SECTION VI.

A view of the SCRIPTURE PROOFS by which Mr. T. attempts to demonstrate the truth of Calvinian reprobation.

THAT the Old and New Testament hold forth a PARTIAL REPROBATION of distinguishing grace, and an IMPARTIAL REPROBATION of retributive justice, is a capital truth of the Gospel. One of the leading errors of the Calvinists consists in confounding these two reprobations, and the elections which they draw after them. By the impetuous blast of prejudice, and the fire of a heated imagination, modern Aarons melt the partial election of grace, and the impartial election of justice; and, casting them in the mould of confusion, they make their one partial election of unscriptural, necessitating, Antinomian FREE GRACE, to which they are obliged to oppose their one partial reprobation of necessitating, Manichean FREE WRATH. Now, as the Scriptures frequently speak of the harmless reprobation of grace, and of the awful reprobation of justice, it would be surprising, indeed, if out of so large a book as the Bible, Logica Genevensis could not extract a few passages which, by being wrested from the context, and misapplied according to art, seem to favour Calvinian reprobation. Such passages are produced in the following pages::

ARG. XXXIX. Page 19. After transcribing Rom. ix, 20-23, Mr. Toplady says, "Now are these the words of Scripture, or are they not? If not, prove the forgery. If they be, you cannot fight against reprobation without fighting against God." Far from fighting against Scripture reprobation, we maintain, as St. Paul does in Rom. ix, (1.) That God has an absolute right gratuitously to call whom he pleases to either of his two grand covenants of peculiarity, (Judaism and Christianity,) and gratuitously to reprobate whom he will from the blessings peculiar to these covenants; leaving as many nations and individuals as he thinks fit, under the general blessings of the gracious covenants which he made with reprieved Adam, and with spared Noah. (2.) We assert that God has an indubitable right judicially to reprobate obstinate unbelievers under all the dispensations of his grace, and to appoint that (as stubborn unbelievers) they shall be "vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" by their own unbelief, and not by God's free wrath. This is all the reprobation which St. Paul contends for in Rom. ix. (See Scales, sec. xi, where Mr. T.'s objection is answered at large.) Therefore, with one hand we defend Scripture reprobation, and with the other we attack Calvinian reprobation; maintaining that the Scripture reprobation of grace, and of justice, are as different from Calvinian, damning reprobation, as appointing a soldier to continue a soldier, and to be a captain, or a wilful deserter to be shot, is different from appointing a soldier necessarily to desert, that he may be unavoidably shot for desertion.

Having thus vindicated the godly reprobation maintained by St. Paul from the misapprehensions of Mr. Toplady, we point at all the passages which we have produced in the Scripture Scales, in defence of the doctrines of justice, the CONDITIONALITY of the reward of the inheritance, and the FREEDOM of the will; and, retorting Mr. T.'s argument, we say, Now, are these the words of Scripture, or are they not? If not, prove

46

the forgery. If they be, you cannot fight against [the conditional] reprobation [which we defend,] without fighting against God." You cannot fight for Calvinian reprobation without fighting for free wrath and the evil-principled Deity worshipped by the Manichees.

ARG. XL. Page 51. Mr. T. supports absolute reprobation by quoting 1 Sam. ii, 25: "They [the sons of Eli] hearkened not to the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them," 1 Sam. ii, 25. Here we are given to understand, that by the decree of the means, the Lord secured the disobedience of these wicked men, in order to accomplish his decree of the end, that is, their absolute destruction.

66

To this truly Calvinian insinuation we answer, (1.) The sons of Eli, who had turned the tabernacle into a house of ill fame, and a den of thieves, had personally deserved a judicial reprobation; God therefore could justly give them up to a reprobate mind, in consequence of their personal, avoidable, repeated, and aggravated crimes. (2.) The word killing" does not here necessarily imply eternal damnation. The Lord killed, by a lion, the man of God from Judah, for having stopped in Bethel he killed Nadab and Abihu for offering strange fire: he killed the child of David and Bathsheba: he killed many of the Corinthians, for their irreverent partaking of the Lord's Supper: but the "sin unto [bodily] death" is not the sin unto eternal death. For St. Paul informs us that the body is sometimes "given up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord," 1 Cor. v, 5. (3.) The Hebrew particle, which is rendered in our translation "because," means also "therefore:" and so our translators themselves have rendered it after St. Paul, and the Septuagint, Psa. cxvi, 10, "I believed, ">, and therefore will I speak :" see 2 Cor. iv, 13. If they had done their part as well in translating the verse quoted by Mr. Toplady, the doctrines of free wrath would have gone propless; and we should have had these edifying words: "They [the sons of Eli] hearkened not to the voice of their father; and THEREFORE the Lord would slay them." Thus the voluntary sin of free agents would be represented as the cause of their deserved reprobation; and not their undeserved reprobation as the cause of their necessary sin. (See sec. ii.)

ARG. XLI. Page 51. Mr. T. tries to prove absolute reprobation by quoting these words of our Lord: "Thou Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works which have been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would [or might] have remained unto this day."

This passage, if I am not mistaken, is nothing but a strong expostulation and reproof, admirably calculated to shame the unbelief and alarm the fears of the Capernaites. Suppose I had an enemy, whose obstinate hatred had resisted for years the constant tokens of my love; and suppose I said to him, "Your obduracy is astonishing; if I had shown to the fiercest tiger the kindness which I have shown you, I could have melted the savage beast into love;" would it be right, from such a figurative supposition, to conclude that I absolutely believed I could have tamed the fiercest tiger?

But this passage, taken in a literal sense, far from proving the absolute reprobation of Sodom, demonstrates that Sodom was never reprobated in the Calvinian sense of the word: for if it had been absolutely reprobated

from all eternity, no works done in her by Christ and his apostles could have overcome her unbelief. But our Lord observes that her strong unbelief could have been overcome by the extraordinary means of faith, which could not conquer the unbelief of Capernaum. Mr. T. goes on:ARG. XLII. (Ibid.) "But though God knew the citizens of Sodom would [or might] have reformed their conduct, had his providence made use of effectual [Mr. T. should say of every effectual] means to that end; still these effectual [Mr. T. should say, all these extraordinary and peculiar] means were not vouchsafed." True: because, according to the election of grace, God uses more means and more powerful means to convert some cities than he does to convert others: witness the case of

Nineveh, compared with that of Jericho. This is strongly maintained in my Essay on the Partial Reprobation of Distinguishing Grace, where this very passage is produced. But still we affirm two things: (1.) God always uses means sufficient to demonstrate that his goodness, patience, and mercy, are over all his works, (though in different degrees,) and to testify that he is unwilling that sinners should die, unless they have first obstinately, and without necessity, refused to "work out their own eternal salvation" with the talent of temporary salvation, which is given to all, for the sake of Him whose "saving grace has appeared to all men," and who "enlightens [in various degrees] every man that comes into the world." (2.) As the men of Sodom were not absolutely lost, though they had but one talent of means, no more were the men of Capernaum absolutely saved, though God favoured them with so many more talents of means than he did the men of Sodom. Hence it appears that Mr. T. has run upon the point of his own sword; the passage which he appeals to proving that God does not work so irresistibly upon either Jews or Gentiles as to secure his absolute approbation of some, and his absolute reprobation of others.

ARG. XLIII. Page 52. Mr. T., to prop up Calvinian reprobation, quotes these words of Christ: "Fill ye up the measure of your fathers," Matt. xxiii, 32, and he takes care to produce the words, "Fill ye up," in capitals; as if he would give us to understand that Christ is extremely busy in getting reprobates to sin and be damned. For my part, as I believe that Christ never preached up sin and wickedness, I am persuaded that this expression is nothing but a strong, ironical reproof of sin, like that in the Revelation, "Let him that is unjust, be unjust still;" or that in the Gospel, "Sleep on now and take your rest;" or that in the book of Ecclesiastes, "Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and walk in the ways of thy heart, &c, but know," &c. I shudder when I consider "doctrines of grace," so called, which support themselves by representing Christ as a preacher of wickedness. Calvinism may be compared to that insect which feeds on putrefying carcasses, lights only upon real or apparent sores, and delights chiefly in the smell of corruption. If there be a fault in our translation, Calvinism will pass over a hundred plain passages well translated, and will eagerly light upon the error. Thus, pp. 53 and 57, Mr. Toplady quotes, "being disobedient, whereunto they were appointed," 1 Pet. ii, 8. He had rather take it for granted that the God of Manes absolutely predestinates some people to be disobedient, than do the holy God the justice to admit this godly sense, which the original bears, "Being disobedient, whereunto they VOL. II.

29

have set, or disposed themselves." (See the proofs, Scales, pages 78, 104.)

ARG. XLIV. Page 52. Mr. T., still pleading for the "horrible decree" of Calvinian reprobation, says, "St. Matthew, if possible, expresses it still more strongly: 'It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven; but to them it is not given,' Matt. xiii, 11." I answer: (1.) If by "the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven," you understand the mysteries of Christianity, it is absurd to say that all who are not blessed with the knowledge of these mysteries are Calvinistically reprobated. This I demonstrate by verses 16, 17, and by the parallel place in St. Luke: "All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. [That is, the mystery of a relative personality of Father and Son in the Godhead has not been expressly revealed to others, as I choose to reveal it to you, my Christian friends] and [to show that this was his meaning] he turned him unto his disciples, and said, privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see: for I tell you that many prophets [such as Samuel, Isaiah, Daniel, &c,] and kings [such as David, Solomon, Josiah, Hezekiah, &c, St. Matthew adds, and righteous men,' such as Noah, Abraham, &c,] have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them," Luke x, 22–24; Matt. xiii, 17. Is not Mr. T. excessively fond of reprobating people to death, if he supposes that because "it was not given to those prophets, kings, and righteous men, to know the mysteries of the" Christian dispensation, they were all absolutely doomed to continue in sin, and be damned?

But, (2.) Should it be asserted, that by "the mysteries of the kingdom," we are to understand here every degree of saving light, then the reprobation mentioned in Matt. xiii, 11, is not the partial reprobation of grace, but the impartial reprobation of justice: and, in this case, to appeal to this verse in support of a chimerical reprobation of free wrath, argues great inattention to the context; for the very next verse fixes the reason of the reprobation of the Jews, who heard the Gospel of Christ without being benefited by it: a reason this, which saps the foundation of absolute reprobation. "But unto them it is not given:" for they are Calvinistically reprobated! No: "Unto them it is not given: for, whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance but whosoever hath not, [to purpose] from him shall be taken away, even that he hath," Matt. xiii, 12. This anti-Calvinian sense is strongly confirmed by our Lord's words two verses below: "To them it is not given, &c, for this people's heart is waxed gross: [NOTE: it is waxed gross, therefore it was not so gross at first as it is now:] and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them," Matt. xiii, 15. To produce, therefore, Matt. xiii, 11, as a capital proof of Calvinian reprobation, is as daring an imposition upon the credulity of the simple, as to produce Exodus xx, in defence of adultery and murder. However, such arguments will not only be swallowed

down in Geneva as tolerable, but the author of P. O. will cry them up as "most masterly."

ARG. XLV. Page 53. Mr. T. concludes his Scripture proofs of Calvinian reprobation by these words: "Now I leave it to the decision of any unprejudiced, capable man upon earth, whether it be not evident, from these passages, &c, that God hath determined to leave some men to perish in their sins and to be justly punished for them? In affirming which, I only give the scripture as I found it." That the scriptures produced by Mr. T. prove this, is true; we maintain it as well as he: and if he will impose no other reprobation upon us, we are ready to shake hands with him. Nor needs he call his book, “More Work for Mr. Wesley," but, A Reconciliation with Mr. Wesley: for, when we speak of the reprobation of JUSTICE, we assert that "God hath determined to leave some men, [namely, the wise and prudent in their own eyes, the proud and disobedient, who do despite to the Spirit of grace to the end of their day of salvation] to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them." But, according to Mr. T.'s system, the men "left to perish in their sins," are not the men whom the scriptures which he has quoted describe; but poor creatures absolutely sentenced to necessary, remediless sin, and to unavoidable, eternal damnation, long before they had an existence in their mother's womb. And, in this case, wơ affirm that their endless torments can never be just: and, of consequence, that the Calvinian reprobation of unborn men, which Mr. T. has tried to dress up in Scripture phrases, is as contrary to the Scripture reprobation of stubborn offenders, as Herod's ordering the barbarous destruction of the holy innocents, is different from his ordering the righteous execution of bloody murderers.

SECTION VII.

An answer to the arguments by which Mr. T. tries to reconcile Calvinism with the doctrine of a future judgment, and ABSOLUTE necessity with MORAL agency.

THEY who indirectly set aside the day of judgment, do the cause of religion as much mischief as they who indirectly set aside the immortality of the soul. Mr. Wesley asserts that the Calvinists are the men. His words are: "On the principle of absolute predestination, there can be no future judgment. It requires more pains than all the men upon earth, than all the devils in hell will ever be able to take, to reconcile the doctrine of [Calvinian] reprobation, with the doctrine of a judgment day." Mr. T. answers :

ARG. XLVI. Page 82. "The consequence is false; for absolute predestination is the very thing that renders the future judgment certain: 'God hath APPOINTED a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ORDAINED.'" If Mr. T. had put the words "in righteousness" in capitals, instead of the words "appointed" and "ordained," (which he fondly hopes will convey the idea of the Calvinian decrees,) he would have touched the knot of the difficulty: for the question is not, whether there will be a day of judgment; but