Page images

scach of his natural faculties, we allow, that the Almighty has given all his rational creatures this power : But, if he means that God has granted to all mankind, a moral power, or turn of mind, to be pleased with that course of choice and action, which would terminate in their everlasting falvation, without having the least suspicion of our insulting “ Omnipotency, or impcaching divine “goodness," we, with the fullest conviction of mind, deny his position ; having Scripture, experience, and fact, to lupport our negation.

Mr. Phipps writes upon this point, with such a confidential air, as evidently beipeaks a full persuafion that he is entirely master of it; and though we would not return his compliments, by calling in question his fenle and capacity, as he very frequently has done, with rude language, his opponent's, we much suspect that he has not sufficiently investigated the subject: If he had, common sense, and his own feelings, would convince him, that though man is free to do what he pleases or chules, within the sphere of his natural ability, it is morally impossible he should perforin that, which he has no disposition, inclination, or choice, to do.

There is no occasion for us to enlarge further upon Mr. Phipps's observations. These remarks abundantly prove, that he does not attend properly to the strength of his own expressions, and that he intirely mistakes, in fome instances, those of his opponent; and he is so far from clearing the system of the Apologist, of those consequences which we charged upon it, that his own observations demonstrate, as we have shewn, that his own scheme is certainly clogged with the fame. Whether then it is becoming, decent, gentleman-like, niuch less religious, for a man of Mr. Phipps's years and experience, to treat his opponent with that haughty air of superiority and insulting confempt, which runs through the whole of his per


formance, formance, we leave to the judgment of every impartial reader.

2. It is clearly shewn, that Mr. Barclay's notions un

avoidably lead to what he calls the horrid doctrine of reprobation, or preterition.

We would here lay before the reader the following paragraph from the Apology, Prop. X. Sect. 5. “For “ the Apoftate Church of Rome has introduced no “ lets ceremonies and fuperftitions in the Christian “ profeffion, than was either among Jews or Hea“ thens; and that there is, and hath been as much, “ yea, and more pride, covetousness, unclean luft, “ luxury, fornication, profanity, and atheism, among “ her teachers and chief bishops, than ever, was

among any sort of people, none need doubt that “ have read their own authors; to wit, Platina, and « others." In the next page, he expresses himself thus : “ And look through the Protestant nations, " and there shall no difference appear in the lives of " the generality of the one, more than of the other; “ but, he who ruleth in the children of disobedience, “ reigning in both : So that the reformation, through “ this defect, is but in holding some lets gross errors “ in the notion, but not in having the heart reformed “ and renewed ; in which mainly the life of Christi“ anity confifteth."

I do not question but Mr. Barclay wrote this, in the honesty and fimplicity of his heart; and however charitable he may afteet to be in many places, yet, that here he judged it would have been dishonesty to have allowed, that the generality, or by far the greater part, of Protestants and Papists, were changed in heart, and reformed in life, and, in his sente, true Christians. If now he gives his vote against the major part of the nations called Christian, and even against the greatest part of Proteftants, it is riatural


for us to suppose, he does also, against the Jews, Turks, and Pagans, though he inight have allowed, and did allow, that some amongst all these, may have been in a safe state through the prevalency of the “ light within :" For indeed, it would be strange to suppose, that the most holy writings, or genuine Revelation of God, should be in the hands of a people, who were not more benefitted by it, with respect to the interests of their souls, than those who did not enjoy fo inestimable a privilege.

The sum then of these observations amounts to this, that the greater part of the Pagans, Turks, Jews, and profeffed Christians, by Mr. Barclay's own concessions, as they have not submitted to the light

within,are not in a safe ftate ; and, if they die in this condition, must be for ever loft.

That most of them did die in these circumstances, we have no manner of doubt, was the opinion of the Apologist, notwithstanding Mr. Phipps has endeavoured, P.85. to give his reflections another meaning : But to render entirely useless his observations, and state the matter in a moft unexceptionable light, that will leave no room for his evasions, we will quote Barclay's own words, to prove as much as we want for our intended deductions.

He expresses himself thus, Prop. II. “ For, as to the first, it is acknow

ledged that many learned men may be, and have “ been, damned.” P. 26. Mr. Phipps hiinself also, in a passage quoted in the former number, says, “ That it is to be feared too many will perfist in neg“ lecting to attend to the “ light within,” till so har" dened in iniquity, they fall into perdition.”

I ask then, how it comes to pass that these, whatever their number may be, are lost ? Mr. Barclay, and his defender, would reply, “ Because they did not “ hearken to the Light within, nor suffer it to operate upon

their souls." True, this is the judicial reason of their condemnation ; but I cannot fiop here in E e 2


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

the inquiries of my mind; therefore I ask again, How comes it about, that some are paffivc, and suffer the light to operate, but that too many of the learned, as well as unlearned, are not so, and reject its falutary influence? It must be owing to the light itself; or to the disposition and quality of the person ; or else to no moral cause whatsoever. If it be owing to no moral cause, that any become paffive under it, then it is a matter of mere absolute contingency, in which the Deity, his providence, word, and works, or any thing within or without these persons, have no manner of influence. And if it be owing to no moral cause, that “ too manyreject it, the Devil and his agents, . or the person's own mind, have no way conduced to the refusal of the gracious aids of this light, either directly or indirectly. The consequence of which would establish the Epicurean and blind fatal scheme at once, that supposes the salvation of an immortal foul does' not ultimately depend upon God, or the quality of the person's own mind ; nor its perdition upon the Devil, and its own disposition to subniit to his

pernicious influence.

It must be either owing to the light itself, or to the disposition or quality of the mind, that some of mankind are pasive and suffer it to save them, and that “ too many" are not passive and oppose it. This is a proposition as clear as any one can be. If Mr. Phipps will deny it, he must take the consequence. The Apologist will not suffer the honour of “ the first step 66 of the soul” twards salvation to be ascribed to the

light or grace within,” for he repeatedly says, that all nien have a sufficiency of this, or a faving measure of it, even those that are lost, as well as thote that are saved. He tells us also, the reason it does not save them that are lost is, because they were not passive, or because they did noc íubmit themnielves to its influence, or in other words, because they refifted it : His defen


der, in many places, however he has expressed himself elsewhere, is evidently of the same opinion.

Now, we have brought the matter to a point, and the next question to be asked is, how came such a number of mankind to be so badly disposed, as not to submit to the spirit of God within them, or suffer his light within to save them, but others, on the contrary, chuse to subinit to its dictates ? It must be owing to some difference in their natures or education.' Who was it then that had the forination or constitution of their natures, or the superintendency or direction of their education, but God and his providence? And could he not, if it had been his good pleasure or will, have fo constituted their natures, and ordered their education, that they should all universally have submitted to the light within, and been saved ? No man can, with any reason or piety, deny it. Here then what Barclay calls the horrid doštrine of predestina« tion,” and Mr. Phipps's “ Barbarism of reprobation,force themselves upon my mind, with invincible evidence.

If it be asked, why God has not given all men a disposition to submit to the saving light within them, or ordered their education so that they might have been thus disposed ? I cannot say, that he could not have done it, nor can Meflrs. Barclay or Phipps: We: have no other answer but this, that it is “ because he “ will shew inercy, on whom he will fhew miercy.' Rom. ix. 15

Turn the subject which way we will, it will termia nate here : for if we fuppose, this bad disposition comes from Adam, the Devil, bad example, or a contingent principle in the minds of men, it does not remove the difficulty; or if we attribute the good or well disposed mind to any caule, it must ultimately iffue in God, for, as Mr. Phipps fily's, " he is the “ author of all good.”


« PreviousContinue »