Page images
PDF
EPUB

It most evidently appears then, that Mr. Barclay's fystem of religion is as much clogged with the doctrines of predestination and reprobation, as John Calvin's was.

I do not say, that he says, these doctrines were the unavoidable consequences of his religious principles, but I do affert, that they must appear, to every close and attentive reasoner, to be absolutely and inseparably connected with them.

May we not then, if we were disposed to rally our Antagonists, as Mr. Barclay does, adopt some of his own most fevere reflections, and throw them back, with a double force, upon himself? Here is “ his “ God taking delight in the death of finners," as much as the Deity of Arminians, Lutherans, or even Calvinifts; for the light he has given them is not fufficient to save them, without a virtuous - passiveness, or an harmless inactivity, to which they are utterly indisposed; and this indii position will as inevitably prevent their improvement of the “ ligket within," as if they had nu light at all. Notwithstanding, according to Barclay's profefled sentiments, he is constantly addressing himseit to them in his word thus, " why will ye die, och children of men ?” though

« he knows there is a moral certainty they will not be saved.”

Before he made, or suffered to come into being, those who refuse to submit to the saving light, be perfectly foresaw, that they would so act as to plunge themselves into future misery; and, therefore, upon Mr. Barclay's own scheme, (for he acknowledges God's omniscience) “ made them to be miserable.” With what justice then, could Mr. Barclay say, with taunting censure unto any, even to the rigid Calvinilt, that “ God has made fome men to danın thenı?" If he will make this the first motive of God's forming thein, in the system of the Calvinists, why may they not, with equal propriety, make it the first, in his scheme?

As

[ocr errors]

saving, “ef.

a

As for Mr. Barclay's redemption by Christ, it is, in fact, much more imperfect and ineffectual, than that of the person he so warmly opposes : For the mediation of Jesus, according to him, has no manner of influence to dispose the will; and repentance, pardon, and salvation, all depend upon a virtuous, or, at least, an innocent voluntary passiveness, in the sinner, and all Christ has done is not really efficacious, to produce this indispensible prerequisite. Hence the Gospel which Mr. Barclay preached to lost men, that he declared to be “ « fectual,” and “ fufficient,” was actually a "mock,"

“ delusion ;' it was a “mere fiction,” a “systein “ of absurdity,” and “inconsistency;" and to every one, who is not disposed to submit to its influence, the coming of Chrilt was an “act of wrath,” for it enhanceth their guilt and misery.

If “the evil seed derived from Adam totally inca“ pacitated men for working out their salvation,” as the Apologist asserts, and a their aversion to submit “ to the saving light within, prevents the salvation of

any,” as he every where allows, what is this im pious aversion owing to, or from what does it proceed? Does it arile from that “oneness" or connexion (by which Mr. Phipps's

« sensitive part is “ communicated” P. 89.) appointed by the God of nature between Adam and his posterity, or from the external constitution of things, as the late ingenious and learned Dr. Taylor fupposed? If Mr. Phipps will take the former, then “he makes God the author “ of sin,” just as much, as even the people who are called Calvinists ; if the latter, the judicious Calvinist would ask him, Who established this corrupting external constitution of things ? And his aniwer must be, if he did not evade the question, that it was by the order, perinislion, or difpofition, of providenc.. Then the Calvinist would tell him, with equal reason and justice, thiar in this view of the subject, he was, as

much

;

much as himself, obnoxious to the charge of making God the author of fin.

Mr. Barclay has expressed himself in the following words, “ So we do not deny, but that in a special

manner, God worketh in some, in whom grace so “ prevaileth, that they necessarily obtain falvation “ neither doth God suffer them to resist.” Prop. V. and VI. Sect, 18.

Now, these who are thus faved by special grace, will have to ascribe their falvation, solely to the invincible influence of Deity; whereas, others who are saved upon Barclay's general plan, will have the glory of their doing or being foinething, which first intitled them, before others, to the successful operations of the light within."

May not then those who are saved, according to this last scheme, justly say in the other state to “ Paul" and " the Virgin Mary," “ Stand by, you are saved “ by mere,“

special,” neceffary “grace," but we « are saved, because we were, in ourselves, more inno'“ cent than you, or because we chose to submit to the “ motions of God's spirit in cur minds ?” There certainly would be room, according to these two different plans of salvation, for this contention, and the one must say, “ We have not whereof to glory, but “ our salvation is all of frce, rich, sovereign and in, “ vincible grace;" whereas the other may justly express themselves thus, “We are saved by the “light “ within,” because we were first more “ innocent, ” and “voluntarily" more passive, “than those who “ did not fubmit to it.”

The select fewv, who are thus saved by Mr. Barclay's “ special grace," must undoubtedly have been equally lost with those who are saved without it, before this grace operated upon them ; nay they were, as actually in a condemned and loft ítare, according to Mr. Phipps, as those who continue to the end of their lives to refiit the faving principle of the “ light with

66 in.”

* in.” Why had not then the Almighty granted these last this “special grace,” which would not have suffered them to refift?“ What,” to use Mr. Phipps's expressions with a little variation, P. 101. “ Is the di6 vine essence a composition of different or contrary s principles ? Is there one principle in him, that determines him to give special grace, in order to their “ being certain of obtaining eternal felicity, to some of “ his lost creatures; and another principle in him, which “ leads him to leave others which are lost, without « affording them grace to dispose their minds to sub$6 mit to that which would save them? What attri“ bute is there in him, that could determine him, 56 either to make rational and sensible creatures (which “ he must have foreknown would resist the saving “ light) in order that they might be miserable, or “ which is ultimately the same thing, that could lead “ him to suffer one part of them to perish, by a par“ tial preterition, and, at the same time, give special

grace, to make the means of salvation necesfarily « effectual to others, in the same state, who, till he “ thus distinguished them, had no better claim to his “ favour, than those he configns to eternal weeping, ♡ and wailing, and gnashing of teeth ?”

Let but Mr. Phipps answer these questions, fairly and honestly, as I have plainly stated them, in their neceflary connexion with Barclay's system, and he Thall have my thanks, and no doubt those of his brethren.

Thus we have shown, how easy it is to turn all the artillery of Mr. Barclay's and his defender's invective, and censure, upon themselves and party, and that it is no difficult matter to prove, that the Apologist's own scheme is evidently clogged with all the imagined absurdities he charges upon others with respect to “elec“ tion and preterition.”

Indeed, almost every modern writer, who would be esteemed humane and polite, thinks he thall suit the

Ff

talte

taste of the age, and procure attention and respect from his reader, if he runs forth in censorious declamation upon the doctrine of “ preterition,” which << election” implies in it, as a neceffary consequence. Dressing it up in the most hideous forin, according to their crude and horrid notions of it, they give it a language which loudly accuses the Deity of injustice

and cruelty, and which charges upon his providence a compulsive influence, that forces vast numbers, contrary to their inclinations and dispositions, to follow that course, which will terminate in their everlasting ruin : But I am disposed to think, from the little that I know of their writings, that most of the reformers, and numerous sentible learned and good men since, who have believed this doctrine, would, froin their souls, abhor, the detestable monster, which the imagination of these modifh writers has created, and, in the most expressive and positive terms, declare it to be altogether fabulous.

Most of the defenders of Christianity, in our day, that I have seen, appear to be terribly afraid of admitting the doctrine of divine sovereignty : By which I don't mean, a power in God to act arbitrarily, without wise motives, as fome, perhaps through ignorance or inattention, may have feemed to reprefent it, but a power to.6 act according to the good pleasure of his ceill,” Eph. i. 5. or in other words, according to the dictates of intinite wisdom: However, this infinite wisdom lies too deep for the short line of human reason to fathom ; and it may be faid, upon this subject, “ who has known the inind of the Lord, or,

being his counsellor, has taught him?" Ifa. xl. 13. Rom. xi. 34.

Wherever the Gospel took effect, though it was always by the mind's being convinced of its truth, it is ascribed to the peculiar Llelling of God.

“ Paul might plant, and Apollos water, but God must give the increase."? 1 Cor, iii. 6. And-no realon,

66

we

1

« PreviousContinue »