It moft evidently appears then, that Mr. Barclay's fyftem of religion is as much clogged with the doctrines of predeftination and reprobation, as John Calvin's was. I do not fay, that he says, thefe doctrines were the unavoidable confequences of his religious principles, but I do affert, that they muft appear, to every close and attentive reafoner, to be abfolutely and infeparably connected with them.

May we not then, if we were difpofed to rally our Antagonists, as Mr. Barclay does, adopt fome of his own most severe 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 fave them, without a virtuous paffivenefs, or an harmless inactivity, to which they are utterly indifpofed; and this indifpofition will as inevitably prevent their improvement of the "light within," as if they had no light at all. Notwithstanding, according to Barclay's profefled fentiments, he is conftantly addreffing himfeit to them in his word thus," why will ye die, "oh children of men ?" though "he knows there is a moral certainty they will not be faved."

હે

Before he made, or fuffered to come into being, those who refufe to fubmit to the faving light, he perfectly forefaw, that they would fo act as to plunge themselves into future mifery; and, therefore, upon Mr. Barclay's own fcheme, (for he acknowledges God's omnifcience) "made them to be miferable." With what justice then, could Mr. Barclay fay, with taunting cenfure unto any, even to the rigid Calvinift, that "God has made fome men to damn them?” If he will make this the firft motive of God's forming then, in the fyftem of the Calvinifts, why may they not, with equal propriety, make it the firft, in his fcheme?

As

As for Mr. Barclay's redemption by Chrift, it is, in fact, much more imperfect and ineffectual, than that of the perfon he fo warmly oppofes: For the mediation of Jefus, according to him, has no manner of influence to difpofe the will; and repentance, pardon, and falvation, all depend upon a virtuous, or, at least, an innocent voluntary paffivenefs, in the finner, and all Chrift has done is not really efficacious, to produce this indifpenfible prerequifite. Hence the Gospel which Mr. Barclay preached to loft men, that he declared to be "faving, " ef"fectual," and "fufficient," was actually a "mock," a "delufion;" it was a "mere fiction," a "fyftem "of abfurdity," and "inconfiftency;" and to every one, who is not disposed to submit to its influence, the coming of Chrift was an "act of wrath," for it enhanceth their guilt and mifery.

If "the evil feed derived from Adam totally inca"pacitated men for working out their falvation," as the Apologist afferts, and their averfion to fubmit "to the faving light within, prevents the falvation of "any," as he every where allows, what is this impious averfion owing to, or from what does it proceed? Does it arile from that " oneness" or con

nexion (by which Mr. Phipps's "fenfitive part is "communicated" P. 89.) appointed by the God of nature between Adam and his pofterity, or from the external conftitution of things, as the late ingenious and learned Dr. Taylor fuppofed? If Mr. Phipps will take the former, then "he makes God the author “of fin,” just as much, as even the people who are called Calvinifts; if the latter, the judicious Calvinift would afk him, Who eftablished this corrupting external constitution of things? And his antwer must be, if he did not evade the queftion, that it was by the order, permiffion, or difpofition, of providence. Then the Calvinift would tell him, with equal reason and juftice, that in this view of the fubject, he was, as

much

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

Mr. Barclay has expreffed himself in the following words," So we do not deny, but that in a fpecial "manner, God worketh in fome, in whom grace fo 66 prevaileth, that they neceffarily obtain falvation; "neither doth God fuffer them to refift." Prop. V. and VI. Sect, 18.

Now, thefe who are thus faved by fpecial grace, will have to afcribe their falvation, folely to the invincible influence of Deity; whereas, others who are faved upon Barclay's general plan, will have the glory of their doing or being fomething, which first intitled them, before others, to the fuccefsful operations of the "light within."

66

66

May not then thofe who are faved, according to this laft fcheme, juftly fay in the other ftate to " Paul" and the Virgin Mary," "Stand by, you are faved by mere, fpecial," neceflary " grace," but we "are faved, becaufe we were, in ourfelves, more inno"cent than you, or becaufe we chofe to fubmit to the "motions of God's fpirit in cur minds?" There certainly would be room, according to thefe two different plans of falvation, for this contention, and the one must say, "We have not whereof to glory, but our falvation is all of free, rich, fovereign and in"vincible grace;" whereas the other may justly cxprefs themfelves thus, "We are faved by the "light within," becaufe we were firft more "innocent,' and "voluntarily" more paffive, "than thofe who "did not fubmit to it.".

The felect few, who are thus faved by Mr. Barclay's "fpecial grace," muft undoubtedly have been equally loft with thofe who are faved without it, before this grace operated upon them; nay they were, as actually in a condemned and loft ftate, according to Mr. Phipps, as thofe who continue to the end of their lives to refift the faving principle of the “ light with

"in."

"in." Why had not then the Almighty granted these laft this "fpecial grace," which would not have fuffered them to refift?" What," to use Mr. Phipps's expreffions with a little variation, P. 101. "Is the di

vine effence a compofition of different or contrary "principles? Is there one principle in him, that de"termines him to give fpecial grace, in order to their "being certain of obtaining eternal felicity, to fome of "his loft creatures; and another principle in him, which "leads him to leave others which are loft, without "affording them grace to difpofe their minds to fub"mit to that which would fave them? What attri "bute is there in him, that could determine him, ❝either to make rational and fenfible creatures (which " he must have foreknown would refift the faving "light) in order that they might be miferable, or "which is ultimately the fame thing, that could lead "him to fuffer one part of them to perifh, by a par"tial preterition, and, at the fame time, give fpecial

grace, to make the means of falvation neceffarily "effectual to others, in the fame ftate, who, till he "thus diftinguifhed them, had no better claim to his "favour, than thofe he configns to eternal weeping, "and wailing, and gnashing of teeth?"

Let but Mr. Phipps anfwer these questions, fairly and honeftly, as I have plainly stated them, in their neceflary connexion with Barclay's fyftem, and he fhall have my thanks, and no doubt thofe of his brethren.

Thus we have shown, how eafy it is to turn all the artillery of Mr. Barclay's and his defender's invective, and cenfure, upon themselves and party, and that it is no difficult matter to prove, that the Apologift's own scheme is evidently clogged with all the imagined abfurdities he charges upon others with refpect to "elec❝tion and preterition."

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

Ff

talte

tafte of the age, and procure attention and respect from his reader, if he runs forth in cenforious declamation upon the doctrine of "preterition," which "election" implies in it, as a neceffary confequence. Dreffing it up in the most hideous form, according to their crude and horrid notions of it, they give it a language which loudly accufes the Deity of injuftice and cruelty, and which charges upon his providence a compulfive influence, that forces vaft numbers, contrary to their inclinations and difpofitions, to follow that course, which will terminate in their everlasting ruin: But I am difpofed to think, from the little that I know of their writings, that most of the reformers, and numerous fenfible learned and good men fince, who have believed this doctrine, would, from their fouls, abhor, the deteftable monster, which the imagination of thefe modifh writers has created, and, in the most expreffive and pofitive terms, declare it to be altogether fabulous.

Moft of the defenders of Chriftianity, in our day, that I have feen, appear to be terribly afraid of admitting the doctrine of divine fovereignty: By which I don't mean, a power in God to act arbitrarily, without wife motives, as fome, perhaps through ignorance or inattention, may have feemed to reprefent it, but a power to " act according to the good pleasure of his will," Eph. i. 5. or in other words, according to the dictates of infinite wifdom: However, this infinite wisdom lies too deep for the fhort line of human reafon to fathom; and it may be faid, upon this subject, "who has known the mind of the Lord, or, being his counfellor, has taught him?" Ifa. xl. 13. Rom. xi. 34.

66

Wherever the Gofpel took effect, though it was always by the mind's being convinced of its truth, it is afcribed to the peculiar Elefling of God. "Paul might plant, and Apollos water, but God muft give the increafe."1 Cor. iii. 6. And no reafon,

66

we