Section 4.

SECTION 4.

A Scriptural plan of reconciliation between Zelotes and Honestus; being a double declaration to guard equally the two Gospel axioms, or the doctrines of free grace and free obedience — Bishop Beveridge saw the need of guarding them both — Gospel ministers ought equally to defend them — An answer to Zelotes’ objections against the declaration which guards the doctrine of free obedience — An important distinction between a primary and secondary trust in causes and means — Some observations upon the importance of the second Gospel axiom — Which extreme appeared greater to Mr. Baxter, that of Zelotes, or that of Honestus — The author’s thoughts upon that delicate subject. I HAVE hitherto pointed out the opposite errors of Zelotes and Honestus, and shown that they consist in so maintaining one part of the truth as to reject the other; in so holding out the glory of one of the Gospel axioms as to eclipse the other. I now present the reader with what appears to me a fair, Scriptural, and guarded plan of reconciliation between themselves, and between all good men, who disagree about the doctrines of faith and works — of free grace and obedience. The declaration which the Rev. Mr. Shirley desired the Rev. Mr. Wesley to sign at the Bristol conference, (in 1770,) gives me the idea of this plan; nay, the first part of it is nothing but that declaration itself, guarded and strengthened by some additions in brackets. IT IS PROPOSED:

I.

That the preachers who are supposed to countenance the Pharisaic error of Honestus shall sign the following anti-Pharisaic declaration, which guards the doctrine of faith and free grace without bearing hard upon the doctrine of obedience and free will; and asserts the free, gratuitous justification of a sinner in the day of conversion and afterward, without denying the gracious, remunerative justification of a believer, who, in the day of trial, and afterward, keeps the II.

That the preachers who are supposed to countenance the Antinomian error of Zelotes, shall sign the following anti- Solifidian declaration, which guards the doctrine of obedience and free will without bearing hard upon the doctrine of faith and free grace; and asserts the gracious, remunerative justification of a believer in the day of trial, and afterward, without denying the free, gratuitous justification of a sinner in the day of conversion, and afterward.

Whereas the books published against the faith that works by love.

Whereas the doctrinal points in the Minutes of a conference, held in London, August 7, 1770, have been understood to favour [the Pharisaic] justification [of a sinner] by works; now the Rev. John Wesley, and others assembled in conference, do declare that we had no such meaning; and that we abhor the doctrine of [a sinner’s] justification by works, as a most perilous and abominable doctrine: and as the said Minutes are not [or do not appear to some people] sufficiently guarded in the way they are expressed, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that [as sinners — before God’s throne — according to the doctrine of first causes — and with respect to the first covenant or the law of innocence, which sentences all sinners to destruction] we have no trust or confidence but in the [mere mercy of God, through the sole righteousness and] alone merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for justification, or salvation, either in life, death, or the day of judgment:

and though no one is a real Christian — believer, (and consequently, though no one can be saved [as a believer] who does not good works where there is time and opportunity,) yet our works have no part in [properly] meriting or purchasing our salvation from first to last, either in whole or part; [the best of men, when they are considered as sinners, being justifed freely by God’s grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, Romans 3:24.]

The preceding declaration, which defends the doctrine of free grace, and the gratuitous justification and said Minutes have been understood to favour the present, inamissible, and eternal justification of all fallen believers before God, that is, of all those who, having made shipwreck of the faith that works by obedient love, live in Laodicean ease; and, if they please, in adultery, murder, or incest; now the Rev. Mr. **** and others do declare that we renounce such meaning, and that we abhor the doctrine of the Solifidians or Antinomians as a most perilous and abominable doctrine: and as the said books are not [or do not appear to some people] sufficiently guarded, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that [as penitent, obedient and persevering believers — before the Mediator’s throne — according to the doctrine of second, causes — and with respect to the second covenant, or the law of Christ, which sentences all his impenitent, disobedient, apostatizing subjects to destruction] we have no trust or confidence, f31 but in the truth of our repentance toward God, and in the sincerity of our faith in Christ for justification or salvation in the day of conversion and afterward; — no trust, or confidence, but in our final perseverance in the obedience of faith, for justification, or salvation in death, and in the day of judgment; because no one is a real believer under any dispensation of Gospel grace, and of consequence no one can be saved who does not good works, i.e. who does not truly repent, believe, and obey, as there is time, light, and opportunity. Nevertheless, our works, that is, our repentance, faith, and obedience, have no part in properly meriting or purchasing our salvation from first to last, either in whole or in part; the properly meritorious cause of our eternal, as well as intermediate and initial salvation, being only the merits, or the blood and righteousness of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

salvation of a sinner, is founded on such scriptures as these: — I.

If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to boast. To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is imputed, &c. God imputeth righteousness without works. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but of his mercy he saved us. By grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified, &c. The preceding declaration, which defends the doctrine of free obedience, and the remunerative justification and salvation of a believer, is founded on such scriptures as these: — II.

Was not Abraham our father justified by works? Ye see how by works a man is justified and not by faith only. We are saved by hope. In doing this thou shalt save thyself. He that endureth unto the end, the same shall be saved. He became the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him.

This shall turn to my salvation through your prayer. With the mouth confession is made to salvation. By thy words thou shalt be justified. The doers of the law [of Christ] shall be justified, &c. And let none say that this doctrine has not the sanction of good men. Of a hundred, whom Zelotes himself considers as orthodox, I shall only mention the learned and pious Bishop Beveridge, who, though a rigid Calvinist in his youth, came, in his riper years, to the line of moderation, which I recommend, and stood upon it when he wrote what follows, in his “Thoughts upon our Call and Election.” (Third Edition, page 297.) “What then should be the reason that so many should be called and invited to the chiefest good, and the highest happiness their natures are capable of; yet so few of them should mind and prosecute it so as to be chosen or admitted to the participation of it? What shall we ascribe it to? The will and pleasure of almighty God, as if he delighted in the ruin of his creatures, and therefore although he calls them, he would not have them come unto him? No: that cannot be: for in his revealed will, which is the only rule that we are to walk by, he has told us the contrary in plain terms, and has confirmed it too with an oath, saying, “As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he should turn from his ways and live,” Ezekiel 33:11. And elsewhere he assures us that he “would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth,” 1 Timothy 2:4. And therefore if we believe what God says, nay, if we believe what he has sworn, we must needs acknowledge that it is his will and pleasure that as many as are called should be all chosen and saved: and indeed if he had no mind we should come when we are called to him, why should he call us all to come? Why has he given us his word, his ministers, his ordinances; and all to invite and oblige us to repent and turn to him; if after all he has resolved not to accept of us, nor would have us come at all? Far be it from us that we should have such hard and unworthy thoughts of the great Creator and Governor of the world; especially considering that he has told us the contrary, as plainly as it was possible to express his mind unto us.” Then the bishop mentions five reasons why many are called but few are chosen: and he closes them by these words, (page 310:) “The last reason which our Saviour gives in this parable, is because, of those who are called, and come too at the call, many come not aright, which he signifies by the man that came without the wedding garment: where, although he mentions but one man, yet under that one is comprehended all of the same kind, even all such persons as profess to believe in Christ, and to expect salvation from him, yet will not come up to the terms which he propounds in the Gospel to them, even to “walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called,” Ephesians 4:1. And indeed this is the great reason of all, why of so many, who are called, there are so few chosen, because there are so few who do all things which the Gospel requires of them. Many, like Herod, will do many things; and are almost persuaded to be Christians, as Agrippa was, &c. Some are all for the duties of the first table without the second, others for the second without the first. Some [like heated Honestus] are altogether for obedience and good works without faith in Christ: others [like heated Zelotes] are as much for faith in Christ, without obedience and good works. Some [like mere moralists] would do all themselves, as if Christ had done nothing for them: others [like mere Solifidians] fancy that Christ has so done all for them, that there is nothing left for them to do: and so between both sorts of people [between the followers of Honestus, and those of Zelotes] which are the far greater parts of those who are called, either the merits or else the laws of Christ are slighted and contemned. But is this the way to be saved? No, surely.” Hence it is evident, that if Bishop Beveridge be right here, the saving truth lies exactly between the mistake of Zelotes and the error of Honestus. Now if this be the true state of the question, is it possible to propose a plan of reconciliation more Scriptural than that which so secures the merits of Christ as not indirectly to overthrow his laws, and so enforces his laws as not indirectly to set aside his merits? And is not this effectually done in the reconciling declarations? Do they not equally guard the two Gospel axioms? Do they not with impartiality defend free grace and free obedience? And might not peace be restored to the Church upon such a Scriptural, rational, and moderate plan of doctrine?

I fear that a lasting reconciliation upon any other plan is impossible: for the Gospel must stand upon its legs, (the two Gospel axioms,) or it must fall. And if Satan, by transforming himself into an angel of light, prevail upon good, mistaken men to cut off one of these legs, as if it were useless or mortified; some good men, who are not yet deceived, will rise up in its defence. So sure, therefore, as “the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church of the living God — the pillar and ground of the truth,” there shall always be a succession of judicious, zealous men, disposed to hazard their life and reputation in the cause of Gospel truth, and ready to prevent the mystical ark from being overset on the right hand or on the left. If a pious Crisp, for example, push it into the Antinomian ditch, for fear of the Pharisaic delusion; a pious Baxter will enter his protest against him: and if a Taylor throw it into the Pharisaic ditch, for fear of the Antinomian error; God will raise up a Wesley to counterwork his design. Nay, a Wesley is a match for a benevolent Taylor, and a seraphic Hervey; and I hope, that should Mr. Shirley ever desire him to sign an anti-Pharisaic declaration, he will not forget to desire Mr. Shirley to sign also an anti-Solifidian protest: every Gospel minister being an equal debtor to both axioms. Nor can I conceive why Mr. Shirley should have more right f32 solemnly to secure the first axiom, than Mr. Wesley has solemnly to guard the second. But leaving those two divines, I return to Zelotes, who seems very much offended at my saying, “We have no trust nor confidence that any thing will stand us instead of repentance, faith, and obedience.” An assertion this which implies, that (with respect to the second causes and secondary means) we place a secondary trust and confidence in the graces which compose the Christian character. But I ask, Wherein does the heresy of this doctrine consist? Do I renounce orthodoxy when I say that with respect to some second means, and some second causes, I have no trust nor confidence but in my EYES to see, in my EARS to hear, and in my THROAT to swallow? Should I not be fit for Bedlam, if I trusted to see without eyes, to hear without ears, and to swallow without a throat? If I had not a trust that my shoes will answer the end of shoes, and my hat the end of a hat; may I not wisely put my shoes upon my head, and my hat on my feet? And if I have not a confidence that my horse will carry me better than a broomstick, may I not as well get upon a broomstick as on horseback? What would Zelotes think of me, if I did not trust that bread will nourish me sooner than poison, and that fire will warm me better than ice? Is it not a branch of wisdom to trust every thing, just so far as it deserves to be trusted; and a piece of madness to do otherwise?

O ye admirers of Zelotes’ gospel, come and I will explain to you all my supposed error. I trust only and solely in God as the first and capital cause, and in Christ as the first and capital means of my present and eternal salvation. But beside this primary trust, I have a thousand inferior trusts. Take a few instances: I have a sure trust and confidence that the Bible will farther me in the way to eternal salvation, more than the Koran: baptism more than circumcision: the Lord’s Supper more than the Jewish passover: the house of God more than the play house: praying more than cursing: repentance, faith, hope, charity, and perseverance more, far more than impenitency, unbelief, despair, uncharitableness, and apostasy. If I am a heretic for saying that something beside Christ is conducive to salvation, and of consequence may, in its place and degree, be trusted in for salvation; is St. Paul orthodox when he exhorts the Philippians to “work out their own salvation,” assures them that his afflictions shall “turn to his salvation through their prayers,” and writes to Titus, that “in DOING the work of an evangelist he shall SAVE himself and them that hear him?” Again: will Christ stand to me instead of repentance? Has he not said himself, “Except YE repent, ye shall perish?” Will he be to me instead of faith? Did he not assert the contrary when he declared, that “he who believeth not shall be damned?” Will he be instead of an evangelical obedience? Does he not maintain the opposite doctrine, where he declares that he will bid them “depart from him, who call him Lord, Lord, and DO NOT the things which he saith?” Will he stand me instead of perseverance? Has he not said himself that he will “deny them that deny him;” that he will finally own us as his “disciples, if we continue in his words;” and that “he who endureth to the end, the same shall be saved?” Zelotes finds it easier to raise difficulties than to remove those which are thrown in his way. He comes, therefore, with his mouth full of objections, against my second declaration. Let us lend him an ear, and give him an answer. OBJECTION I. “If, with respect to the doctrine of second causes, and second means of eternal salvation, you have no trust or confidence to be saved as a penitent, obedient, and persevering believe, but by true repentance, faith, obedience, and perseverance, you cannot repose your whole trust upon God alone; nor can you give Christ all the glory of your salvation.”

ANSWER. To make God a second cause, and Christ a second means of salvation, is not to give them the glory: it is to pull them out of then throne, and make them stoop to an office unworthy of their matchless dignity. If the king gave you a purse of gold, could you not give him all the glory of his generosity, without supposing that he was the laborious digger of the golden ore, the ingenious coiner of the gold, and the diligent knitter of the purse? If you complimented him in all these respects, lest he should not have all the glory, would you not pour contempt upon his greatness? And do you not see, that by a parity of reason, what you call “robbing God and Christ of their glory” is only refusing to dishonour them, by ascribing to them a dishonourable office; I mean the office of a second cause, or of a secondary means of salvation? Can you not conceive, that to give a general the honour of a sergeant, under pretence of giving him all the honour, is to set him below an ensign, and rank him with a halberd bearer? Again: when you say, that in general, upon a journey, with respect to second causes and means, you have no trust or confidence but in your money, in the goodness of your horses and carriage, in the passable state of the roads, in the skill of your driver, &c, do you betray any mistrust of Divine Providence? On the contrary, does not your distinction of second causes and second means show that you reserve your primary trust or confidence for God, who is the first cause of your blessings; and for his providential care over you, which is the first means of your preservation? And if a pretender to orthodoxy charged you with Atheism or heresy for your assertion, would you not give him your vote to be an officer of the Protestant inquisition, — if the black tribunal, which totters in Spain, should ever be set up in England?

OBJECTION II. “Your first declaration indeed exalts Christ; but the second uncrowns him, to crown our graces — yea, to crown ourselves as possessed of such and such graces; which is the rankest popery, and the very quintessence of Pharisaism.”

ANSWER. How can my crowning repentance, faith, and obedience, with a Scriptural coronet, rob Christ of his peculiar crown? Are we not indebted to him both for our graces and for the coronet with which he rewards our acceptance and improvement of his favours? Would it be right in you to represent me as an enemy to the crown and king of England, for asserting that barons, earls, and dukes have received from him, or his predecessors, the right of wearing coronets, or secondary crowns? Is it not the glory of our sovereign to be at the head of a crowned peerage? And would you really honour him, if, on a coronation day, you secured the glory of his imperial crown, by kicking the coronets off the heads of all the peers who come to pay him homage? Would he thank you for that ill-judged proof of your loyalty? Would he not reprove you for your unparalleled rashness? And think you that Christ will commend the Antinomian zeal, with which you set up the great image of finished salvation in the plain of mystical Geneva, upon a heap of the coronets, wherewith he and his apostles have crowned the graces of believers? Can you search the sacred records without finding there the doctrine which you represent as treasonable or heretical? Did you never read, “O woman, great is thy faith! THY FAITH hath saved thee?” And what is this but allowing believers to wear a salvation coronet — a coronet this, which they will justly “cast before the throne” of the grace that gave it them, and offered it all the day long to those who obstinately “put it from them?” Did you never read, “We are saved by hope: be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life: he is the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him: he will give the crown of life to them that love him,” &c? Is not this a salvation coronet to the hopeful, faithful, obedient, loving believer? And if you throw my Scales away, and cry out, “Arminian f33 Methodism turned out rank popery at last!” think you there are no Bibles left in the kingdom? No people able to read such scriptures as these? “Let no man beguile you of your reward through voluntary humility — fair speeches — and deceivableness of unrighteousness. Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown,” on any pretext whatever, no, not on the most plausible of all pretexts, “Pray, give me thy crown, for it is not consistent with that of the Redeemer.” Who could suggest to good men so artful and dangerous a doctrine? Who but the deceitful adversary that can as easily “transform himself into an angel of light,” to rob us of our “crown of righteousness,” as he formerly could transform himself into a serpent, to rob our first parents of their crown of innocence?

OBJECTION III. “You may turn and wind as long as you please, but you will never be able to reconcile your doctrine with the doctrine of grace; for if you have the least trust and confidence in your graces, you do not trust wholly in the Lord; you trust partly in ‘an arm of flesh,’ in direct opposition to the scripture, ‘Cursed is the man who trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm,’ Jeremiah 17:5.”

ANSWER. I grant that our doctrine can never be reconciled to what you call “the doctrines of grace,” because your partial doctrines of grace are irreconcilable with the holy, free, and equitable Gospel of Christ. But we can as easily reconcile the primary trust mentioned in our first declaration, with the secondary trust mentioned in the second, as you can reconcile my second Scale with the first. Our secondary confidence, which arises from the testimony of a good conscience, no more militates in our breasts against our primary confidence, which arises from the love of Christ, than our regard for the queen excludes our respect for the king. In mystic Geneva indeed they teach, to the honour of the king, that the royal spouse is all filthy; but in our Jerusalem we assert that “she is all glorious,” and that “the king greatly desires her beauty.” To uncrown her, therefore, and load her with infamy, can never be the way of honouring and pleasing our Melchisedec.

With respect to the passage which you produce from Jeremiah, the sense of it is fixed by what immediately follows: — “And whose heart departeth from the Lord.” These words show that the trust forbidden in that scripture is only such a trust in man and things as makes our hearts depart from the Lord. Now this can never be the trust and confidence mentioned in our second declaration: for in both declarations we secure to God, as the first cause, and to Christ, as the first means, all the glory which is worthy of the first cause, and of the first means: and, I repeat it, if you ascribe to the Lord any other glory, you insult him as much as you would do a prince, if you gave him the glory which belongs to his consort or his cook; — I mean the glory of bearing fine children, and of making good sauces. Again: there is no medium between some degree of trust, and the utmost degree of distrust. Now if the scripture which you produce absolutely forbids every degree of inferior trust in man or things, it follows that the more full we are of distrust and diabolical suspicions, the more godly we are. And thus, for fear of putting any degree of secondary trust in man or in things, we must mistrust all our wives as adulteresses, all our friends as traitors, all our neighbours as incendiaries, all our servants as murderers, and all our food as poison. But if this fair consequence of your doctrine stand, what becomes of charity, which “thinketh no evil, but hopeth all things?” And if the words of Jeremiah are to be understood in your narrow sense, what becomes of Christ himself, who reposed a degree of trust in man — yea, in Judas, while he counted him faithful? That expression of Job, therefore, “He [the Lord] putteth no trust [that is, no absolute trust] in his saints,” is to be understood so as not to contradict the words of St. Paul, “He [the Lord] counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;” or the prophetic words of David concerning Christ and Judas, “Yea, mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who did eat of my [multiplied] bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.”

To conclude: if England smiles yet at the imbecility of the king, who durst not venture over London bridge, and wondered at those who trusted that fabric as a solid bridge; shall we admire Zelotes’ wisdom, who wonders at our having a Scriptural, inferior trust in the graces which form the Christian character? And shall we not count it an honour to be suspected of heresy, for “having a sure trust and confidence,” that true repentance, and nothing else, will answer for us the end of repentance? That true faith, and nothing else, will answer for us the end of faith? That evangelical obedience, and not an imputed righteousness, will answer for us the end of evangelical obedience? And that final perseverance, and not whims about “finished salvation,” will answer for us the end of final perseverance? Having thus answered Zelotes’ objections against the declaration which guards the second Gospel axiom, I shall now present him with some observations upon the importance of that axiom: — (1.) The first axiom, or the doctrine of grace, holds forth chiefly what Christ has done; and the second axiom, or the doctrine of obedience, holds forth chiefly what we are to do. Now any unprejudiced person must own that it is as important for us to know our own work, as to know the work of another.

(2.) In the day of judgment we shall not be judged according to Christ’s works and experiences, but according to our own.

(3.) Thousands of righteous heathens, it is to be hoped, have been saved without knowing any thing of Christ’s external work; but none of them were ever saved without knowing and doing their own work, that is, without working out their salvation with fear and trembling, according to their light.

(4.) Most of the Jews that have been saved have gone to heaven without any explicit, particular acquaintance with Christ’s merits; (see Equal Check, vol. i, p. 456;) but none of them was ever saved without “fearing God and working righteousness.”

(5.) To this day, those that are saved, three parts of the world over, are in general saved by the gracious light that directly flows from the second Gospel axiom, through Christ’s merits; although they never heard of his name.

(6.) England and Scotland, where the redeeming work of Christ is gloriously preached, swarm nevertheless with practical Antinomians; that is, with men who practically separate works from faith, and the decalogue from the creed. Now all these Gnostics follow the foolish virgins, and the unprofitable servant into hell, crying, Lord! Lord! and forgetting to do what Christ commands.

(7.) We can never be too thankful for the light of both axioms; but, were I obliged to separate them, I had much rather obey with Obadiah, Plato, and Cornelius, than believe with Simon Magus, Nicolas, and “Mr. Fulsome.” These, and the like observations appeared so weighty to judicious Mr. Baxter, that, in the preface to his Confession of Faith, p. 29, he says, “The great objection is, that I ascribe too much to works. I shall now only say, &c, that I see many well-meaning, zealous men dividing our religion, [which is made up of the two Gospel axioms,] and running into two desperate extremes. One sort [at the head of whom is Zelotes] by the heat of opposition to popery do seem to have forgotten that faith and Christ himself are but means, and a way for the revolting soul to come home to God by; and thereupon place all the essence of their religion in bare believing; so making that THE WHOLE, which is but the door, or MEANS to better, even to a conformity of the soul to the image and will of God. Others [at the head of whom is Honestus] observing this error, flee so far from it as to make faith itself, and Christ, to be scarce necessary. So a man have God’s image, say they, upon his soul, what matter is it which way he comes by it? Whether by Christ, or by other means! And so they take all the history of Christ to be a mere accident to our necessary belief; and the precepts only of holiness to be of absolute necessity. The former contemn God under pretence of extolling Christ. The latter contemn Christ under pretence of extolling God alone. He that pretending to extol Christ or faith, degrades godliness, thereby so far rejects God; and he that on pretence of extolling godliness, degrades faith, so far rejects Christ, &c. I therefore detest both these extremes — [that of Zelotes and that of Honestus.] But yet it being the former which I take to be the greater, and which too many men of better repute give too much countenance to, in their inconsiderate disputes against works in justification, I thought I had a call to speak in so great a cause.”

It appears, from this excellent quotation, that judicious Mr. Baxter gave the preference to the second Gospel axiom, and thought the doctrine of Honestus less dangerous than that of Zelotes. For my part, though Zelotes thinks me partial, I keep my Scales even: and according to the weights of the sanctuary which I have produced, I find that Zelotes and Honestus are equally wanting. I thank them both for embracing one axiom; I check them both for neglecting the other; and if Zelotes deserves superior praise for maintaining the first axiom, I will cheerfully give him the first place in my esteem. I confess, however, that I am still in doubt about it, for two reasons:

(1.) Zelotes preaches indeed the first Gospel axiom, for he preaches Christ and free grace: but, after all, for whom does he preach them? For every creature, according to the Gospel charter? No: but only for the little flock of the rewardable elect. If you believe his gospel, there never was a single dram of free, saving grace in the heart of God; or one single drop of precious, atoning blood in the veins of Christ, for the immense herd of the reprobates. Before the beginning of the world they were all personally appointed necessarily to sin and be damned. Thus, according to Zelotes’ doctrine, free grace and the first Gospel axiom are not only mere chimeras, with respect to a majority of mankind, but free wrath lords it with sovereign caprice over countless myriads of men, to whom Christ may, with the greatest propriety, be preached as a reprobating damner, rather than as a gracious Redeemer.

(2.) I could better bear with Zelotes’ inconsistencies, if he only diminished the genuine cordial of free grace, and adulterated it with his bitter tincture of free wrath. But alas! he openly or secretly attacks the doctrine of sincere obedience: he calls them “poor creatures,” who zealously plead for it: he unguardedly intimates that they are out of the way of salvation: and (O! tell it not among the heathens!) he sometimes gives you deadly hints about the excellence of disobedience; sin, he intimates, “works for our good: it keeps us humble: it makes Christ more precious: it endears the doctrines of sovereign, rich, distinguishing grace: it will make us sing louder in heaven.” “You wrong me,” says Zelotes, “you are a slanderer of God’s people, and a calumniator of Gospel ministers. I, for one, frequently enforce the ten commandments upon believers.” True, sir; but how do you do this? Is it not by insinuating more or less, sooner or later, as your moral audience and your pious heart can bear it, that the decalogue is not now a rule to be judged by, but only “a rule of life,” the breach of which will answer all the above-mentioned excellent ends in believers? And what is this but preaching Protestant indulgences, as I said before? When you do this, do you not exceed the popish distinction between venial and mortal sins? Yea, do you not make all the crimes of fallen believers venial? Nay, more, do you not indirectly represent their grievous falls as profitable? And to seal up the delusion, do you not persuade the simple, wherever you go, that our works have nothing to do with our eternal justification before God? That our everlasting salvation is finished by Christ alone; and that whoever believes fallen believers will be condemned by their bad works, is an enemy to the Gospel, an Arminian, a Pelagian, a Papist, a heretic? If this character of Zelotes be just, and if Honestus be a conscientious good man, who preaches Christ every sacrament day, and who enforces spiritual, sincere obedience, (i.e. true repentance, true faith, true hope, and true love to God and man, in all their branches;) and who does it with sincerity, assiduity, and warmth, I cannot but think as favourably of him as I do of his antagonist.

I must however do Zelotes the justice to say, that an appearance of truth betrays him into his favourite error. If he do not lay a Scriptural stress upon the indispensableness of obedience, it is chiefly for fear of “legalizing the Gospel,” and robbing God’s children of their comforts. See that fond mother, who prides herself in the tenderness she has for her children. She will not suffer the wind to blow upon them; the sun must never shine on their delicate faces; no downy bed is soft enough; no sweetmeats are sweet enough for them; lest they should know weariness, they must always ride in the easiest of carriages; their tutor must be turned out of doors, if he venture to give them proper correction; all the day long they must be told what an immense estate they are born to, and how their father has put it out of his own power to cut off the entail. Above all, nobody must mention to them the duty they owe to him. Duty — that bad word duty must not abridge their privileges, and stamp their obedience with legal and servile meanness. In a word, by her injudicious, though well-meant kindness, she unnerves their constitutions, spoils their tender minds, and brings deadly disorders upon them. Her fondness for her children is the very picture of Zelotes’ tender regard for believers. No duty must be pressed upon them as duty: no command insisted upon, no self denial ordered, lest the dear people should lose the sweetness of their Gospel liberty. And if at any time “Mr. Fulsome’s humours call aloud for physic, it is given with so much honey, that the remedy sometimes feeds the mortal disease. Honestus sees, and justly dreads the error of Zelotes: and to avoid it, he is so sparing of Gospel encouragements, that he deals chiefly (if not wholly) in severe precepts and hard duties. You may compare him to a stern father, who, under pretence of making his children hardy, and keeping them in proper subjection, makes them carry as heavy burdens as if they were drudging slaves, and threatens to disown them for every impropriety of behaviour.

Not so a Gospel minister, who reconciles both extremes. He knows how to use sweets and bitters, promises and threatenings, indulgence and severity. He is like a wise and kind father, who does not spare the rod when his children want it; but nevertheless wins them by love as much as possible; — who does not disinherit them for every fault, and yet does not put it out of his power to do it, if they take to a vicious course of life, and obstinately trample his paternal love under foot. Reader, who of the three is in the right, Zelotes, Honestus, or the reconciler?