Section 4.

SECTION 4.

Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism are plainly stated and equally vindicated in two essays, the first on the doctrines of partial grace, and the second on those of impartial justice — Those opposite doctrines are shown to be highly agreeable to reason and Scripture, and perfectly consistent with each other. ON the eight pair of balanced propositions, which are produced in the preceding section, I rest the two essays which follow. I humbly recommend the first to rigid Arminians; because it contains a view of Bible Calvinism, of the doctrines of grace, and of the absolute, unconditional, and partial election, to which they perpetually object. And I earnestly recommend the SECOND essay to rigid Calvinists, because it contains a view of Bible Arminianism, of the doctrines of justice, and of the judicial, conditional, and impartial election, against which they are unreasonably prejudiced. BIBLE CALVINISM. — ESSAY THE FIRST.

Displaying the doctrines of partial grace, the capital error of the Pelagians, and the excellence of Scripture Calvinism.

THE doctrines of partial grace rest on these scriptures: — “I will be [peculiarly] gracious to whom I will be [peculiarly] gracious; and I will show special mercy, on whom I will show special mercy,” Exodus 33:19. “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” Matthew 20:15.

These precious doctrines subdivide themselves into a partial election, and a partial reprobation; both flowing from a free, wise, and sovereign grace, which is notoriously respective of persons.

The partial election and reprobation of free grace is the gracious and wise choice, which God (as a sovereign and arbitrary benefactor) makes, or refuses to make, of some persons, Churches, cities, and nations, to bestow upon them, for his own mercy’s sake, more favours than he does upon others. It is the partiality with which he imparts his talents of nature, providence, and grace, to his creatures or servants; giving five talents to some, two talents to others, and one to others; not only without respect to their works, or acquired worthiness of any sort, but frequently in opposition to all personal demerit. Witness the thieves, between whom our Lord was crucified, who were the only dying men that Providence ever blessed with the invaluable talents or gracious opportunities of the company and audible prayers of their dying Saviour. From this doctrine of election it follows, that when God freely elects a man to the receiving of one talent only, he freely reprobates him with respect to the receiving of two, or five talents.

According to this election, although God never leaves himself without the witness of some favour, by which the basest and vilest of men, who have not yet sinned out their day of salvation, are graciously distinguished from beasts and devils; and although, therefore, he is really gracious to all; yet he is not equally gracious: for he gives to some persons, families, Churches, and nations, more power and opportunity to do and receive good, more means of grace, yea, more excellent means, more time to use those means, and more energy of the Spirit in the use of them, than he gives to other persons, families, Churches, and nations. With respect to the election of grace, therefore, there is great partiality in God, and so far is this partiality from being in any degree caused by any natural or evangelical worth, that it is itself the first cause of all natural excellences, and evangelical worthiness. Hence it appears, that the doctrine of the Pelagians destroys the doctrines of partial grace: the capital error of those who inconsiderately oppose Calvinism, consisting in denying the gracious, electing, and reprobating partiality of God; and in supposing that the reasons of God’s election and reprobation are always taken from ourselves; that God never elected some men in Christ, merely “after the counsel of his own absolute will;” and that the doctrine of a gratuitous election and reprobation is both unscriptural and horrible.

Having thus stated the doctrine of grace, and the opposite error of Pelagius, I encounter that famous champion of the rigid free willers, not with a sling and a few stones, but with the Bible and some plain quotations from it, which will establish and illustrate the gratuitous election and reprobation, into which the doctrine of partial grace is subdivided. I have already observed, in the Scripture Scales, that “the election of [partial] grace” is taught in that part of the parable of the talents, where it is said, that the master chose and “called his own servants, and delivered unto them HIS [not THEIR] goods; freely giving to one FIVE talents, to another TWO, and to another ONE,” Matthew 25:14, 15. In this free distribution of the master’s goods to the servants, we see a striking emblem of God’s partiality.

Should a Pelagian deny it, and say that God does not deal out his talents of grace with Calvinian freeness, but according to the several abilities of his servants, I reply, by asking the following questions:

(1.) How came these servants to be?

(2.) How came they to be his servants? And,

(3.) How came they to have every one HIS several ability? Was this several ability acquired merely by dint of unassisted, personal industry? If you reply in the affirmative, you absurdly hold that God casts all his rational creatures in the same mould, that they are all exactly alike both by nature and by grace, and that they alone “make themselves to differ,” as often as there is any difference. If you reply in the negative, you give up the ground of Pelagianism, and grant that God of his rich, undeserved goodness, gives to “every one his several primary abilities” of nature and grace: and when he does this, what does he do, but display a primary election and reprobation of grace; seeing he distributes these natural and gracious abilities in as distinguishing a manner as five are distinguished from one; arbitrarily reprobating from four talents the persons, families, Churches, and nations which he elects only to one talent. This scripture, “Learn not to think of men above what is written, that not one of you be puffed up: for who maketh thee to differ,” with respect to the first number of thy talents? “Which of them is it that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” 1 Corinthians 4:6, 7. This one scripture, I say, like the stone which sunk into Goliah’s forehead, is sufficient, one would think, to bring down the gigantic error of Pelagius. But if that stone be not heavy enough to do the wished-for execution, I will choose two or three more out of the brook of truth, which flows from the throne of God. St. James points me to the first: “Every good gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights,” James 1:17. I am indebted for the others to our Lord’s forerunner, and to our Lord himself. “John said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all, except it were given thee from above,” John 3:27; 19:11.

If the Pelagian error stands it out against these weighty declarations, I shall draw “the sword of the Spirit,” and aim the following strokes at that fashionable and dangerous doctrine: —

Why was Adam elected to the enjoyment of human powers? Was it not God’s free electing love which raised him to the sphere of a rational animal; that exalted sphere, from which all other animals are reprobated? Was it not distinguishing favour which “made him but a little lower than the angels?” Let the Pelagians tell us what uncreated Adam did to merit the election which raised him above the first horse? Or what the first horse had done to deserve his being everlastingly shut out of heaven, and reprobated from all knowledge of his Creator? Why was the lark elected to the blessing of a towering flight, and of sprightly songs, from which the oyster is so abundantly reprobated; — the poor oyster, which is shut up between two shells, without either legs or wings, and so far as we know equally destitute of ears and eyes?

If a disciple of Pelagius think that I demean my pen by proposing these questions, to prove the gratuitous and absolute election and reprobation, which are so conspicuous in the world of nature; I will rise to his sphere, and ask him what he did to deserve the honour of being elected to the superiority of his sex — an honour this, from which his mother was absolutely reprobated; and if he has a rich father, who gave him a liberal education, I should be glad to know what good works he had done, before he was providentially elected to this blessing, from which the bulk of mankind are so eminently reprobated.

Can we not trace the footsteps of an electing or reprobating Providence all the earth over, with respect to persons and places? Why is one man elected to sway a sceptre, when another is only elected to handle an axe, a spade, a file, or a brush? Why were Abraham, Job, and the rich man, mentioned Luke xvi, elected to a plentiful fortune, when poor Lazarus, a notorious reprobate of Providence, lay starving at the door of merciless plenty? Why does a noble sot idle away his life in a palace, while an industrious, sober mechanic, with all his care, can hardly pay for a mean lodging in a garret? Why is one man elected to enjoy the blessings of the five senses, the advantage of a strong constitution, and the prerogative of beauty; while another is born blind or deaf, sickly, or deformed? What have these poor creatures done to deserve this misfortune? And if God can dispense his providential blessings with such apparent partiality, why should it be thought strange that he should be partial in the distribution of his spiritual favours? May not our heavenly Benefactor have daisies and crocuses, as well as tulips and roses, in the garden of his Church? May he not, in the building of his temple, use plain free stone, as well as sapphires, amethysts, and pearls? And why should we think that it is unjust in God to have moral instruments of a different shape and sound in his grand, spiritual concert, when David could (without violation of any right) predestinate some of his musicians to praise God with trumpets, shawms, and loud cymbals, when others were appointed to do it only upon a harp, a lute, and a pipe? St. Paul compares believers, who are the members of Christ’s mystical body, to the various parts which compose the human frame; and wisely observes, that though our uncomely parts (the feet for example) are reprobated from the honour put upon the head, they are, nevertheless, all useful in their places. His illustration is striking, and would help Pelagian levellers to see their mistakes, if they would consider it without prejudice. “There are diversities of gifts” under all the inferior dispensations of God’s grace, as well as under the Gospel of Christ, to which the apostle’s simile immediately refers: “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. For the Spirit divides his gifts of partial grace to every man severally as he will. The body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand or the eye, I am not of the body, is it therefore not of the body?” Is it absolutely reprobated from the bodily system? On the other hand, “if the whole body were an eye, where were the ear? And if the whole were ear, where were the nose? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him,” that is, according to the good pleasure, counsel, and wisdom of his electing or reprobating will.

If the Pelagians will contend for their error on a religious ground, I meet them there, and ask, What good thing did Adam to deserve that God should plant for him “the tree of life in the midst of the garden,” and should lay upon him no other burden for his trial, than abstaining from eating of the fruit of one tree? Would not God have been gracious, if he had suspended the judicial reprobation of our first parents on their refusing to abstain from all food every other day, for a thousand years? Who does not see free grace in the appointment of so easy a term, by submitting to which he might have made his gratuitous election sure, and secured the remunerative election of justice? Again: when judicial reprobation had overtaken the guilty pair, what did they do to deserve that the execution of the sentence should not instantly take place in all the fierceness of the threatened curse? And how many good deeds did they muster up, to merit the Gospel of redeeming grace? the precious promise that “the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head?” “Verily,” says the apostle, “he [the Redeemer] took not on him the nature of angels: but he took on him the seed of” a man, viz. Abraham, and became “the son of man,” though he is “the everlasting Father.” Is there no partiality of grace in the mystery of the incarnation? Was it mere equity, which dictated that the Son of God should come “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” to save sinful man; and not “in the likeness of sinful” spirit, to save fallen angels?

But supposing (not granting) that this partiality in favour of mankind, sprang merely from the peculiar excusableness of their case; I ask, Why did the sons of Cain deserve to be begotten of a marked murderer, who brought them up as sons of Belial; while the children of Seth were providentially elected into the family of a pious man, who brought them up as sons of God?

But if we will see the election and reprobation of partial grace, together with the glory of distinguishing predestination, shining in their greatest lustre, we must take a view of the “covenants of promise,” which God made at different times with favoured men, families, Churches, and nations; peculiar covenants, which flowed every one from a peculiar election of grace.

Was it not of free, distinguishing grace, that God called Abraham, and raised himself a Church in a branch of his numerous family? Could he not as well have called to this honour Abimelech, king of Gerar, Melchisedec, king of Salem, or Job, the perfect man in the land of Uz? Or could he not have said to the father of the faithful, Not in Isaac, but in Ishmael, or in the sons of Keturah, thy last wife, “shall thy” peculiarly covenanted “seed be called?”

Nay, what did Abraham do to be justified as a sinner? Was he not fully justified in this sense, merely by receiving God’s free gift through faith? The point is important, for it respects not only Abraham’s gratuitous justification as a sinner, but also the free justification of every other sinner, who does not spurn the heavenly gift. Dwell we then a moment upon St. Paul’s question, concerning Abraham’s justification as a sinner. “What shall we say then? If Abraham were justified by works [as a sinner] he hath whereof to glory; f66 but not before God. For what says the Scripture? Abraham believed God [when God freely called him to receive grace, or more grace] and it was counted to him for righteousness,” Romans 4:1, &c.

Now, if “Abraham believed God,” it is evident that God offered himself first to Abraham, that Abraham might believe in him. Therefore a free election, calling, and gift (for an offer from God is a gift on his part, whether we receive what he offers or not) a free gift, I say, preceded Abraham’s faith. His very belief of any justifying and saving truth proves that this truth, in which he believed, was freely offered and given him, that he might believe in it; yea, before he possibly could believe in it. To deny this is as absurd as to deny that God freely gives us eyes and light before we can see. Abraham, therefore, who was so eminently justified by the works of faith as an obedient believer, was initially accepted or justified as a sinner of the Gentiles by mere grace, and before he could make his calling and acceptance sure by believing and obeying: for the power to believe and obey always flows from the first degree of our acceptance, a free gift this, which is “come upon all men to justification,” Romans 5:13, though, alas! most men refuse it through unbelief, or throw it away through an obstinate continuance in sin. Abraham, therefore, by receiving this free gift through faith, was fully justified as a sinner, and went on from faith to faith, till, by receiving and embracing the special grace, which called him to a covenant of peculiarity, he became the father of all those who embrace the special callings and promises of God, under the patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations of Divine grace.

I have said that through faith Abraham was fully justified as a sinner, because our full justification as sinners implies two things:

(1.) God’s freely justifying us; and,

(2.) Our freely receiving his justifying grace.

Just as being fully knighted implies two things:

(1.) The king’s condescending to confer the honour of knighthood upon a gentleman; and,

(2.) That gentleman’s submitting to accept of this honour. To conclude this digression: the free and full justification of a sinner by faith alone, or by a mere receiving of the gratuitous, justifying mercy of God, is a most comfortable, reasonable, and Scriptural doctrine, which St. Paul strongly maintains, where he says, “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” Romans 4:5. When Luther therefore held forth this glorious truth, which the Church of Rome had so greatly obscured, he did the work of a reformer, and of an apostle. Happy would it have been for the Protestant world, if he had always done it as St. Paul and St. James; and if, adding the doctrines of justice to the doctrines of grace, he had as impartially enforced the judicial justification of a believer by the works of faith, as the apostle does in these words, “Not the hearers of the law [of nature, of Moses, or of Christ] are just before God, but the doers shall be justified — in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my Gospel,” Romans 2:13, 16, yea, and in the day when God shall try the faith of believers, that he may justly praise or blame them, reward or punish them. And how can he do this justly, without having respect to their own works, that is, to their tempers, words, and actions, which are the works of their own hearts, lips, and hands? This important doctrine Luther sometimes overlooked, although St. James strongly guards it by these anti- Solifidian words, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac, &c? Ye see then how that by works a believing man is justified, and not by faith only,” James 2:21, 24. But a sinner, considered as such, can never be justified otherwise than by mere favour. Nor can St. Paul’s doctrine be too strongly insisted upon to “the praise of the glory of God’s grace,” and to the honour of “the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ,” Romans 3:21, &c. Here we see that, to the complete justification of a sinner, there go three things:

(1.) Mercy or free grace on God’s part, which mercy, (together with his justice satisfied by Christ, and his faithfulness in keeping his Gospel promises,) is sometimes called “the righteousness of God.”

(2.) Redemption on the Mediator’s part. And,

(3.) Faith on the sinner’s part. And if an interest in the “redemption that is in Jesus Christ,” namely, in his meritorious incarnation, birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession, is what is commonly called “Christ’s imputed righteousness,” I do not see why any Christian should be offended at that comprehensive phrase. In this Scriptural sense of it, nothing can be more agreeable to the tenor of the Gospel than to say, “All have sinned,” and all sinners who are received to Divine favour, “are justified freely by God’s grace” or mercy, through Christ’s merits and satisfaction; or (if you please) through his imputed righteousness; or to speak in St. Paul’s language, “through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.”

For my part, far from finding fault with this comfortable, evangelical doctrine, I solemnly declare, that to all eternity I shall have nothing to plead for my justification as a sinner — absolutely nothing, but,

(1.) God’s free grace m giving his only begotten Son “to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”

(2.) Christ’s meritorious life, death, and intercession, which abundantly avail for the chief of sinners. And,

(3.) The Gospel charter, which graciously offers mercy through Christ to the chief of sinners, and according to which I am graciously endued with a power to forsake sin by repentance, and to receive Christ and his salvation by faith. And therefore to all eternity I must shout, Free grace! and make my boast of imputed righteousness. f67

And, indeed,

While Jesus’ blood, through earth and skies,

Mercy, free, boundless mercy cries,

What believer can help singing,

“Jesus, thy blood and righteousness,

My beauty are, my glorious dress;

‘Midst flaming worlds, in these array’d,

With joy shall I lift up my head.”

To return: the same grace which called Abraham, rather than Terah his father, or Lot his nephew; this same distinguishing grace, I say, chose and called Isaac to the covenant of peculiarity, from which Ishmael, his elder brother, was reprobated: a special calling, which had been fixed upon before the birth of Isaac, and therefore could no ways be procured by his obedience. In full opposition to Isaac’s design, the same distinguishing grace called Jacob rather than Esau, to inherit the promises of the peculiar covenant made with Abraham and Isaac. “For the children not being yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to election, [to merely gratuitous favours,] might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, [of arbitrary and partial grace,] it was said, The elder shall serve the younger.” Nor can it be said that this partial preferring of Jacob had its rise in God’s foreseeing that Esau would sell his birthright, for the above-quoted passage is flatly contrary to this notion: beside, Jacob himself, by Divine appointment, transferred to Joseph’s youngest son the blessing which naturally belonged to the eldest. “Joseph said to his father, Not so, my father:” be not partial to my younger son. “This is the first-born, put thy right hand upon his head:” he hath not sold his birthright like Esau. “But his father refused, and said, I know it, my son. He [Manasses] shall be great; but truly his [younger] brother [Ephraim] shall be greater than he,” Genesis 48:18, 19. A clear proof this, that the reprobation of grace is quite consistent with an election to inferior blessings.

Nor was the calling of Moses less special than that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Was it not God’s free, predestinating grace which so wonderfully preserved him in his infancy, and so remarkably ordained him at Mount Horeb to be the deliverer of the Israelites, and the visible mediator of the Jewish covenant? Can we help seeing some distinguishing grace in the following declaration: “I will do what thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name: I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee?”

I cannot conceive with what eyes Pelagius could read the Scriptures. For my part, I see a continued vein of distinguishing favour running through the whole. Does the Lord want a man of peculiar endowments to finish the tabernacle? He says to Moses, “See, I have called by name Bezaleel, the son of Uri, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God,” Exodus 31:2, 3. Does he want a captain for his people, and a man to be Moses’ successor? Caleb himself is reprobated from that honour, and the Lord says, “Take thee Joshua, the son of Nun.” The same distinguishing grace manifests itself in the special calling of Barak, Gideon, Samson, Samuel, Saul, David, Solomon, Elisha, Jehu, Daniel, Cyrus, Nehemiah, Esther, Esdras, Judas Maccabeus, and all the men whom the Lord, by his special grace and power, raised up to instruct, rule, punish, or deliver his people.

I have observed that, in the very nature of things, a gratuitous and personal reprobation follows the gratuitous and personal election which I contend for. Is not this assertion incontestable? While Jacob and the Israelites were peculiarly loved, were not Esau and the Edomites comparatively hated? When God will show a special, distinguishing favour, can he show it to all? Does not reason dictate that if he showed it to all, it would cease to be special and distinguishing? If God had made his covenants of peculiarity with all mankind, would they not have ceased to be peculiar? Once more: if God could, without impropriety, show more favour to the Jews than to the Gentiles, and to the Christians than to the Jews; I ask, Why cannot he also, without impropriety, show more favour to one Jew, or to one Christian, than he does to another? By what argument can you prove that it is wrong in God to do personally, what it is granted on all sides he does nationally? If you can, without injustice, give a crown to an English beggar, while you give only sixpence to a poor Irishman; why may you not give ten shillings to another English beggar, supposing your generosity prompts you to show him that special favour? And may not God, by the rule of proportion, give you ten talents of grace to improve, while he gives your Christian brother only five; as well as he can bestow five talents upon your fellow Christian, while he gives a poor Mohammedan one talent only?

Can any thing be more glaring than the partiality which our Lord describes in these words: “Wo unto thee, Chorazin; wo unto thee, Bethsaida; for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in thee, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes?” Luke 10:13. Who can read these words with a grain of candid attention, and refuse his assent to the following proposition?

(1.) God was notoriously partial to Chorazin and Bethsaida; for he granted them more means of repentance, and more powerful means, and for a longer season, than he did to Tyre and Sidon.

(2.) If God had been as gracious to the two heathenish cities as he was to the two Jewish towns, Tyre and Sidon “would have repented — a great while ago” — in the deepest and most solemn manner, “sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” And,

(3.) The doctrine of necessity, or irresistible grace, is unscriptural; and the doctrines of impartial justice are never overthrown by the doctrines of partial grace; for notwithstanding God’s distinguishing favour, which wrought wonders to bring Chorazin and Bethsaida to repentance, they repented not; and our Lord says in the next verse, “But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you,” who have resisted such distinguishing grace.

For want of understanding the partiality of Divine grace, and the nature of the harmless reprobation, which flows from this harmless partiality, some of God’s faithful servants, who have received but one or two talents, are tempted to think themselves absolute reprobates; as often, at least, as they compare their case with that of their fellow servants, who have received more talents than they: while others, who have been indulged with peculiar favours, and have sinned, or idled them away, consider themselves as peculiar favourites of Heaven, upon whom God will never pass a sentence of judicial reprobation. Hence arise the despairing fears of some believers, the presumptuous hopes of others, and the spread of the mistaken doctrines of grace. By the same mistake, rash preachers frequently set up God’s peculiar grants to some of his upper servants, as a general standard for all the classes of them, and pass a reprobating sentence upon every one who does not yet come up to this standard; to the great offence of the judicious, to the grief of many sincere souls, whom God would not have thus grieved, and to the countenancing of Calvinian reprobation. A plain appeal to matter of fact will throw light upon all the preceding remarks. Are not many true Christians evidently reprobated, with respect to some of the special favours which our Lord conferred on the woman of Samaria, Zaccheus, Levi, (afterward St. Matthew,) and St. Paul? How few have been called in so extraordinary, abrupt, and cogent a manner as they were! Nay, how many strumpets, extortioners, busy worldlings, and persecutors in all ages, have been hurried into eternity, without having received the special favours, from which we date the conversion of those four favourites of free grace!

Has not God in all ages shown the partiality of his grace, by giving more of it to one man than to another? — to persecuting Saul, for example, than to thousands of other sincere persecutors, who thought, as well as he, that they did God service in dragging his saints to prison and to death? Did not the Lord show less distinguishing mercy to Zimri and Cosbi than to David and Bathsheba? Less to Onan than to the incestuous Corinthian, and the woman caught in adultery? Less to the forty-two children, who mocked the bald prophet, than to the more guilty sons of Jacob, who went about to kill their pious brother, sold him into Egypt, and covered their cruelty with hypocrisy and lies? Did he not give less time to repent to drunken Belshazzar than he did to proud Nebuchadnezzar? Did he not hurry Ananias and Sapphira into eternity, with a severity which he did not display toward Cain, Solomon, Peter, and Judas? Did he show as much long suffering to Eli and his sons, or to King Saul and his unfortunate family, as he did to David and his ungodly house? Was he as gracious to the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath, or to him who conveyed the Babylonish garment into his tent, as he was to Gehazi, and to King Ahab, whom he spared for years after the commission of more atrocious crimes? Did not Christ show less distinguishing love to Zebedee than to his sons? Less to the woman of Canaan than to Mary Magdalene? Less to Jude, Bartholomew, and Lebbeus, than to Peter, James, and John? How soon, how awfully did God destroy Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange fire? Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, for resisting Moses? Uzzah, for touching the ark? And the prophet of Judah, for eating bread in Bethel; when nevertheless he bore for months or years with the wickedness of Pharaoh, the idolatry of Solomon, the witchcrafts of bloody Manasses, and the hypocrisy of envious Caiaphas? Is not this unequal dealing of Divine patience too glaring to be denied by any unprejudiced person? Does not this partiality extend itself even to places and cities? Why did God reprobate Jericho, and elect Jerusalem? “Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there,” 1 Kings 14:21. Do we read less than nineteen times this partial sentence, “The place which the Lord shall choose,” even in the book of Deuteronomy? Could not God have chosen Babylon, Bethlehem, or Bethel, as well as the city of the Jebusites? Why did he make “Mount Zion his holy hill?” Why did he “love the gates of Zion, more than all the dwellings of Jacob?” Is there neither election nor reprobation in these words of the psalmist? “Moreover he refused [reprobated] the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not [passed by] the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of Judah, the Mount Zion, which he loved,” Psalm 78:67, 68. Again: Why did the angel, who troubled the pool of Bethesda, pass by all the other pools of Jerusalem? Why did our Lord send the lepers to the pool of Siloam, rather than to any other? And why were Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, reprobated with respect to the power of healing Naaman’s leprosy, when Jordan was elected to it? Was it not because God would convince the Syrians of his partiality to his peculiar people, and to their country?

But is this partiality confined to Judea and Syria? Or to Egypt and Goshen? May we not see the footsteps of an electing, partial providence in this favoured island? Why is it a temperate country? Could not God have placed it under the heaps of snow which cover Iceland; or in the hot climates, where the vertical sun darts his insufferable beams upon barren sands? Could he not have suffered it to be enslaved by the Turks, as the once famous isle of Crete now is? And to lie in popish darkness, as Sicily does? Or in heathenish f68 superstitions, as the large islands of Madagascar and Borneo do?

Who does not see the partiality of sovereign grace in the sparing of some nations, cities, and Churches? Did not God reprobate the disobedient Amalekites sooner than the disobedient Jews? Why are the former utterly destroyed, when the latter are yet so wonderfully preserved? Did not God bear less with Ai, Nineveh, and Carthage, than he does with London, Paris, and Rome? Less with the ten tribes, which formed the kingdom of Israel, than with the two tribes which formed the kingdom of Judah? Why does the Lord bear longer with the Church of Rome than he did with the Churches of Laodicea and Constantinople? Is it merely because the Church of Rome is less corrupted? Nay, why does he bear so long with this present evil world, when, comparatively speaking, he destroyed the antediluvian world so soon? And why are the Europeans, in general, elected to the blessings of Christianity, from which the rest of the world is generally reprobated; most nations in Asia, Africa, and America, being indulged with no higher religious advantages than those which belong to the religions of Confucius, Mohammed, or uncultivated nature?

If God’s partiality in our favour is so glaring, why do not all our Gospel ministers try to affect us with a due sense of it? May I venture to offer a reason of this neglect? As the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment by their odious nature frequently reflect a kind of unjust shame upon a pure marriage bed, which, according to God’s own declaration, is truly honourable; so the wanton election and horrid reprobation, that form the modern doctrines of grace, have, I fear, poured an undeserved disgrace upon the pure election, and the wise reprobation, which the Scriptures maintain. Hence it is, that even judicious divines avoid touching upon these capital doctrines in public, lest minds defiled with Antinomianism should substitute their own unholy notions of election, for the holy notions which the Scriptures convey. This evil shame is a remain of Pelagianism, or of false wisdom. The abuse of God’s favours ought not to make us renounce the right use of them. Far then from being wise above what is written, let us with the prophets of old make a peculiar use of the doctrine of partial grace, to stir up ourselves and others to suitable gratitude. How powerful is the following argument of Moses! “The Lord thy God hath chosen thee, to be a special people to himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord thy God did not set his love upon thee, nor choose thee, because ye were more in number than any people, (for ye were the fewest of all people,) but because the Lord loved you, &c. He had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day, &c. He is thy praise, and he is thy God, who hath done for thee these great and wonderful things,” Deuteronomy 7:6, &c; 10:15, 21. “For what nation is there so great, who have God so nigh unto them as the Lord our God is in all things which we call upon him for? Ask now of the days that are past: ask from the one side of heaven to the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is. Did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard? Or hath God assayed to take him a nation from the midst of another nation, by signs and wonders, &c? Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest know [with peculiar certainty] that the Lord he is God,” Deuteronomy 4:7, 32, &c.

Does not the psalmist stir up the Lord’s chosen nation to gratitude and praise, by the same motive of which the anti-Calvinists are ashamed? “He showeth his word to Jacob, his statutes to Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation. As for his judgments, they [the heathen] have not known them. Praise ye the Lord, O ye seed of Abraham, ye children of Jacob his chosen,” Psalm 142:19, 20; 105:6.

Nay, does not God himself stir up Jerusalem, (the holy city become a harlot,) to repentance and faithfulness, by dwelling upon the greatness of his distinguishing love toward her? How strong is this expostulation! How richly descriptive of God’s partiality toward that faithless city! “Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem, Thy birth and thy nativity is of the land of Canaan. Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother a Hittite. Thou wast cast out in the open field to the loathing of thy person in the day that thou wast born; and when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thy blood, I said to thee, Live. I entered into a covenant with thee: I put a beautiful crown upon thy head: thou didst prosper into a kingdom, and thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty, for it was perfect through my comeliness which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord,” Ezekiel 16:3, &c, If this could be said to Jewish Jerusalem, how much more to Protestant London!

Should rigid Arminians still assert that there is absolutely no respect of places and persons with God, I desire the opposers of God’s gracious partiality to answer the following questions: — When the apostle says, “The time of heathenish ignorance God winked at, but now explicitly commandeth [by his evangelists] all men every where to repent,” Acts 17:30, does he not represent God as being partial to all those men, to whom he sends apostles, or messengers, on purpose to bid them repent? And does not the Lord show us more distinguishing love, than he did to all the nations, which he “suffered to walk in their own ways, without the Gospel of Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, [founded upon a special Gospel message,] and being without God in the world? Acts 14:16; Ephesians 2:12.

Again: when St. Paul observes that “God spake in time past to the fathers by the prophets; but hath, in these last days, spoken to us by his Son,” Hebrews 1:1, 2; is it not evident that he pleads for the partiality of distinguishing grace; intimating that God has favoured us more than he did the fathers? And has not our Lord strongly asserted the same thing, where he says, “Blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear: for verily I say unto you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them?” Matthew 13:16, 17.

Once more: what is the Gospel of Christ, from first to last, but a glorious blessing flowing from distinguishing, grace; a blessing from which all mankind were reprobated for four thousand years, and from which the generality of men are to this day cut off by awful, providential decrees? When the Pelagians, and rigid Arminians, therefore, are ashamed to shout the partiality of God’s free, distinguishing grace toward us, (Christians,) are they not “ashamed of the Gospel of Christ,” and of the election of peculiar grace, by which we are raised so far above the dispensations of the Jews and heathens? A precious and exalted election or predestination, in which St. Paul and the primitive Christians could never sufficiently glory, (as appears by Ephesians i, ii, iii,) and of which it is almost as wicked to be ashamed, as it is to be ashamed of Christ himself. Nay, to slight our election of grace, — our election in Christ, is to be ashamed of our evangelical crown, which is more inexcusable, than to blush at our evangelical cross.

Hence it appears that the genuine tendency of Pelagius’ error, toward which rigid Arminians lean too much, is to make us (Christians) fight against God’s distinguishing love to us; or, at least, to hide from us “the riches of the peculiar grace, wherein God hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to US the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in himself, when he predestinated US, according to the counsel of his grace, and the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his peculiar grace, wherein he made US accepted in the Beloved, [and his dispensation,] that WE should be to the praise of his glory;” that is, that WE (Christians) should “show forth the praises” of his distinguishing mercy, and glorify him for bestowing upon US those evangelical favours, from which he still reprobates so many myriads of our fellow creatures.

O Pelagianism, thou wretched levelling system, how can we, Christians, sufficiently detest thee, for thus robbing us of the peculiar comforts arising from the election of grace, which so eminently distinguishes us from Jews, Turks, and heathens! And how can we sufficiently decry thee, for robbing, by this means, our sovereign Benefactor of “the praise of the glory of his grace!” Were it not for Pelagian unbelief, which makes us regardless of the comforts of our gratuitous election in Christ, and for whims of Calvinian reprobation, which damp or destroy these comforts, many Christians would triumph in Christ; and, “rejoicing with joy unspeakable and full of glory, in the vocation wherewith they are called, they would thank God for his unspeakable gift.” They would shout electing love as loudly as Zelotes, but not in the unnatural, unscriptural, barbarous, damnatory sense in which he does it. They would not say, “Why me, Lord? Why me? Why am I absolutely appointed to eternal justification and finished salvation, while most of my neighbours (poor creatures!) are absolutely appointed to eternal wickedness, and finished damnation?” But with charitable and wondering gratitude, they would cry out, “Why us, Lord? Why us? Why are we (Christians) predestinated and elected to the blessings of the full Gospel of Christ, from which Enoch, the man who walked with thee, Abraham, the man whom thou calledst thy friend, Moses, the man who talked with thee face to face, David, the man after thy own heart. Daniel, the man greatly beloved, and John the Baptist, the man who excelled all the Jewish prophets, were every one reprobated?

In such evangelical strains as these should Christians express before God their peculiar gratitude for their peculiar election and calling: and then running to each other, with hearts and mouths full of evangelical congratulations, they should say as the apostle did to Timothy, “God hath saved US [Christians] and called US with a holy [Christian] calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given US [Christians] in Christ Jesus before the world began, [when God planned the various dispensations of his grace,] but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel of Christ — a precious, perfect Gospel, with which God hath blessed us, as well as our neighbours, who are ungrateful enough to “put it from them,” 2 Timothy 1:9, 10. In a word, they should all say to their brethren in the election of [Christian] grace, “Blessed be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten US again to a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ, in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice; receiving the end of your [Christian] faith, even the [Christian] salvation of your souls: of which salvation the prophets inquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the [Christian] grace that should come unto you: unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto US [Christians] they did minister the things which are now reported unto you, by them that have preached the Gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into,” 1 Peter 1:8, &c. “Unto him,” therefore, that so peculiarly” loved us,” as to elect and call us into his Christian reformed Church, “which he hath purchased with his own blood;” peculiarly redeeming it from heathenish ignorance, Jewish bondage, and popish superstition — “unto him,” I say, that thus “loved US, [reformed Christians,] and washed us from our sins,” not by the blood of lambs and heifers, as Aaron washed the Jews, “but by his own blood, and hath made US [who believe] kings and priests to God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever!” Revelation 1:5, 6; Acts 20:28.

But while reformed Christians express thus their joy and gratitude for their election to this peculiar salvation, they should not gorget to guard this comfortable doctrine in as anti-Solifidian a manner as St. Paul and St. Peter did, when they said to their fellows elect, “If every transgression and disobedience [against the Gospel of Jewish salvation] received a just recompense of reward; how shall WE escape if WE neglect so great salvation, as that which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord Jesus,” and his apostles! “Wherefore the rather, brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling” in Christ, who is “the Apostle and High Priest of our profession” or dispensation, “give diligence to make your [high] calling and [distinguishing] election sure; for, if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” into the aggravated ruin which awaits the “neglecters of so great salvation,” Hebrews 2:2, 3; 3:1; 2 Peter 1:10. Should a rigid Arminian say, “I cannot reconcile your doctrine of partial grace with Divine goodness and equity, and therefore I cannot receive it; why should not God bear with all men as long as he did with Manasses? With all nations as long as he did with the Jews? And with all Churches as long as he does with the Church of Rome?” I answer: —

Mercy may lengthen out her cords on particular occasions to display her boundless extent. But if she did so on all occasions, she would countenance sin, and pour oil on the fire of wickedness. If God displayed the same goodness and long suffering toward all sinners, Churches, and nations, then all sinners would be spared till they had committed as many atrocious crimes as Manasses, who filled Jerusalem with blood and witchcraft. All fallen Churches would be tolerated, till they had poisoned the Gospel truth with as many errors as the Church of Rome imposes upon her votaries. And all corrupted nations would not only be preserved till they had actually “sacrificed their sons and daughters to devils;” but also till they had an opportunity to “kill the Prince of life,” coming in person to “gather them as a hen gathers her brood under her wings.” So universal a mercy as this would be the greatest cruelty to myriads of men, and instead of setting off Divine justice, would for a time lay it under a total eclipse. Beside, according to this impartial, this levelling scheme, God would have been obliged to make all men kings, as Manasses; all Churches Christian, as the Church of Rome; and all people his peculiar people, as the Jewish nation. But even then distinguishing grace would not have been abolished: unless God had made all men archangels, all Churches like the triumphant Church, and all nations like the glorified nation which inhabits the heavenly Canaan. So monstrous are the absurdities which result from the levelling scheme of the men who laugh at the doctrine of the Gospel dispensations; and of those who will not allow Divine sovereignty and supreme wisdom to dispense unmerited favours as they please; and to deal out their talents with a variety which, upon the whole, answers the most excellent ends; as displaying best the excellency of a government, where sovereignty, mercy, and justice wisely agree to sway their common sceptre!

Should a Pelagian leveller refuse to yield to these arguments, under pretence that “they lead to the Calvinian doctrines of lawless grace, free wrath, and absolute reprobation;” I answer this capital objection five different ways: —

1. The objector is greatly mistaken: for, holding forth the gratuitous reprobation of partial grace, as the Scriptures do, is the only way to open the eyes of candid Calvinists, to keep the simple from drinking into their plausible error, and to rescue the multitude of passages, on which they found their absolute, gratuitous predestination to eternal life and eternal death. I say it again, rigid Calvinism is the child of confusion, and lives merely by sucking its mother’s corrupted milk. Would you destroy the brat, only kill its mother: destroy confusion: “divide the word of God aright:” and thus lead the rigid Predestinarians to the truth — the delightful truth, whence their error has been derived “by the mistake or sleight of men, and by the cunning craftiness whereby the spirit of error lies in wait to deceive,” and you will destroy the Antinomian election, and the cruel reprobation which pass for Gospel. In order to this, you strike at those serpents with the swords of your mouths, and cry out, “Absurd! unscriptural! horrible! diabolical!” But, by this means, you will never kill one of them: there is but one method to extirpate them: hold out the partial election and reprobation maintained by the sacred writers. Throw your rod, like Moses, amidst the rods of the magicians. Let it first become a serpent, which you can take up with pleasure and safety: display the true partiality of Divine grace: openly preach the Scripture election of grace; and boldly assert the gratuitous reprobation of inferior grace. So shall your harmless serpent swallow up the venomous serpent of your adversaries. The true reprobation shall devour the false. Bigoted Calvinists will be confounded, hide themselves for fear of the truth: and candid Calvinists will see the finger of God, and acknowledge that your rod is superior to theirs, and that the harmless reprobation of inferior grace, which we preach, has fairly swallowed up the horrible reprobation of free wrath which they contend for.

Be neither ashamed nor afraid of our serpent — our reprobation. Like Christ, it has not only the “wisdom of the serpent,” but also the “innocency of the dove:” you may handle it without danger: nay, you may put it into your bosom: and, instead of stinging you with despair, and filling you with chilling horrors, it will warm your soul with admiration for the manifold wisdom and variegated goodness of God: it will make you sharp sighted in the truth of the Gospel, and in the errors of overdoing evangelists. In the light of this truth you will, every where, see a glorious rainbow, where before you saw nothing but a dark cloud.

When our serpent has had this blessed effect, you may take it out of your bosom for external use, and it will become a rod fit to chastise the errors of Pelagius and Augustine — of Calvin and Socinus. But use it with such gentleness and candour that all the spectators may see you do not deal in free wrath, and that there is as much difference between the gratuitous reprobation, which Calvin and Zanchius hold forth, and the gratuitous reprobation, which our blessed Lord and St. Paul maintain, as there is between the blasted dry rod of Korah, and the blossoming, fragrant rod of Aaron; between a fire which gently warms your apartment, and one which rapidly consumes your house; between the bright morning star, inferior in light to the sun, and a horribly glaring comet, which draws its fiery tail over the earth to smite it with an eternal curse, and to drag, with merciless necessity, a majority of its frightened inhabitants to everlasting burnings.

2. Our gratuitous reprobation is not a reprobation from all saving grace, as that of the Calvinists, but only from the superior blessings of saving grace. It is therefore as contrary to Calvinian reprobation, as initial salvation is contrary to insured damnation. It is perfectly consistent with the “free gift which is to come,” in various degrees, “upon all men to justification.” We steadily assert, with Christ and St. Paul, that “the saving grace of God hath appeared to all men,” and that all the reprobates of superior grace, that is, all who are refused three, four, or five talents of grace receive two, or at least one talent of true and saving grace. There never was a spark of Calvinian free wrath in God against them. They are all redeemed with a temporal redemption. They have all an accepted time, and a day of initial salvation, with sufficient means and helps to “work out their own eternal salvation,” according to their Gospel dispensation. We grant that God does not bestow upon them so many of his gratuitous favours as he does on his peculiar people. But if he give them less, he requires the less of them; for he is too just to insist upon the improvement of five talents from the servants on whom he has bestowed but one talent.

To understand this perfectly, distinguish between the two Gospel axioms, or, if you please, between the doctrines of grace, and the doctrines of justice. According to the former, God, with a partial hand, bestows upon us primary and merely gratuitous favours. And, according to the latter, he, with an impartial hand, imparts to us secondary and remunerative favours. God’s primary, and merely gratuitous favours, depend entirely on his partial grace: so far all Christians should agree with Calvin, and hold with him the doctrine of grace. But God’s secondary, remunerative favours depending on his rewarding grace, conditional promise, and distributive justice, depend of consequence in some degree on our free agency; for our free will, by making a bad or good use of God’s primary favours, secures to us his righteous punishments, or gracious rewards, that is, his secondary favours. And herein all Christians should agree with Arminius. By thus joining the peculiar excellencies of Calvinism and Arminianism, we embrace the whole Gospel, and keep together the doctrines of grace and justice, which the partial ministers of the two modern gospels rashly tear asunder.

3. Many of the persons who have been reprobated from superior favours by partial grace, have been eternally saved by improving their one talent of inferior favour; while some of those who had a large share in the election of distinguishing grace, are condemned for the non-improvement or abuse of the five talents which that grace had richly bestowed upon them. Who, for example, will dare say that Melchisedec, Esau, Jonathan, and Mephibosheth, are damned because they were reprobated with respect to the peculiar favours which God bestowed upon Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon? Or that Judas, Ananias, and Sapphira are saved, because they were all three chosen and called to the highest blessings which distinguishing grace ever bestowed upon mortals, — the blessings of the new covenant, which is the best covenant of peculiarity; and because Judas was even chosen and called to the high dignity of the apostleship, in this excellent covenant?

4. We all know how fatal Calvinian reprobation must prove to those who are its miserable subjects. A man may be seized by the plague and live. But if that fatal decree, as drawn by some mistaken theologists, seize on ten thousand souls, not one of them can escape: their hopes of salvation are sacrificed for ever. But the gratuitous election and reprobation, which the Scripture maintains, are attended with as favourable circumstances, as the elections and reprobations mentioned in the following illustrations: — While the sun is alone elected to gild the day, the moon, though reprobated from that honour, is nevertheless elected to silver the night, in conjunction with stars of different brightness. The “holy place” of the temple was reprobated, with respect to the glory of the “holy of holies:” it contained neither the cherubim, nor the mercy seat, nor the ark of the covenant; but yet it was elected to the honour of containing the golden altar, on which the incense was burned. The “court of the priests” was reprobated from the honour of containing the golden altar, but yet it was freely elected to the honour of containing the brazen altar, on which the sacrifices were offered. As for the “court of the Gentiles,” though it was reprobated from all these honourable peculiarities, yet it was elected to the advantage of leading to the brazen altar: and the Gentiles, who worshipped in this court, not only heard at a distance the music of the priest, and discovered the smoke, which ascended from the burnt offerings; but, when they looked through the open gates, they had a distant view of the brazen altar, of the fire which descended from heaven upon it, and of the lamb, which was daily consumed in that fire. And therefore they were no more absolutely reprobated from all interest in the daily sacrifice, than Caiaphas was absolutely elected to an inamissible interest in the daily oblation, in which his near attendance at the altar gave him the first right. Once more: the tribe of Levi was elected to the honour of doing the service of the sanctuary; an honour from which eleven tribes were reprobated. And, in that chosen tribe, the family of Aaron was elected to the priesthood and high priesthood: peculiar dignities, from which the sons of Moses himself were all reprobated. Now if it would be absurd to deduce Calvinian reprobation, and unavoidable damnation, from these elections; is it reasonable to deduce them, as the Calvinists do, from a gratuitous election to the distinguishing blessings of the Jewish and Christian covenant?

5. The difference between the partial reprobation which the Holy Ghost asserts, and that which Calvin maintains, is so important, that I beg leave to make the reader sensible of it by one more illustration. God’s partial reprobation, which flows from his inferior favour, and not from free wrath, may be compared,

(1.) To the king’s refusing a regiment of foot the advantage of riding on horseback — a free prerogative, which he grants to a regiment of dragoons. And,

(2.) To his denying to common soldiers the rank of captains; and to captains, the rank of colonels. But Calvin’s partial reprobation, which flows from free wrath, and has nothing to do with any degree of saving grace, may be compared to the king’s placing a whole regiment of marines in such dreadful circumstances by sea and land, that all the soldiers, and officers, shall be sooner or later necessitated to desert, and to have their brains blown out for desertion; a distinguishing severity this, which will set off the distinguishing favour which his majesty bears to a company of favourite grenadiers, on whom he has absolutely set his everlasting love, and who cannot be shot for desertion, because they are tied to their colours by necessity, — an adamantine chain, which either keeps them from running away, or irresistibly pulls them back to their colours as often as they desert. Thus all the marines wear the badge of absolute free wrath; not one of them can possibly escape being shot; and the grenadiers wear the badge of absolute free grace; not one of them can possibly be shot, let them behave in ever so treacherous a manner for ever so long a time. But, alas! my illustration fails in the main point. When a soldier, who has been necessitated to desert, is shot, his punishment is over in a moment: but when a reprobate, who has been necessitated to continue in sin, is damned, he must go into a fire unquenchable, where “the smoke of his torment shall ascend for ever and ever.”

By these various answers candid Arminians will, I hope, be convinced, that, although Calvinian reprobation is unscriptural, irrational, and cruel, the gratuitous election and reprobation maintained in the preceding pages is truly evangelical, and, of consequence, perfectly consistent with the dictates of sound reason and pure morality.