fore God could truly impute finfulness and mortality to them all, that is, he could truly account them all to be what they really were, i. e. SEMINALLY finful, and mortal. How different is this righteous imputation from the imputation maintained by Zelotes !a cruel, fuppofed imputation this, whereby God is reprefented as arbitrarily determining, that numberless myriads of unformed men shall be fo accounted guilty of a fin which they NEVER PERSONALLY COMMITTED, as to be PERSONALLY and ABSOLUTELY predeftinated to eternal death, thro' the horrible medium of NECESSARY, REMEDILESS fin!

If Zelotes replies: "God may as juftly impute "Adam's fin to the natural feed of Adam, as he

does impute Christ's righteousness to the spiritual "feed of Chrift" I reply (1) The cafe is not parallel. The king may jufly give a thousand pounds gra tis to whom he pleafes; but he cannot justly give a thoufand Aripes gratis to whom he pleases, because free-wrath is abfolutely incompatible with justice. (2) Faith is imputed for righteousness: or, if you pleafe, God imputes righteousness to BELIEVERS. Now, who are believers? Are they not men who have faith? -men who have that grace which unites them to Chrift the righteous, and by which they actually derive from Chrift [in various degrees] not only a peculiar intereft in his merits, but alfo the very righteoufnefs, the very hatred of fin, and the very love of virtue, which were in the heart of Chrift? Therefore when God imputes faith for righteousness, or when he imputes. righteoufnefs to believers, he only accounts, that what is in believers is actually there; or, if you please, that believers are what they really are, that is, righte Hence it appears, that to fupport Calvinian imputation of fin, by Calvinian imputation of righteoufnefs, is only to defend one chimera by another.

ous.

Mr. Whitefield's argument in defence of Calvinian reprobation appears to us fo much the more inconclufive, as it is not lefs contrary to fcripture than to reafon. Who can fairly reconcile that reprobation to

the

the texts which intimate, that this proverb shall no more be used in Ifrael: The fathers have eaten four grapes, and the cafe is remedilefs; the children's teeth being neceffarily and eternally Set on edge: that the fon Shall not eternally die, or be reprobated to eternal death for the fins of the father: That God's mercy is over all his works, till provoked free-grace gives place to juft-wrath :-that he willeth not primarily the death of a finner :-and that God our Saviour will have all men to be faved, in a rational, evangelical way, that is, by freely working out their own falvation in fubor dination to his free-grace.

From all the preceding anfwers, I hope, I may conclude, that the "inextricable dilemma" is a mere fophifm; and that the truly reverend Mr. Whitefield understood far better how to offer up a warm prayer, and preach a pathetic fermon, than how to follow Error into her lurking holes, in order to feize there the twisting viper with the tongs of truth, and bring her out to public view, ftript of her shining, Suppery drefs, and darting in vain her forked and hiffing. tongue.

IV. Having answered the threefold objection of Zelotes, Mr. Toplady, and Mr. Whitefield, I fhall now retort it, and show, that upon the plan of the CALVINIAN "doctrines of grace" and WRATH-of unavoidable finished falvation for a fixed number of elect, and of unavoidable, finished damnation for a fixed number of reprobates, all the divine perfections [Sovereignty not excepted] fuffer a partial, or a total eclipfe. I have, it is true, done it already in the Checks; but, as my opponents do not feem to have taken the least notice of the paffage I mean, tho' it contains the strength of our caufe with refpect to the divine perfections, I beg leave to produce it a fecond time. If in a civil court a Second citation is fair and expedient, why might it not not be fo too in a court of controverfial judicature? I therefore aik a fecond time:

"What becomes of God's GOODNESS, if the tokens of it, which he gives to millions of men, are

only

what is anfwered in No. 4, 5, 6, 7. This elegant tautology of Mr. Toplady may make fome of his ad. mirers wonder at the furprizing variety of his argu. ments; but attentive readers can fee thro' the rhetorical vail.

What that gentleman fays of "conditional, variable, vanquishable, and amiffible grace," is verbal dust, raised to obfcure the glory of the fecond gofpel-axiom, to hide one of the fcripture-fcales, and to fubftitute over-bearing, neceffitating grace, and free, unprovoked wrath, for the genuine grace and just wrath mentioned in the gofpel. Let us however dwell a moment upon each of thefe epithets. (1) "CONDITIONAL grace:" We affert [according to the first axiom] that the grace of initial falvation is UNCONDITIONAL: And [according to the fecond axiom] we maintain that the grace of eternal falvation is CONDITIONAL; excepting the cafe of complete idiots, and of all who die in their infancy. If Mr. Toplady can disprove either part of this doctrine; or, which is all one, if he can overthrow the fecond gofpel-axiom, and break our left fcale, let him do it.-(2) "VARIABLE grace:" We affert that grace, as it is inherent in God, is INVARIABLE. But we maintain, that the difplays of it towards mankind are various; afferting that thofe difplays of it which God grants in a way of REWARD, to them that faithfully ufe what they have, and properly afk for more, may and do VARY, according to the variations of faithful or unfaithful Free-will; our Lord himself having declared, that to him that hath to purpose, more shall be given; and that from him that hath not to purpose, even what he hath shall be taken away.—(3) VANQUISHABLE grace." To call God's grace vanquishable is abfurd: becaufe Chrift does not fight men with grace, any more than a phyfician fights the fick with remedies. If a patient will not take his medicines, or will not take them properly, or will take poifon alfo, the medicines are not vanquished, but defpifed, or improperly taken. This does not how the weakness of the medicines, but

66

the

his OMNISCIENCE, if he cannot foreknow future contingencies ? If to foretel without a mistake, that fuch a thing will happen, he must neceffitate it, or do it himself? Was not Nere as wife in this respect? Could not he foretel that Phebe should not continue a virgin, when he was bent upon ravishing her? That Seneca fhould not die a natural death, when he had determined to have him murdered? And that Crifpus fhould fall into a pit, if he obliged him to run a race at midnight in a place full of pits? And what old woman in the kingdom could not precifely foretel that a filly tale fhould be told at fuch an hour, if the were refolved to tell it herself, or, at any rate, make a child do it for her?

"Again, What becomes of God's LOVING-KINDNESSES, which have been ever of old towards the children of men? And what of his IMPARTIALITY, if most men, abfolutely reprobated for the fin of Adam, are never placed in a state of perfonal trial and probation? Does not God ufe them far lefs kindly than he does devils, who were tried every one for himself, and remain in their diabolical state, because they brought it upon themselves by a perfonal choice? Aftonishing! That the Son of God fhould have been flesh of the flesh, and bone of the bone of millions of men, whom, upon the Calvinian scheme, he never indulged fo far as he did devils! What an hardhearted relation to myriads of his fellow-men, does Calvin reprefent our Lord? Suppofe Satan had become our kinfman by incarnation, and had by that means got the right of redemption: would he not have acted like himself, if he had not only left the majority of them in the depth of the fall, but enhanced their mifery by the fight of his partiality to the ele& ??'

"Once more, What becomes of YAIR DEALING, if God every where reprefents fin as the dreadful evil which causes damnation, and yet the most horrid fins work for good to fome, and as P. O. intimates" complish their falvation thro' Chrift?"-And what of HONESTY, if theGod of truth himself promises, that

ac

all the families of the earth fhall be bleed in Chrift, when he has curfed a vast majority of them, with a decree of abfolute reprobation, which excludes them from obtaining an intereft in him, even from the foundation of the world?"

"Nay what becomes of his SOVEREIGNTY itself, if it is torn from the mild and gracious attributes by which it is tempered? If it is held forth in fuch a light, as renders it more terrible to millions, than the fovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar in the plain of Dura appeared to Daniel's companions, when the ferm of his vilage was changed against them, and he decreed that they fhould be caft into the burning, fury furnace? for, they might have faved their bodily life by bowing to the golden image, which was a thing in their power; but poor Calvinian reprobates can escape at no rate: the horrible decree is gone forth; they muft, in spite of their best endeavours, dwell body and foul with everlafting burnings."

To thefe queries taken from the Third Check, I now add those which follow. What becomes of God's infinite PowER, if he cannot make Free agents, or creatures endued with Free will? And what of his boundlefs WISDOM, if, when he has made fuch creatures, he knows not how to rule, overrule, reward, and punifh them, without neceffitating them, that is, without undoing his own work without destroying their Freeagency, which is his mafter-piece in the univerfe?

Nay, what would become of the divine IMMUTABILITY, about which Zelotes makes fo much ado, if God, after having fufpended in all † the Scriptures the reward of eternal life, and the punishment of eternal death, upon our unneceffitated works of faith and unbelief; he fo altered his mind in the day of judgment, as to fufpend heavenly thrones, and infernal racks, only upon the good works of Chrift, and the bad works of Adam; thro' the necessary medium of faith and holiness, abfolutely forced

t See the Scriptural Efjay. Equal Check, page 96, &