Section 9.

SECTION 9.

An answer to the charges of robbing the trinity, and encouraging Deism, which charges Mr. T. brings against the doctrine of the anti-Calvinists.

MR. T. thinks his cause so good, that he supposes himself able, not only to stand on the defensive, but also to attack the Gospel which we preach. From his Babel, therefore, (his strong tower of confusion,) he makes a bold sally, and charges us thus: —

ARG. LXIII. Page 91. “Arminianism robs the Father of his sovereignty.” This is a mistake: Arminianism dares not attribute to him the grim sovereignty of a Nero; but if it does not humbly allow him all the sovereignty which Scripture and reason ascribe to him, so far it is wrong, and so far we oppose Pelagian Arminianism as well as Manichean Calvinism. It “robs the Father of his decrees.” This is a mistake: it reverences all his righteous, Scriptural decrees; though it shudders at the thought of imputing to him unscriptural, Calvinian decrees, more wicked and absurd than the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. It “robs the Father of his providence.” Another mistake! Our doctrine only refuses to make God the author of sin, and to lead men to the Pagan error of fatalism, or to the Manichean error of a two-principled God, who absolutely works all things in all men, as a showman works all things in his puppets; fixing his necessary virtue on the good, and necessary wickedness on the wicked, to the subversion of all the Divine perfections, and to the entire overthrow of the second Gospel axiom, of Christ’s tribunal, and of the wisdom and justice which the Scriptures ascribe to God, as “Judge of the whole earth.” ARG. LXIV. (Ibid.) “It [Arminianism] robs the Son of his efficacy as a Saviour.” Another mistake! It only dares not pour upon him the shame of being the absolute reprobater of myriads of unborn creatures, whose nature he assumed with a gracious design to be absolutely their temporary Saviour; promising to prove their eternal Saviour upon Gospel terms: and, accordingly, he saves all mankind with a temporary salvation; and those who obey him with an eternal salvation. The EFFICACY of his blood is then complete, so far as he absolutely designed it should be.

ARG. LXV. (Ibid.) “It [Arminianism] robs the Spirit of his efficacy as a Sanctifier.” By no means; for it maintains that the Spirit, which is the grace and light of Christ, “enlightens every man that comes into the world,” and leads the worst of men to some temporary good, or at least restrains them from the commission of a thousand crimes. So far the Spirit’s grace is efficacious in all; and, if it is not completely and eternally efficacious in those who “harden their hearts, and by their wilful hardness treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath,” it is because “the day of wrath,” for which the wicked were f85 secondarily made, is to be “the day of the righteous judgment of God who will render to every man according to his deeds,” Romans 2:5, 6: and not the day of the unrighteous judgment of Calvin, who (doctrinally) renders to every man according to a finished salvation in Christ, productive of necessary goodness; and according to a finished damnation in Adam, productive of remediless wickedness, and all its dreadful consequences.

ARG. LXVI. Page 92. Mr. Toplady produces a long quotation from Mr. Sloss, which, being divested of the verbose dress in which error generally appears, amounts to this plain abridged argument: “If the doctrine of Calvinian election be false, because all mankind are not the objects of that election, and because all men have an equal right to the Divine favour, it follows that infidels are right when they say that the Jewish and the Christian revelations are false: for all mankind are not elected to the favour of having the Old and New Testament; and therefore Arminianism encourages infidelity.”

This argument is good to convince Pelagian levellers that God is partial in the distribution of his talents, and that he indulges Jews and Christians with a holy, peculiar election and calling, of which those who never heard of the Bible are utterly deprived. I have myself made this remark in the Essay on the gratuitous election, and partial reprobation which St. Paul frequently preaches: but the argument does not affect our anti-Calvinian Gospel. For,

1. WE do not say that the Calvinian election is false, because it supposes that God is peculiarly gracious to some men; (for this we strongly assert, as well as the Calvinists;) but because it supposes that God is so PECULIARLY gracious to some men, as to be ABSOLUTELY MERCILESS and unjust to all the rest of mankind.

2. That very revelation, which Mr. Sloss thinks we betray to the Deists, informs us, that though all men are not indulged with the peculiar blessings of Judaism and Christianity, yet they are all chosen and called to be righteous, at least, according to the covenants made with fallen Adam and spared Noah. Hence St. Peter says, that, “in every nation, he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness [according to his light, though it should be only the lowest degree of that light, which enlightens every man that cometh into the world] is accepted of him:” and St. Paul speaks of some “Gentiles, who, though they have not the law of Moses or the law of Christ, do by nature [in its state of initial restoration through the seed of life given to fallen Adam in the promise] the things contained in the law, and are a law unto themselves; showing the work of the law, written in their hearts.” Therefore, though there is a gratuitous election, which draws after it a gratuitous reprobation from the blessings peculiar to Judaism and Christianity; there is no Calvinian election, which draws after it a gratuitous reprobation from all saving grace, and necessarily involves the greatest part of mankind in unavoidable damnation. Hence, if I mistake not, it appears that when Mr. Sloss charges us with “having contributed to the prevailing Deism of the present time, by furnishing the adversaries of Divine revelation with arguments against Christianity,” he (as well as Mr. Toplady) gratuitously imputes to our doctrine, what really belongs to Calvinism. For there is a perfect agreement between the absolute necessity of events, which is asserted by Calvinian bound willers; and that which is maintained by Deistical fatalists: and it is well known that the horrors of the absolute reprobation which the Calvinists fancy they see in Romans ix, have tempted many moralists, who read that chapter with the reprobating glosses of Calvin and his followers, to bid adieu to revelation; it being impossible that a scheme of doctrine, which represents God as the absolute reprobater of myriads of unborn infants, should have the Parent of good, and the God of love for its author.