Postscript.

POSTSCRIPT.

SOME persons think our controversy will offend the world; and, indeed, we were once afraid of it ourselves. Of this ill-judged fear, and of the voluntary humility which made us reverence the very errors of the good men from whom we dissent, the crafty, diligent tempter has so availed himself as to sow his Antinomian tares with the greatest success. Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, and Mr. Sellon have, indeed, made a noble stand against him: but an impetuous torrent of triumphant opposition still rolls and foams through the kingdom, bent upon drowning their works and reputation in floods of contempt and reproach. And some good, mistaken men, warmly carry on still the rash design of publicly turning the second Gospel axiom out of our Bibles, and out of the Church of England, under the frightful names of “Arminianism and Popery.” The question With us, then, is not so much whether Mr. Wesley shall be ranked with heretics, as whether the undefiled religion, particularly described in the Epistle of St. James, and in our Lord’s sermon on the mount, shall pass for a dreadful heresy, while barefaced Antinomianism passes for pure Gospel. Now, we apprehend, that, to debate such a question in a fair and friendly manner, will rather edify than offend either the religious or the moral world. Fair arguments, plain scriptures, honest appeals to conscience, and a close pursuit of ridiculous error, hunted down to its last recesses, will never displease inquirers after truth: and among the bystanders, few, beside these, will trouble themselves with our publications. If we offend our readers, it is only when we take our leave of Scripture and argument, to cry out, without rhyme and reason, “Disingenuity! Slander! Falsehood! Calumny! Forgery! Heresy! Popery!”

Bad as we are, the moral world regards yet a good argument, and the religious world still shows some respect for Scripture quoted consistently with the context. Fight we then lovingly with such weapons, for what we esteem to be the truth; and be the edge of our controversial swords ever so keen, we shall be sure to wound nobody but the bigots of the opposite party, and such as are so great a disgrace to Christianity, that we shall do the cause of religion service by stumbling them out of their profession of it, if they are above learning the lessons of moderation.

Undoubtedly we are severely condemned by some good people who forget that Moses was once obliged to oppose not only Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who styled themselves the Lord’s people, but his own dear elect brother Aaron himself: and that St. Paul was forced by peculiar circumstances, at all hazards, to withstand St. Peter himself. Well-meaning Elis also, who do not consider consequences, and love to enjoy their own ease rather than to make a vigorous resistance against error and sin, will be very apt to conclude that our opposition springs from mere obstinacy and party spirit. But should such hasty judges read attentively the Epistle of St. Jude, that of St. James, the first of St. John, and the second of St. Peter, which are all levelled at Antinomianism, they will think more favourably of the stand we make against our pious brethren who inadvertently countenance the Antinomian delusion.

However, it is objected, “This controversy will hurt the men of the world, and set them against all religion.” Just the contrary. There are, indeed, Galios, men that care for no religion at all, who, upon hearing of our controversy, will triumph, and cry out, “If these men do not agree among themselves, how can they desire that we should agree with them?” As if we had ever desired them to agree with us any farther than the plain letter of Scripture, and the loud dictates of conscience invite them so to do! But such prepossessed judges will not be hurt by our controversy though they should pretend they are: for they have their stumbling block in their own breast. They would not have wanted pretences to ridicule religion, if our controversy had never been set on foot; nor would they entertain more favourable thoughts of it, if we dropped it without coming to a proper eclaircissement.

But these, however numerous, are not all the world. There are, in our universities, and throughout the kingdom, hundreds, and we hope thousands, of judicious and candid men who truly fear God, and sincerely desire to love him. These, we apprehend, are offended at the first Gospel axiom, and driven farther and farther from it by the mixture of “Antinomian dotages,” which renders it ridiculous. They are tempted to throw away the marrow of the Gospel, on account of the luscious, fulsome additions made to it, to make it richer. And to these, we flatter ourselves, that our controversy will prove useful, as well as to our candid brethren. We hope it will open to the view of these Gamaliels and Obadiahs the confused heap of truth and error at which they so justly stumble, and help them precisely to separate the precious from the vile, that while they “abhor that which is evil, they may cleave to that which is good.” This is not all: when they shall see that some of those men, whom they accounted wild enthusiasts, candidly take their part, where they are in the right, and fight their battles in a rational and Scriptural manner, their prejudices will be softened, the light will imperceptibly steal in upon them, and, by Divine grace, convince them, that they go as far out of the way to the left hand, as our opponents do to the right.

The truth, which we maintain, lies between all extremes, or rather, it embraces and connects them all. The Calvinists fairly receive only the first Gospel axiom, and the moralists, the second. If I may compare the Gospel truth to the child contended for in the days of Solomon, both parties, while they divide, inadvertently destroy it. We, like the true mother, are for no division. Standing upon the middle Scriptural line, we embrace and hold fast both Gospel axioms. With the Calvinists, we give God in Christ all the glory of our salvation; and, with the moralists, we take care not to give him in Adam any of the shame of our damnation: we have need of patience with both, for they both highly blame us because we follow the poet’s direction, Inter utrumque tene, medio tutissimus ibis:

Both think hardly of us, because we do not so maintain the particular Gospel axiom which they have justly espoused as to exclude that which they rashly explode. But if we can use, with meekness of wisdom, the “armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,” and give our opposite adversaries, on every side, a Scriptural and rational “account of the hope that is in us,” moderate Calvinists and evangelical moralists will at last kindly “give us the right hand of fellowship.” Discovering that the advantages of both their doctrines join in ours, they will acknowledge, that the “faith working by love,” which we preach, includes all the privileges of solifidianism and morality; that we do justice to the Gospel, without making “void the law through faith; that we establish the law,” without superseding free grace; and that we extol our High Priest’s cross, without pouring contempt upon his throne. In a word, they will perceive, that we perfectly reconcile St. Paul with St. James, and both with reason, conscience, and all the oracles of God.

Thus shall all good men of all denominations agree at last among themselves, and bend all their collected force against Pharisaic unbelief, which continually attacks the first Gospel axiom; and against Antinomian contempt of good works, which perpetually militates against the second. The Father of lights grant that this may be the happy effect of our controversy! So shall we bless the hour when a variety of singular circumstances obliged us to come to a full eclaircissement, and to lay, by that mean, the foundation of a solid union, not only with each other, but also with all good and judicious men, both in the religious and in the moral world.