said to have been. The difficulty in this matter is not to meet and salute the truth now and then, but to hold her fast, and walk steadily with her, across all the mazes of error. The light of evangelists should not break forth now and then, as a flash of lightning does out of a dark cloud; but it should shine constantly, and with increasing lustre, as the light of the eclipsed sun.

That no essential difference keeps them asunder, I prove by the follow. ing argument:

If candid Arminians will make no material objection to my Essay on Bible Calvinism; and if judicious Calvinists will not condemn my Essay on Bible Arminianism as unscriptural, it is evident that the difference between them is not capital, and that it arises rather from want of light to see the whole truth clearly, than from an obstinate enmity to any material part of the truth.

Nor is this a sentiment peculiar to myself: I hold it in common with some of the most public defenders of the doctrines of grace and justice. The Arminians will not think that Mr. J. Wesley is partial to the Calvinists, and the professing world is no stranger to Mr. Rowland Hill's zeal against the Arminians. Nothing can be more opposite than the religious principles of these two gentlemen. Nevertheless, they both agree to place the doctrines which distinguish pious Calvinists from pious Arminians, among the opinions which are not essential to genuine, vital, practical Christianity. Mr. Wesley, in his thirteenth Journal, page 115, says, in a letter to a friend, "You have admirably well expressed what I mean by an opinion, contradistinguished from an essential doctrine. Whatever is compatible with love to Christ, and a work of grace, I term an opinion, and certainly the holding particular election and final perseverance is compatible with these." What he adds in the next page is perfectly agreeable to this candid concession: "Mr. H- and Mr. Nhold this, and yet I believe these have real Christian experience. But if so, this is only an opinion: it is not subversive [here is clear proof to the contrary] of the very foundations of Christian experience. It is compatible with love to Christ, and a genuine work of grace; yea, many hold it, at whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If then I oppose this with my whole strength, I am a mere bigot still." As Mr. Wesley candidly grants here that persons may hold the Calvinian opinions which Mr. Hill patronizes, and yet be full of love to Christ, and have a genuine work of grace on their souls; so Mr. Hill, in his late publication, entitled, A Full Answer to the Rev. J. Wesley's Remarks, page 42, candidly acknowledges that it is possible to hold Mr. Wesley's Arminian principles, and yet to be serious, converted, and sound in Christian experience. His words are: "As for the serious and converted part of Mr. Wesley's congregation, as I by no means think it necessary for any to be what are commonly called Calvinists, in order that they may be Christians, I can most solemnly declare, however they may judge of me, that I love and honour them not a little; as I am sat isfied that many who are muddled in their judgments are sound in their experience." These two quotations do honour to the moderation of the popular preachers from whose writings they are extracted. May all the pious Arminians and Calvinists abide by their decisions! So shall they find that nothing parts them but unessential opinions; that they are joined by their mutual belief of the essential doctrines of the Gospel; and therefore, that if they oppose each other with their whole strength, they are "mere bigots still."

To conclude this reconciling argument: if there be numbers of holy souls, who are utter strangers to the peculiarities of rigid Calvinism and rigid Arminianism; if both the Calvinists and the Arminians can pro

duce a cloud of witnesses, that their opinions are consistent with the most genuine piety, and the most extensive usefulness; if there have been many excellent men on both sides of the question, who (their opponents being judges) have lived in the work of faith, suffered with the patience of hope, and died in the triumph of love; and if, at this very day, we can find, among the clergy and laity, Calvinists and Arminians, who adorn their Christian profession by a blameless conduct, and by constant labours for the conversion of sinners, or the edification of saints, and who, the Lord being their helper, are ready to seal the truth of Christianity with their blood; if this, I say, has been, and is still the case, is it not indubitable that people may be good Christians, whether they embrace the opinions of Calvin, or those of Arminius; and by consequence, that neither rigid Calvinism nor rigid Arminianism are any essential part of Christianity?

And shall we make so much of nonessentials, as, on their account, to damp, and perhaps extinguish the flame of love, which is the most important of all the essentials of Christianity? Alas! what is all faith good for yea, all faith adorned with the "knowledge of all doctrines and mysteries," if it be not attended by charity? It may indeed help us to "speak with the tongues of men and angels," to preach like apos. tles, and talk like seraphs; but, after all, it will leave us mere cyphers, or at best a "sounding brass," a pompous nothing in the sight of the God of love. And therefore, as we would not keep ourselves out of the kingdom of God, which consists in "love, peace, and joy;" and as we would not promote the interests of the kingdom of darkness, by carrying the fire of discord in our bosoms, and filling our vessels with the "waters of strife," which so many foolish virgins prefer to the "oil of gladness," let us promote peace with all our might. Let us remem. ber, that, "in all Churches of the saints, God is the author of peace; that his Gospel is the Gospel of peace;" that "he hath called us to peace; and that the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace." Let us "study to be quiet; following peace with all men ;" and "pursuing especially those things which make for peace in the household of faith:" nor let us turn from the blessed pursuit, till we have attained the blessing offered to peace makers.

"The kingdom" of love, peace, and joy, "suffereth violence:" it cannot be taken and kept, without great and constant endeavours. The violent alone are able to conquer it; for it is taken by the force of earnest prayer to God, for his blessing upon our overtures of peace; and by the vehemence of importunate requests to our brethren, that they would grant us an interest in their forgiving love, and admit us, for Christ's sake, to the honour of union, and pleasure of communion with them. It is an important part of "the good fight of faith working by love," to attack the unloving prejudices of our brethren, with a meekness of wisdom which turneth away wrath; with a patience of hope which a thousand repulses cannot beat off; with a perseverance of love which taketh no denial; and with an ardour of love which floods of contempt cannot abate. May God hasten the time when all the soldiers of Christ shall so learn and practise this part of the Christian exercise, as to overcome the bigotry of their brethren! Nor let us think that this is impossible: for if the love of Christ has conquered us,

why should we despair of its conquering others? And if the unjust judge, who neither feared God, nor regarded man, was nevertheless overcome by the importunity of a poor widow, why should we doubt of overcoming, by the same means, our fellow Christians who fear God, rejoice in Christ, regard men, and love their brethren? Let us only convince them by every Christian method, that we are their brethren indeed, and we shall find most of them far more ready to return our love, than we have found them ready to return our provocations or indifference.

Should it be asked, What are those Christian methods, by which we could persuade our Calvinian or Arminian brethren, that we are their brethren indeed? I answer, that all these methods centre in these few Scriptural directions:-"Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." Love your opponents, though they should "despitefully use you." "Bless them," though they should "curse you." "Pray for them," though they should "persecute you." Wait upon them, and salute them as brethren, though they should keep at as great a distance from you, as if you were their enemies: "for if ye show love to them who show love to you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only," who kindly salute you, "what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?" But treat them as God treats us: so shall you "be the children of your Father, who is in heaven, for he maketh his sun to rise, and sendeth his rain upon us all. Be ye therefore perfect, even as he is perfect." No bigot ever observed these Gospel directions. only by observing them that we can break the bars of party spirit; and pass from the close confinement of bigotry, into the "glorious liberty" of brotherly love.

And it is

These scriptures were probably before the eyes of a laborious minis. ter of Christ, when he drew up, some years ago, a plan of union among the clergymen of the Established Church, who agree in these essentials: "(1.) Original sin. (2.) Justification by faith. (3.) Holiness of heart and life; provided their life be answerable to their doctrines." This plan is as follows:-"But what union would you desire among these? Not a union of opinions. They might agree or disagree, touching absolute decrees on the one hand, and perfection on the other. Not a union in expression. These may still speak of the imputed righteousness, and those of the merits of Christ. Not a union with regard to outward order. Some may still remain quite regular; some quite irregular; and some partly regular, and partly irregular." Not a union of societies. Some who do not see the need of discipline, may still labour without forming any society at all: others may have a society, whose members are united by the bands of a lax discipline. And others, who have learned by experience that professors can never be kept long together without the help of a strict discipline, may strengthen their union with those who are like minded, by agreeing to observe such rules as appear to them most conducive to the purposes of Divine and brotherly love. "But these things being as they are, as each is per suaded in his own mind, is it not a most desirable thing that we should first remove hinderances out of the way? Not judge one another, not envy one another? Not be displeased with one another's gifts or suc.