Sermon 9
A Refutation of Arminian Principles, Delivered
in a Pamphlet, Entitled,
“The Modern Question Concerning Repentance and Faith,
Examined with Candor, etc.,” in a Letter to a Friend
Printed For, and Sold By A. Ward,
At the King’s-Arms in
Little-Britain,
Worthy Sir,
My opinion of your solid and accurate judgment in divine things,
and of your candor and generous disposition towards those
who differ from you, in articles not affecting the fundamentals of Christian
doctrine, as well as of your firm attachment to the truths of the grace of God;
determines
me to give you, an account of the rise of the controversy, relating to
evangelical repentance, and special faith, being the immediate duties of
unregenerate men; an account of my own apprehensions with relation
thereto, and my thoughts of the performance, entitled, The Modern Question,
Concerning Repentance and Faith,
Examined, with Candor. I
hope, Sir, this liberty, I take with you, will not be thought too bold or
indecent, and as I desire to submit the whole to your examination, which I am
assured will be fair and impartial, the result of your thoughts, will be
received with all that regard, which your great abilities, singular modesty,
Christian charity, and pious zeal for the truths of Christ, may justly
challenge, from one fully sensible of these your rare and uncommon
qualifications.
The rise of the controversy was this. A lecture had been
carried on for some years, with great success, in a village called
Brigstock, in
Northamptonshire. Many young
persons were converted, among whom were several relations of mine; upon hearing
of which, I determined, that when I went into that part of the country, I would
pay them a visit, and accordingly I did. When I was with them, and the rest of
the good people there, at that time, I thought them some of the most happy
persons, I have ever had the pleasure of converting with, in this day of
lukewarmness and division among professors. The conversion of these young
people, was a happy means of revival to the elder Christians there residing.
With zeal and fervor they attended the public worship of God, on Lord’s days,
though the places where they had opportunity of so doing, were five miles
distant from them, and but a few of them enjoyed the convenience of riding. Upon
their return home in the evening, after a little refreshment, they met together
in private; and exercises of prayer and Christian conference, were carried on
with perfect unanimity, spiritual affection and mutual edification. Besides
which, they had three or four of the like evening-meetings in a week; but what
is justly to be observed to their honor, is, they diligently attended their
business, and the management of the affairs of life: so well was their pious
zeal tempered with prudence, and honest industry. —Would to God, that that
harmony, sincere love, and holy zeal, had flourished among them to this day.
But, alas, oh unhappy change! Now there are divisions, contentions and
animosities fomented, among that once very happy number of Christians. The
occasion of which, in short, was this: some of the worthy persons concerned in
carrying on the said lecture, had different apprehensions about the manner of
addressing sinners, with relation to evangelical repentance, and special faith
in Christ: I say about the manner of it, for with respect to the necessity,
nature, object, Author, and the genuine effects of faith, as far as I am able to
learn, they were fully agreed. Some of the lecturers were of opinion, that
special faith is the immediate duty of unregenerate persons, who hear the
Gospel. Others of them, apprehended, that unregenerate persons are not bound to
exercise this special faith in Christ. But were fully convinced of, and
constantly asserted and inculcated, the necessity of faith in Christ, and were
not wanting in the explanation of its nature, and proper fruits. This matter,
was at length controverted by the pen, between two of the lecturers, not without
too much heat on one side, and a great many very ill and dangerous consequences,
were affirmed to follow the latter opinion. This caused a dissension among those
serious Christians, some taking one side of the question, and some the other. At
length, the opposition rose to such a height, in those who took the affirmative
side in this debate, that they formed a resolution to set up another lecture, in
which Antinomian principles were to be exposed, and this opinion particularly.
This design was put into execution; another lecture was opened by Dr. Doddridge,
who is well known for his remarkable candor of temper, and catholic sentiments:
which was therefore, thought very strange by many, who had not, as yet observed,
that but a small mistake, in those persons who steadfastly adhere to principles,
which have heretofore been esteemed the doctrines of free grace, in opposition
to Arminianism, raises the
keen resentment of
persons, of great reputation for their extensive charity and Catholicism: when
large advances towards general grace and universal redemption are highly
applauded, by those very pacific gentlemen. That this lecture was set up in
opposition to the former, Sir, you cannot doubt, when you are told, that it was
proposed that the gentlemen who carry it on, should come into the old lecture,
and take their proper turns, with the former lecturers, to the end that peace,
unity and love might be still preserved, which it was apprehended might very
well subsist, notwithstanding this difference in judgment, with relation to that
particular point: but this amicable and friendly proposal, was not agreed to by
those on the affirmative part. A person of your penetration and impartiality,
will soon discover; and as readily allow, on which side Christian love and
forbearance were attempted to be maintained.
My Apprehensions, of the
point controverted, I shall very briefly lay before you, Sir, and submit them to
your enquiry and censure.
I. I
apprehend, that whatever was, or would have been the duty of man, upon the
supposition of a revelation, super-added to what he enjoyed in his
creation-state, is the duty of men in their fallen state, upon the said
supposition.
II.
That man in his perfect state was bound to love,
reverence and adore God; and that men in their lapsed state are obliged to these
acts, notwithstanding their present want of ability, in consequence of the fall.
III.
That it was the duty of man in his primitive state,
to believe the truth and importance of every revelation, he should receive from
God; and that it is the duty of men in their fallen state so to do.
IV.
But with respect to special faith in Christ, it
seems to me, that the powers of man in his perfect state were not fitted and
disposed to that act. My reasons for this thought are these:
1. The
communication of such a power to man, in his primitive state, would have been in
vain; for there was no necessity, nor use of believing in Christ: in that state;
and I humbly conceive, that man was not furnished with a power, the exertion of
which was unnecessary, so long as he should remain in his perfect state.
2. Because
God could not require man, while in a perfect state, to put forth such an act,
as special faith in Christ is. The reason is evident, this act necessarily
supposes a dependence on Christ for salvation, as creatures lost and miserable
in ourselves; but until man was fallen and become miserable, he could not
exercise such a trust in Christ, as a Redeemer. And therefore, if it is supposed
that God furnished man, in a state of innocence, with a power of acting this
special faith in a mediator, it must, I think, be allowed that he gave man an
ability, which so long as he continued to possess it, he could not require him
to exert. Whether this is likely, I leave to your judicious and impartial
enquiry.
3. My
third reason is, special faith in Christ belongs to the new creation, of which
he as Mediator between God and his people, is the Author, and therefore, I
apprehend, that a power of acting this special faith in him, was not given to
man, by, or according to the law of his first creation.
4. It
seems to me a very extraordinary dispensation, that man should be furnished with
a power, he could not exercise in his perfect state; and in his corrupt state be
deprived of that power, wherein alone the exertion and exercise of it can be
necessary or useful. The substance of these reasons,
Arminius delivers in his
apology, article the nineteenth. Maccovius
endeavors to answer them, but in my humble opinion, his answer is not
sufficient. His answer, Sir, is, that there was in man, in his innocent state,
justice as to the nature of it, which we now call punishing, and yet he could
not punish others in a state of integrity; and there was that in man which we
call mercy, as to the nature of it, and yet he could not exercise mercy, because
there is no place for mercy, except in a state of misery. This answer, Sir, is
by no means satisfactory to me, because man might have exercised both justice
punishing, and mercy, while in his innocent state, in care of proper subjects
for the exercise of this justice, and this mercy. But the exercise of special
faith in Christ, necessarily supposes the subject of that act, to be himself a
guilty and miserable creature; and therefore, the fall of man must precede this
act, but a perfect creature, may reasonably be supposed capable of exercising
punitive justice towards the guilty, and of exercising mercy towards the
miserable, as the holy Angels doubtless do towards miserable and helpless men.
I shall now, Sir, consider, The arguments this gentleman
advances to prove that evangelical repentance and saving faith, are the duties
of all who hear the Gospel. He begins with the institution of sacrifices. It is
readily granted, that they were of divine appointment, vicarious, types of
Christ, and of that real atonement he has made by his death for sin. They also
directed to an acknowledgment of sin, and that men deferred death; and to
Christ: as the object of trust and hope for remission and all spiritual
benefits; but these things afford no proof, that all who offered sacrifices
stood obliged to exercise that repentance and faith whereof we speak; for if so,
then none but true penitents and believers had a right to offer sacrifices,
which cannot be thought. Christ: as a suffering Saviour was typically
represented by those sacrifices, and it was a duty incumbent on all who offered
sacrifice, to believe the fulfillment of the divine promises, concerning the
appearance, work and sufferings of the Messiah; but I apprehend it can never be
proved, that the exercise of special faith in him, was required of all, who
offered sacrifices; or, that the offering of sacrifice obliged any to the
exercise of this special faith. It cannot be pleaded that this faith was
enjoined, as a qualification on those who offered sacrifices; for then, none but
believers might lawfully do it, which we know is not true: and therefore, the
institution of sacrifices, can only be considered, as a typical and external
representation of the Messiah, and by consequence could be only a proper
foundation for common, and not special faith.
The
proof he brings from the general exhortations to repentance, delivered to the
people of the Jews in the writings of Moses and the Prophets,
is altogether impertinent in my opinion. This is to be
observed, that the Jews were a people separated from all others, they
dwelt alone and were not reckoned among the nations, and God became their
God providentially, to confer temporal favors upon them, to protect them; he
entered into a covenant with them, as a nation, and required on their part, that
they should worship him only, observe his laws, exercise justice show
benevolence and kindness one to another; on his part, he promised them a
peaceable possession of the good land, plenty, victory over their enemies, and
their multiplication in that land, and long life, on condition of their
observance of his statutes and judgments, which they on their part promised; God
threatened them with evils of the forest nature if they did not, viz. the
sword, famine, noisome beasts and pestilence, and with captivity; but at the
same time assured them, that if they humbled themselves under these judgments,
and turned to him, he would remove those evils, and restore to them peace,
plenty, and security from their enemies, and that he would not totally destroy
them, (Lev. 26; Deut. 4. chap. 28 and 29). Agreeable to the plan of this
covenant, the prophets treat with that people, remonstrate against their
national crimes, exhort to national repentance, humiliation and reformation,
denounce temporal evils, promise temporal blessings, in case of amendment, as
may be abundantly seen in their writings, (Isa. 1:19,20; Ezek. 18; Amos
2:3,4,5,6). But it is not to be proved, that spiritual and eternal blessings
were promised in that covenant, nor, that evangelical repentance and special
faith were therein required, it will as soon be made evident, that when the land
of Canaan, and affluence and
plenty therein are promised, that heaven is intended or included in those
promises, as that, when the people of the
Jews are exhorted to
repentance and turning to the Lord, evangelical repentance is designed and
implied in those exhortations. That covenant contained not spiritual blessings,
neither did it oblige to any spiritual acts, such as evangelical repentance, and
special faith are. It will as soon be proved, that earth is heaven, as that the
repentance required and enjoined by virtue of that covenant, was of a heavenly
kind. This writer, Sir, sometimes makes a great difficulty of admitting the
distinction of natural and evangelical repentance, of historical and special
faith; but here he is obliged, to allow of it, though he pleads that natural
repentance and historical faith, were not the whole of the duty required and
enjoined by the law of sacrifices, on the nation of the
Jews; this he argues from God
being represented as their redeemer in Christ. When he is able to prove
this fine point, I shall freely grant his work is done. This contains, if I
mistake not, a tacit acknowledgment, that evangelical repentance and special
faith, are the duties only of such persons, to whom God reveals himself in his
Word, as their Redeemer through Christ he seems to suppose, that God so revealed
himself [to] the body of the Jewish nation, than which nothing is more false in
fact; and therefore all his reasoning on this head is impertinent, groundless,
and inconclusive. There is not anything advanced from the Old Testament, which
amounts to the proof of the point.
Let me now observe to you, what he brings from the New Testament.
He
begins with the preaching of John
the Baptist, who exhorted to repentance, repent ye for the kingdom
of heaven is at hand.
1. Repentance
was required of the Jews, as a
nation, for all the blood of the Prophets which had been shed amongst them, and
for that opposition they made to the true interest and spiritual kingdom of the
promised Messiah; the want of that repentance proved their destruction, which
soon followed the introduction of the New Testament state.
2.
Evangelical repentance was the duty of particular
persons, which he also preached, and showed the necessity of, but it can’t, I
think, Sir, be proved, that he ever asserted it to be the duty of unregenerate
persons, to exercise that grace. This becomes the duty of men, when they have
warrant from the divine Word, to consider God as their Redeemer in Christ, which
no unregenerate men have any warrant to do. It is not questioned, but he also
preached faith in the promised Messiah, but what proof does this afford, that
faith is the duty of such persons, as have not at present warrant to consider
God, as their Redeemer through Christ? None at all. Christ in his ministry also
preached repentance.
1.
A general and national repentance.
2. Evangelical,
as did also his Apostles; but pray, Sir, do you think, that there is no
preaching of repentance evangelical, and special faith in Christ, without
allowing that men unregenerate stand obliged to exercise that repentance and
faith? To me it seems very evident there may. This writer produces a multitude
of texts to prove the point he contends for, but in many of them repentance and
faith are not so much as mentioned; it will be sufficient to refer you to those
scriptures in the margin, (Acts 4:10,11,12; 5:42; 13:46,47; 18:5,6; 20:26,27;
28:24,31). In others, where repentance and faith are exhorted to, it evidently
appears, that the persons addressed were the happy subjects of a conviction of
their misery by nature, and therefore not to be considered in a state of
unregeneracy; to these places I will also refer you in the margin, (Acts 2:37;
13:26). He farther observes, that men will be condemned for the want of faith in
Christ, and brings several texts in confirmation of this observation; which are
also referred to in the margin, (John 3:18,19,36; 2 Thess. 1:7,8; Heb.
10:28,29). But because he who believes not is condemned now by the law, under
which he is, as a covenant of works, and not under grace; it follows not, that
his want of faith is the cause of that condemnation. With respect, Sir, to what
the author [Isaac
Watts; Ed.] observes of all men being
commanded to repent, it intends a forsaking of idolatry, and embracing
the worship of the true God alone, (Acts 17:30,31). The distinction of natural
and evangelical repentance, of common and special faith, which he before
allowed, he now denies, and demands proof that
John the Baptist uses
the distinction, when he preached repentance; I think, Sir, I may demand of him
to prove that this distinction, cannot take place in his discourses, since it is
evidently found in Scripture; and if he is not able to give proof that his scope
and design, will not admit of this distinction, however positive he may be, of
being in the right, at least, it is
possible he may be in the wrong. I beg leave to observe to you,
Sir, that our Saviour manifestly speaks of repentance, when evangelical
repentance is not intended. The place I now refer to is Matthew11:21, they
would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Upon no scheme can
repentance here mean evangelical; it cannot upon the
Calvinistic scheme is
certain, this is so evident that nothing is required to evince it. Nor can it
intend such repentance upon the
Arminian and Baxterian
schemes, for if God foresaw that they would have repented, in case
such works had been done among them, he would have wrought those works in their
view to bring them to repentance; upon the foresight of which, he decreed the
happiness of men, according to these schemes, and therefore this writer, who is
no Calvinist, but a Baxterian,
I should think must grant that evangelical repentance, is not there intended;
for this is strange to suppose God to decree the happiness of men, upon
condition of repentance and faith, and yet determine to withhold those means
from them, which he foresees would bring them to repentance and faith.
The author, Sir, makes the Calvinist: object to him, that
special faith cannot be the duty of all; because it is said, that some
believed not, because they were not of Christ’s sheep; the meaning
must be this: that as those who believed were of Christ’s sheep,
so they believed because, they were so; i.e. They believed
because they were chosen to faith and salvation. And if others believed
not, because they were not of Christ’s sheep, they believed not,
because they were not chosen to faith. And then saving faith could not
be their duty, but must belong to the sheep of Christ alone.
I confess I do not see the
force of this objection, for men not being chosen to faith, is no solid
objection, as I apprehend, to that being their duty. The author was in the
right, not to start a difficulty which he could not remove; it is no point of
prudence, to frame an objection to one’s opinion, which will not admit of a full
answer. But, perhaps, Sir, this was done with a design to introduce
Arminianism, rather than
confirm the opinion of special faith being the duty of unregenerate men: for,
says he in answer, you cannot but know it has been very much doubted,
whether these words have any immediate reference to the decree of election.
When those that believed are called the sheep of Christ, this may be
as they were of a more teachable disposition than the others. So say the
Socinians and
Arminians, whom Dr. Doddridge,
in his family-expositor has followed. This gentleman insists much upon the
obvious and literal sense of Scripture, when it makes for his own opinion; but
here, Sir, you see, he can allow that the disposition of persons, is put for the
persons themselves, and such a disposition as is not natural, but given to and
created in them, when the scope of the place requires not this improper sense
but only his anti-evangelical sentiments. Christ’s people are not called sheep,
because of a natural disposition in them to goodness, for that they have not,
and if this character is expressive of their natural temper, it is a wandering
one: all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to
his own way. This is evident, that the words are expressive of this, that
there persons believed not, because they were not of the number of such, who
were made the care and charge of Christ, and in consequence of that, hear his
voice, follow him, to whom he gives eternal life, do not perish, and whom none
can pluck out of Christ’s hand, nor out of the Father’s hand. This is clear from
the very scope of the place. However, says he, your conclusion from
these words, is directly contrary to the intention of them.
For,
when the Jews demand an open and direct declaration from Jesus,
whether he was the Christ, (v. 23). he blames their unbelief in there words,
(v.
24). I
told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my
Father’s name bear witness of me. And
pray let it be observed, that
it is one and the same object of faith, viz.
Christ Jesus in his character of the
promised Messiah, which is here
spoken of; which one sort are
blamed for not believing in,
and which the sheep of Christ did believe in. And
therefore the duty must be one and the same to both. I answer, the
Jews question is, whether
Christ was the Messiah, he observes he had told them that he was, and that his
works testified it, and ye believed not, i.e. ye did not think it true
that I am the Messiah, which they might have done without special faith. Special
faith includes common, but common faith includes not special. And then he
asserts, that they believed not, because they were not of his sheep, in which
words special faith is intended, or more than common faith, as appears by what
follows; but in the preceding, faith is put for common faith, or a bare
persuasion of his being the Messiah, so that this is no proof, that it was the
duty of these Jews to
exercise special faith. Not content with this
Arminian observation, he
proceeds farther and says, others that believed not, were left to
their own prejudices and perverseness, for opposing and resisting the
light, and the means of conviction. And this is what enmity will
eternally do, which the heart of man is, against God and all spiritual good.
He
very artfully pretends, that he differs not from the Calvinists, except in some
lesser circumstances, concerning the
nature of the divine decrees in election and reprobation, the condition
of man by the fall, his standing under the covenant of works, the
absolute freedom of the divine agency and operations in saving souls. This,
Sir, is an observation absolutely false in fact, as his own reasoning will fully
convince you, who are not to be imposed on by any artful pretences, to maintain
the doctrines of grace, when the salvation of men is made to rest on the
determination of the human will, not brought to this determination by the grace
of God alone, but only excited and stirred up by divine influence. This, Sir,
you know to be the very soul of the
Arminian cause, you are sensible, that the
Arminians deny not the
aids and influences of divine grace, but allow of such influences, and urge that
the will of men is left to chose good or evil, without the infusion of spiritual
principles, to effectually determine them in the choice they make. Some weaker
Christians may possibly be led into a mistake, by this author’s pretences of
believing and maintaining the doctrines of grace, but persons of your
penetration and acquaintance with the
Arminian controversy, will easily discover the absurdity of all
these pretences. Had not this writer attempted to build up
Arminianism, upon the
foundation of the opinion of evangelical repentance and special faith, being the
duties of unregenerate men, I had not given you and the world this trouble, for
though I apprehend that opinion is not to be supported by Scripture, and the
analogy of faith, it seems not to me to be of such consequence, but that persons
differing in this point, may fully agree about the Doctrines of the Grace of
God, though those who are for the affirmative may find it somewhat difficult to
defend the justice of God, in damning men eternally, for not doing, what man in
no state, was furnished with a power to do.
He tries various
methods to prove the point. I. By observing, that the law, i.e.
the
moral law, must command repentance, or at least include it,
in case of sin, because men cannot return to duty without a sense of
and sorrow for sin. This seems self evident. But it will not prove the truth
of the thing contended for. Heathens, who never heard a word of Christ and
salvation by him, stand obliged to repentance for sin, and reformation in life.
Farther he observes, that God in the renewal and republication of his law,
under the old as well as new dispensation, has commanded men to repent
and believe. True, but then, in order to prove, that men unregenerate stand
obliged to exercise evangelical repentance and special faith, it must be made
evident, that such repentance and such faith, are intended in those precepts,
which as I think is not yet done. He cannot, Sir, rest in this account of the
matter, not because (as I suspect) it fails of proving the thing he pleads for;
but because this state of the case would prove an insurmountable difficulty, to
what he has greatly at heart to introduce,
viz
Arminianism, and would force
upon us, under the notion of pleading the cause of repentance and faith, against
all such Antinomians as
you, and I, Sir, are accounted. And therefore he asserts, that the law
demanded perfect obedience, nothing left, (very true so far). He adds
and therefore, neither in express terms, nor by any secret
implication could it command repentance.
To
suppose this, would directly contradict the perfection of the Law,
and effectually enervate the obligation and design of it. This is strange
indeed! What if a creature offends against God, hath the Law no power still to
command him to practice his duty? And is not natural repentance necessarily
included in a return to duty, when the creature has revolted? If not, then, no
remorse or sorrow for sin, can justly be expected of those who hear not the
Gospel: nor is repentance in any sense their duty. But he seems to provide an
answer for this, in what he immediately subjoins, which is, as for the law of
reason and equity, resulting from the nature and relation of things
between God and man in his fallen state, this is no law of innocency or
covenant of works; has no positive seal or sanction, unless you
will make a new law of it. To which I answer, is this a law? So he calls it,
and is it not the same law with the law of innocency, or covenant of works, but
distinct from it, which he asserts it is? Then it is another and a new law. Did
not the law of innocency provide for what should or might be expected of man in
his fallen state, in a way of duty, upon the supposition of no provision being
made for his salvation? If not, man upon his sin became free from the obligation
of that law, until a discovery made of salvation by the promised seed; and the
heathen world who are absolute strangers to Christ, are not now under the
command and power of the law, which will not be granted him, Sir, as I think.
For, what he calls the law of reason and equity, is that law which the apostle
affirms to be written in their hearts, and is the law of innocency, (in
its remains) or covenant of works, (Rom.
2:15), according to which they were sensible they became obnoxious to
death, (Rom. 1:32), for their
dreadful sins. He thinks it a contradiction to say, that repentance and faith
cannot be the duties of believers by the same moral law, how, says
he, shall the standing perpetual obligation of the moral law be made to
agree with this? Methinks, this makes the obligation to arise from
the Gospel and the grace of it. For here it seems the law, though
the only rule of duty, has no force without the Gospel; and the
duties of faith and repentance only take place, and become duties from
Gospel grace. These
things look a little perplexed, as if they would not hang together.
To these particulars I answer,
1. That
natural repentance is a duty inferable from the Law, without the supposition of
a revelation of Gospel grace.
2. It
is certain, that that Law which obliges men to adore God, as a being of all
possible and infinite perfections, lays them under obligation to assent to the
truth of what, at any time, he shall please to reveal.
3. The
Gospel is a revelation of divine truths not discovered to man in his state of
innocence, and in that state therefore, it cannot be supposed he was obliged to
assent to them.
4. Man
stood obliged to exercise repentance for his sin by the Law, immediately and
before a revelation of a Saviour.
5. But
before God had revealed to him a Saviour, it was not his duty to believe in him.
The Gospel proposes the object of faith, and the law obliges to the act of
faith, suited to the nature of the revelation of that object.
6. Men
enjoying an external revelation merely of Christ, are bound to believe
the truth of his appearance in the world, and the truth of those doctrines
relating to him, as a suffering redeemer.
7. Such
who receive an internal revelation of Christ, are bound to exercise special
faith, suitable to the nature of this supernatural revelation. Thus it appears,
that these things are far from being perplexed in themselves, they only seem so
to this author, they hang together very well. The Gospel presents the object of
faith, and the Law obliges to the act, upon the presentation of the object, and
the nature of that presentation, to common faith if it is only external, to
special, if it be internal and supernatural. He represents it as the opinion of
the Calvinist, that
sinners are shut up under the Law, and makes him explain himself as to that
point after this manner. I suppose the perpetual obligation of the moral Law;
not only for obedience, but sinners lie under the penalty and curse of
it. The Calvinist
then, Sir, I should think can’t justly be accounted an Antinomian.
They
have only to do with the God of nature, and him as an offended
angry God. They
are shut out from the Gospel of salvation,
until
God by the sovereign hand of his grace brings them in.
Have
nothing to do with God, as the God of mercy and grace in Christ,
—have nothing to do for themselves, nor to be done with them for
salvation. No
day of grace, before God’s day of effectual grace, —no
offers, nor tenders of mercy and salvation, before salvation is
brought home to them by the spirit.
And even then,
salvation is not properly offered, but given, —and not received
until after it is given. To these things I answer thus:
men in a state of enmity against God, as all unregenerate persons are,
cannot justly be supposed, to have proper ground and warrant to look upon God,
as reconciled to them in Christ. What he makes the
Calvinist say of
sinners, being shut out from the Gospel, I cannot well understand, nor do I know
of any who so say. If by it is intended, that they are not to hear the Gospel;
it is as remote from the judgment of the
Calvinist, as it is from the
opinion of the Arminians, whole
cause, this writer, is an advocate for: but if by it is designed, that
unregenerate persons have no open claim to Gospel benefits and
privileges, he will I think never be able to disprove it. Sinners have many
things to do, viz. to pray to
God, hear his Word, read the Scripture, and meditate upon it; yet not with a
view to become the authors of their salvation, surely. But who says nothing is
to be done with them for salvation. None as I know of;
Calvinists whole opinion
this is supposed to be, think it their duty to inform sinners that they stand
condemned by the Law, for their sins, that salvation from wrath and hell, is
only in Christ, and that unless they believe in him, and are made conformable to
him, they will perish for ever without remedy, and is this doing nothing with a
view to the salvation of sinners? It is not indeed telling them, that the grace
of God, is extended to all without exception, that Christ died with an intention
to save every individual of mankind, that God and Christ have done their part,
and that if they will not be wanting to themselves, but will exert their natural
powers, they shall have aids and assistances of divine grace, sufficient, if
duly improved, to enable them to secure their eternal welfare. These
Arminian tenets, the
author, manifestly intends to make way for and introduce, to the dishonor of
him, [the] grace of God, the subversion of Christ’s satisfaction by his death,
and the overthrow of the doctrine of the efficacy, of the gracious operations of
the Spirit upon the souls of men. What he means by a day of grace, before God’s
day of effectual grace, he should, Sir, have told us, if he means a season in
which God willed that sinners should with his aids convert themselves, but they
would not, this is downright
Arminianism, and it may justly be enquired, whether when one season or
day of grace is over, a day of effectual grace will succeed? This he seems to
suggest, which I cannot understand to be either
Calvinism, or
Arminianism, it seems to me to
suit no scheme at all. With respect to offers and tenders of mercy and salvation
to sinners I observe: that Christ and his salvation are to be proposed for
acceptance, to all who see their need of him, that this includes an offer in it,
but is more than an offer, and that he is graciously given to them, and this is
their duty to embrace and receive him. This subject I have more largely treated
of, in my answer to the author of Ruin and Recovery. No absurdity attends
the supposition of Christ being given before received, and being given in order
to be received.
This author, Sir, apprehends, that sinners may be under
the Law, and yet under the dispensation of mercy and reconciliation in
Christ Jesus too. What he means by the dispensation, etc. I cannot
understand, and therefore am unable to answer him, if he had said that sinners
may be under the Law or covenant of works, may stand condemned by the Law, and
yet be under grace, i.e. the covenant of grace, and be thereby acquitted
of their guilt, freed from condemnation and death, and appear to have a right to
eternal life, I should have perfectly understood him to have advanced most
manifest contradictions; but as he uses ambiguous words and phrases, I am at a
loss to frame an idea of his design. If by a dispensation of mercy and
reconciliation, etc. he intends the season in which grace and mercy and
reconciliation are published to men, the sense is plain and natural enough; but
this makes nothing for the Arminian
principles he artfully endeavors to introduce among Christians. He,
Sir, represents the Calvinist
as starting a new turn of thought, to prove repentance cannot be
of the Law. This is strange he should make men say, what is contrary to their
avowed principles: Calvinists
are persuaded, that all duties belong to the law, and here he represents
it as their opinion, that the duties of repentance and faith belong not to the
Law. But let us hear this new turn of thought. It is this; all that the law
of creation commanded, it commanded to the first
Adam.
And
if there are duties of this tenure, they must have been the duties
of innocent Adam.
But
it has been proved already, that on this supposition the
perfection of the Law cannot be maintained.
And
if they were not the duties of the first Adam in this way,
they cannot be the duties of his fallen posterity, because the Law is the
same to both. I answer, the Law did not command all to Adam in his
innocent state, which became his duty in a fallen state, by virtue of that very
same Law: it was not his present duty to show compassion to miserable objects,
or to love his enemies, for he had no objects of misery to pity, in his perfect
state, or enemies to love, and yet if I mistake not, Christ’s interpretation of
the moral law in his sermon upon the mount, proves that our obligation to pity
the distressed, and to love our enemies arises from the moral law. Hence it
appears: that that becomes the duty of man in his lapsed state by the law, which
it could not command of him for want of objects suitable in his perfect state.
And thus, though repentance could not be required of innocent man by the Law,
because sin had not taken place in him, nor could he consider God as an object
offended, yet upon his sinning and looking on God as an object displeased,
repentance became his immediate duty by the Law, i.e.
natural repentance or concern
for his sin, his obligation to this repentance, arises not from a discovery of
salvation, it would have been his duty, if he had been left without any
provision of recovery by divine grace. And is the duty of all his descendants,
yea, I am persuaded it is the duty of the devil himself to repent, this I think
must be allowed, if repentance necessarily attends forsaking of sin, which I
imagine none will deny. Again, if the obligation to sorrow and concern for sin,
arises from a provision of salvation for offending creatures, and the discovery
of that provision, then, the Devil is under no obligation to remorse for his
offence, nor are such of mankind, who know nothing of salvation by Christ, under
any obligation to repent of their vices, how contrary soever to the light of
nature.
He makes the
Calvinist argue very
un-philosophically in what he subjoins, representing him as saying, men must
have new faculties in order to evangelical repentance and special faith.
But, Sir, I am persuaded that
Calvinists may be as good philosophers as himself, if any through
weakness or inadvertency have so expressed themselves, it is ungenerous and
unkind to urge it as the opinion of the party. They know perhaps, full as well
as he does, that new faculties are not given or created in believers, the mind,
the will and affections, they consider not as qualities, but powers of the soul,
and essential to it, and know that the supposition of giving new faculties
necessarily implies the introduction of a new soul. This is so mean a thing in
him, that he may be ashamed of the mention of it.
Calvinists know that the
reasoning powers of men, are the same before and after conversion; before
conversion, the mind is the subject of natural principles only, and therefore is
incapable of supernatural acts: at, or upon conversion, it becomes the happy
subject of heavenly and supernatural principles, and is able to put forth
supernatural acts, suitable to the heavenly objects presented to view by the
Gospel, and which Adam in his state of innocence was a stranger to. What
the author proceeds to observe, of the Law opening and enlarging itself,
into what we call the law of reason and equity, immediately upon the
fall, is a mere invention to serve a turn; the law of reason and equity,
what is it but the moral law, or law of innocence? So far as known to men, it is
no law distinct, and different from it. Is this Law perfect or imperfect? If
imperfect, it is I am sure no Law of God, for he cannot be the author of any
imperfect law: we Calvinists
will have nothing to do with it; let
Socinians,
Arminians and
Baxterians take it to
themselves, who are all disposed to make the power of fallen man, with common
helps, the measure of his duty; we are of another mind. If it is a perfect law,
it is the moral law, or law given to man in his innocent state, and is the
irrepealable and eternal rule of righteousness, by which men will be hereafter
tried and judged. The poor Calvinists
[are] further represented, as supposing Adam in his perfect state,
incapable of discerning and understanding objects above what the Law or
dispensation, under which he then was, presented to him.
This person tells us in his preface, he has taken the
liberty to represent the opinions of others, in his own words; so that, Sir, you
are to observe, if the opinions of the
Calvinists are not very properly expressed, the impropriety of
expression, is to be imputed to this writer, not to them. But if he would not
express their sentiments, in their own words, (reasons for which I can guess at,
but will not name them) he should have given their true sense. I know none who
have said, or do say, that man in his innocent state, could not understand the
nature of objects above what the Law discovers. For, as the Angels who are
perfect creatures, can discern and understand evangelical truths, so could man,
I question not, if a discovery had been made of them to him in his primitive
state: and have yielded a firm assent to their truth, as revealed by God his
Creator. But special faith in those heavenly mysteries, the powers of man in a
state of innocence, it is apprehended were not disposed to, and fitted for, by
his creation principles, and therefore it is concluded, that special faith
becomes a duty, only upon the supposition of the infusion of
super-creation-principles, into the souls of men. He repeats the nonsense of the
necessity of new faculties; for shame why is this done?
Calvinists insist upon
the necessity of new and supernatural principles, but are far from urging the
necessity of new reasoning powers, they are not for two souls in men; their
opinion is, that believers are the subjects of two principles, sin, and grace;
but they have no notion of two souls in one man. As I before said, if any have
so expressed themselves, it was through weakness or inadvertency, and the candor
and ingenuity of the author, Sir, appear in this representation of the
Calvinists opinion in
this point.
The author, Sir, argues from a delay
of punishment, and a communication of temporal favors, and
enjoying an external revelation of the divine will, to a purpose of
saving men in general. So his old friends the
Arminians have always
argued, but very impertinently and inconclusively. Providential dispensations
towards men are no interpretation of God’s purposes about them, with relation to
their eternal state, whether he designs to punish them hereafter for their sins,
or to fare them from endless misery, through his Son
Jesus Christ.
This
is true [that]
natural duties are not to be performed merely upon the foot of natural religion,
as distinguished from revealed, by men who enjoy revelation,
but as heightened, and improved, and enforced by that revelation,
and as required by Jesus Christ,
who is constituted the ruler and Judge of all men. And this is from the
mere sovereignty of God. To which he objects thus, to suppose that God acts
thus with sinners, by mere sovereignty out of Christ, and at the
same time by the hands of Christ, this is what I cannot possibly
understand. Strange! No, God will do that hereafter by Christ towards men,
which he will not do in Christ, viz. try, judge and condemn them to
eternal punishment; if he can understand this latter, I should think without any
difficulty, he may conceive of the former; for the former is in order to the
latter, and leads to it. Says he, please to tell us directly why the sentence
upon transgressing sinners, according to the broken Law, is not
fully executed; but sinners in common are spared long? The Apostle,
if he will believe him, resolves this question; it is because God is willing
to show his wrath, and make his power known, endured with much
long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. The answer is
direct and full, as he requires it to be; but I suspect his approbation
[consent; Ed.] of it: though the justice and equity of the
awful procedure, it is
far beyond his power to disprove. He makes the
Calvinist give him this
answer: it is for the elect’s sake. He enquires, but how for the
elect’s sake? Are they the purchasers and procurers hereof? Or is
it for their sakes, through the merits and purchase of Christ?
If the latter is not the meritorious cause hereof, then the elect are
thus far properly mediators for sinners, and something is done for their
sakes, which is not done for Christ’s sake.
Out of reverence to our Lord, who has told us, that the days
of distress brought upon the Jewish
nation, should be shortened for the elect’s sake, one might
have expected a more sober reply from this writer. Our Saviour did not intend,
that the elect were mediators for that people: neither do
Calvinists mean anything
like it, when they so express themselves. Our Lord suggested, that that people
should not become extinct, because elect persons were to arise from among their
descendants; and we mean, that mankind are not destroyed, because God’s chosen
ones of the human race, must all be born or rise into existence, and that for
this reason, men are permitted to live, and to live under such circumstances, as
will admit of the execution of this gracious design concerning the elect. I am,
Sir, surprised at what follows in the author, which is this, he pretends that he
agrees in the doctrines of God’s free grace with those
Calvinists, who think that
evangelical repentance and special faith are the duties of unregenerate men, and
apprehend that the obligation to those duties arises from the moral law; whereas
there is nothing more false.
They suppose that God has chosen a certain number of men to
everlasting life; that for them Christ died in order to save them, and for no
others, with that view, that grace in order to life and happiness is given to
the elect alone. He supposes, that God conditionally decreed the happiness of
all, and that the death of Christ is of unlimited extent, that grace is given to
the non-elect in order to happiness, and that they may obtain life, through a
proper improvement of this common grace. Light and darkness therefore, are not
more contrary, than his sentiments and those of the
Calvinists, in many respects,
notwithstanding this pretended agreement.
For this reason, Sir, I flatter myself,
that those of the Calvinists,
who are of the opinion before expressed, will not long join issue with him; but
oppose as heartily, at least, his
Arminian principles, as some of them have opposed the opinion,
that sinners are not bound to exercise evangelical repentance and special faith.
May the Lord, of his infinite mercy grant, that his people may discern, into
what tenets this person and some others are about to lead them, before
Arminianism takes root,
in societies, where it has long had no place; but been rejected, as a scheme of
doctrines not calculated to promote the honor of God, the glory of a Redeemer,
nor the comfort of the saints. When he calls the opinion he opposes a novel
scheme, he speaks very improperly, for it is not of itself [a] scheme, it is
indeed, in the opinion of some, it is so in my apprehension, a proper method to
more clearly answer the Arminian
cavils and exceptions to the doctrines of the grace of God, and
carries not that harshness and severity in it, which the other opinion does, of
God’s damning men, for not doing, what man never had a power in any state to do.
The
next thing he labors, is to prove that a day or season of grace is afforded to
men in general. He
produces various Scriptures in favor of it; some of which are to be understood
of the permission of men living a considerable time before the infliction of
heavy and grievous judgments. Others are calls to a reverential regard to the
Gospel, interest and
The Calvinist
is represented as answering that, the time allowed the old world,
was not for their repentance unto life, but only for the reforming
from gross wickedness; and so to avert and keep off the threatened
destruction of the deluge. And
the time granted to the Jews, was only to ward off by external
reformation, the fore [sic]
calamity which afterwards befell them in their destruction by the
Romans. To which he replies thus,
we are under no necessity of denying this altogether; but may rarely
grant, that what you plead was in part the design of providence,
but it lies upon you to prove, from evident circumstances in the accounts
given of these things, that what you say was the whole of the design.
You, Sir, will I persuade myself, account this a new way of reasoning, to desire
the proof of a negative, in order to oblige a disputant to give up the
affirmative. I apprehend it always lies upon him who affirms, to prove what he
asserts, from the scope and circumstances of the place, which he urges in favor
of the opinion he advances from it, and if he is not able to do this, he too
hastily draws his conclusion from it. If texts of Scripture speak of temporal or
civil death, to be avoided by a national and external reformation, it would be
very improper to argue, from that, eternal death is to be avoided the same way;
which is the manner of this author’s reasoning. This is applying texts to
subjects, of which they do not speak, and therefore cannot be their meaning and
sense.
Again, if the scriptures speak of an external call to the
duties of natural repentance and historical faith, to interpret them of
evangelical repentance and special faith, is applying them to a sense far beyond
what they design, and therefore it cannot be true, which is also what this
person does. In order to prove, that this cannot be the sense of those
Scriptures, he produces, one of these two things is necessary to be done.
1. Either
to prove, that such a sense is foreign to the Scripture and is nowhere
expressed, and therefore cannot be the meaning of the places alleged.
2. Or,
to prove from the scope and circumstances of those passages, that this cannot be
the true and full sense of them. The proof of the first, I suppose he will never
attempt: and the proof of the second, I am, Sir, of opinion is beyond his
ability. But if he cannot do this, the sense he contends for will never be
solidly supported. Besides, Sir, the opinion of a day, or season of grace,
appointed to men in common, supposes that God loves them, that he willed their
happiness, and has provided for it; that Christ died for them to save them, and
that the Holy Spirit works upon them with the same gracious design; but through
their folly and obstinacy, God’s love is turned into hatred, his purpose to save
them, is changed into a resolution to damn them, that Christ died in vain with
respect to them, that the Holy Spirit is disappointed of the end he proposed to
himself, in his benign influences upon them. There are not, Sir, you well know
the doctrines of the free grace of God, which this writer pretends to have an
approbation of. They are as contrary to those doctrines, as light is to
darkness: you see that under a pretence of maintaining the opinion of
evangelical repentance and special faith being the duties of sinners, he is for
conducting us into rank Arminianism.
He acquaints us,
that the Calvinist inclines to the belief of the doctrine of absolute
reprobation as the counter-part of election; but the least said of it in the
pulpit is best, for there is no knowing who are reprobate till
they prove themselves so by their openly wicked and abominable lives. But
why the least laid of it in the pulpit is best? If it be a scriptural doctrine
it surely is, at least, a harmless one; nay it is a profitable one, for there is
no useless unprofitable doctrine contained in the Word of God. Some perhaps may
think too, it would have been better, if it had not had a place in the Bible. If
men abuse this doctrine, through unbelief or lust, that is no objection to the
truth, importance or usefulness of the doctrine itself; and I am well assured, a
proper explanation of it will never be attended with any hurtful consequences to
men religious or profane, but through their unbelief or carnal lust. Farther,
why should it be concluded, that men of openly wicked and abominable lives are
the objects of reprobation? Since Christ came into the world to save the
chief of sinners; men’s present wickedness therefore, is no proof at all,
that they are appointed to wrath: it is only final impenitence which can be a
proof of that. He supposes, that a provision of mercy and grace is made for the
non-elect. Then surely God loved them, and if so, how comes it to pass that he
ever hates them? If once he willed not to punish them, how is it he inflicts
punishment on them? He then knew, what manner of persons they would be; this
seems therefore, to necessarily suppose a change in God. Besides, either the
salvation of men is wholly to be resolved into the will of God, and his
influence upon them, or, it is in part owing to the will of men, if it is wholly
and solely the effect of the divine will; then it manifestly follows, that God
did not will the salvation of those who perish, and if he willed not their
salvation, he must be supposed to decree or purpose their misery. If salvation
is in part of the will of man, then it can’t be said, it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy;
then men are born of the will of the flesh, in part, and not altogether
of God, in regeneration. Besides, this conditional decree respects either all,
or some of the non-elect; if all, then all must be supposed to hear the Gospel,
for the conditions of faith and repentance, [and] cannot be thought are expected
of them who never hear of the object of faith. Again, either [the] conditions of
salvation are possible, or they are not, without the infusion of gracious
principles, into the souls of men; is possible, then, they who are in the
flesh may please God, and the carnal mind may be subject to his Law,
which I don’t take to be true. If they are impossible conditions to men
unregenerate, then God decreed to save men upon conditions absolutely out of
their power, and yet determined not to give them that grace, which is necessary
to enable them to perform those conditions: which betides the absurdity of it,
leaves them under an impossibility of salvation.
He observes, that many
strict Calvinists have
allowed, that God’s hatred of Esau
must be taken in a comparative sense, and can mean no more than this,
that Esau was not loved and regarded in the same extraordinary way
with Jacob. I thought: hatred was
the contrary of love, and could not properly be put for a less degree of it.
Besides, the Apostle professedly treats of God’s purpose to save some and punish
others, and produces Jacob and
Esau as instances of it;
his design, therefore, is to show that the salvation of
Jacob, proceeded from divine
love, and that the destruction of Esau
was a righteous effect of divine hatred. If therefore, by hatred the
apostle means a lesser love, it was a love of such a nature in God, from which
the infliction of punishment for sin proceeds, and by consequence, from that
love, a decree to inflict penalty might be formed; an interest in such a kind of
love, can afford but little hope of salvation to a guilty creature. He adds,
the Apostle Jude doth not
speak of any decree of reprobation, v.4, but only that God has
ordained condemnation to be the consequence of sin, and the portion of
evil doers. But, Sir, you will please to observe, that the Apostle is
speaking of persons, who were, says he, fore-appointed, or fore-written, to this
condemnation; all the difference between the Apostle
Jude and this writer is,
Jude speaks of men as
the objects of a divine appointment or fore-writing to condemnation; and this
author speaks of punishment as the consequence of sin in general, without
relation to any particular persons. This difference, great as it is, is not
unusually found between the Scriptures, and the writings of the
Arminians, whose cause the
author defends (as I suppose,) in the best manner he can.
The author
endeavors to clear himself of the charge of holding the opinion of a new law. The
method he takes to do it, is this: we maintain, says he,
the
perfection and perpetual obligation of the moral law of God, and
plead for no new law in the room of that, so as to annul it. We
don’t make repentance and faith a covenant of works, nor salvation to
depend only on these as man’s duties.
But the Gospel we call a new
dispensation, built upon God’s act of grace in Christ.
And
as the fall occasioned a new relation between God and man, new
duties necessarily arise from hence.
The moral law is not only kept up in
its perfection, but it is put into the hands of
Christ, as the appointed Lord and
King in the church; and it is also attempered to the state and condition
of sinners and Gospel grace. The
place which repentance and faith hold in the new covenant, is all
of grace; and there duties are to be performed by the help and strength
of God’s grace, and must be accepted through
Christ. Where then is the charge
of a new law? Upon which I thus remark: it seems to be allowed, that a new
law is introduced, yet not so as to annul the old Law; that, notwithstanding
retains its power and force, only men are also under another law, which if they
keep, they shall not suffer that punishment the old Law threatens; but in case
they keep not this new law, they are delivered over to the curse of the old Law.
Again, if repentance and faith are proper conditions of salvation, they are made
a covenant of works; all the difference is, the old Law required perfect works
as conditions of happiness, here imperfect works serve the purpose. Farther, it
is plainly allowed, that salvation depends on faith and repentance, (though not
only) as man’s duties: and therefore men are in part causes of their salvation.
I add, I suppose the act of God’s grace mentioned, is dispensing with the
rigorous demand of perfection in the moral law, as a condition of life, upon
which the Gospel dispensation is laid to be built, which lowers the condition to
imperfect obedience. Moreover, if repentance is one of those duties, which
necessarily arise from the new relation, occasioned by the fall, between God and
man, then it would have been the duty of men, in case no provision had been made
for their recovery, which is what the author has more than once seemed to
disallow. I cannot understand what new relation between God and man takes place
upon the fall. Before the fall, God was Creator, a Lawgiver and Judge to man: so
he was upon the fall; man before it, was his creature, the subject of his rule
and government, and so he is after it; but now a creature chargeable with guilt,
and obnoxious to death, these are new circumstances to the unhappy creature man;
but in no sense, as I can at present apprehend, may they be denominated a new
relation to God. I subjoin, it is granted, that the moral law is put into the
hands of Christ, and he uses that law, either as a Saviour, or as a judge
merely; in the former sense, he acquits his people upon the foundation of his
obedience and sufferings, and frees them from it as a covenant of works: in the
latter sense, he retains men under the curse and condemnation of it now, and
will hereafter try, judge and condemn them to endless misery, according to that
Law. I deny, that the old Law is attempered to the state, and condition of
sinners and Gospel grace, it commands the same holiness it ever did, and
threatens the same punishment in case of sin, or defect in obedience; otherwise
its perfection and perpetual obligation cease, which this writer a few lines
above professes to maintain perfectly inconsistent with what is here said,
unless I mistake. To say that repentance and faith are conditions of life, as an
effect of divine grace, will not acquit the opinion, of being contrary to the
doctrine of the Apostle, who constantly denies, that salvation is of a law, or
of works. And though these duties are said to be performed by the help and
strength of God’s grace, and that they are accepted thro Christ; yet it is easy
to see, that the promised benefit of life, becomes due upon the foot of right,
on the performance of those duties, and therefore, the reward is not of grace,
but of debt; and that these duties are to be considered, as the matter of
our justification before God for Christ’s sake. To the author’s enquiry
therefore, I must take leave to say, Sir, the new law is here, and that he will
never be able to clear himself of so heavy but just a charge. All
the art he has used, in the choice of ambiguous phrases, could not cover
his design, it was a vain thing in him to expect it; for if men deliver
principles, which necessarily resolve themselves into the opinion of a new law,
it can’t reasonably be thought, that that opinion should long remain out of
view. But what follows is exceeding strange, he tells the
Calvinist it would not
be difficult to make reprisals. For
you must grant, says he, that the Law is no longer in force as a
covenant of works, for the justification of sinners: this infers
so far an alteration from the original Law; and therefore one might say
you make a new law. The
answer is, that it is not merely as a law, it requires obedience of men as a
condition of life, but as it is a covenant. Their freedom from it, as requiring
obedience to such an end, infers no change in it as a law, for it is not
essential to it as a law, to command obedience to such an end; but it is
essential to it as a law to require obedience, and if it now demands of men
imperfect obedience, it is altered in what is essential to it as a law, and
therefore, is not the same law it was. Farther, it is still in force, as a
covenant requiring perfect righteousness in order to acceptance with God:
believers have such a perfect righteousness in Christ, and therefore, they stand
perfectly justified in the sight of God, according to this law, fulfilled for
them, by Christ their great surety and Saviour.
I proceed, Sir, to give you an account of the manner of his treating on the work
of the Spirit. And,
he observes, that it is God’s usual
and ordinary way to work on such by whom preparatory works to conversion are
performed, as assisted by his preventing grace. Various
Scriptures he produces to prove, that there is such a thing as a preparatory
work, to which I shall refer you in the margin (1 Kings 14:13; Matthew 3:7;
10:11, 13; 13:20,21; Mark 10:17; 12:34; Luke 5:31; 13:24; Acts 2:5,37; 8:27;
10:1; 16:30; 17:4; 26:28). Some of those places intend the work of grace itself,
and others have no reference at all to it. As to the opinion of a preparatory
work, I cannot but be of the mind of
Witsius, that there is no such thing, he assigns these reasons for it.
1.
Our nature became as an evil tree upon eating of the forbidden fruit,
can bear no fruits really good and acceptable with God, and can act
nothing by which it may prepare itself for the grace of regeneration:
unless any one should be thought to prepare himself by sins for grace.
2.
Those
who seem best disposed to regeneration,
it is found are most distant from it.
Which the example of the young man very clearly demonstrates; who
seemed full of good intention, and burning with a desire of heaven,
and of unblameable life before men, insomuch, that
Jesus
himself, when he beheld him loved him, yet notwithstanding
all these dispositions, he departed from the Lord sorrowful.
3. On
the contrary,
those in whom there hath been nothing,
not a shadow of preparation, as publicans and harlots, have
gone before the civilly just, and externally religious, into the
4.
God
testifies,
in the first influence of his grace,
he is found of them; that fought him not, and asked not after
him (Jer. 65:1) excellently Fulgentius, says he, whom he quotes, we
receive not grace because we desire; but while we desire not grace is
given.
Comes unprevented,
unimplored, unsought,
Happy for man so coming;
he her aid
Can never seek, once dead
in sins and loft.
For
there reasons, I say, with Witsius,
who puts the question, are there no preparatory dispositions to regeneration?
I answer confidently none, and subscribe with him to Fulgentius,
as in the natural birth, the formation of the divine work precedes the
whole will of the man born: so it is in the spiritual birth, by
which we begin to lay aside the old man. Of the same judgment was the great
Charnock, and the late Dr. Ridgley.
The author, Sir, represents the
Calvinist as objecting to him, that he makes upon this
supposition the salvation of sinners possible indeed, but barely so. Which
he endeavors to answer, by referring to angels and to man who fell; his arguing
here, I shall take no farther notice of, than just to observe, the cases are far
from being parallel, and therefore, his reasoning has little force in it. I must
take liberty to affirm, that the salvation of men, upon this principle, is
absolutely impossible, unless it can be proved, that without faith it is
possible to please God, and that those who are in the flesh may please
their maker. He makes the
Calvinist object to his opinion, that supposing the death of
Christ to be of universal extent, implies he died in vain. To which he
answers thus: as often as I meet with this objection, I cannot find
any just reason or foundation to support it. There certainly is a twofold
design and intention in the redemption wrought out for sinners.
One
is, that the patience and forbearance, the rich goodness,
mercy and grace of God, might be manifested and glorified in his
dealing with sinners. And the ether is, that his righteous
government, his power, his holiness and justice might be also
glorified. Now
if through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus, the patience and
forbearance of God, and the riches of his mercy and grace are displayed
and glorified, in his present dealings with sinners, which is the
case on our side of the question. And if his holiness, justice and
power are glorified to the full, in the condemnation and destruction of
the impenitent and ungodly hereafter; this is not in vain, but
exactly of a piece with God’s great and complicated designs in providence and
redemption. Where grace is rejected and despised, punishing justice will be
glorified. To which I reply, Sir, thus.
1.
This seems to
suppose, it was a thing indifferent to God, whether his mercy is glorified in
the salvation of sinners, or whether his justice is glorified in their
destruction, upon the foundation of the redemption of Christ; that his end is as
fully answered in the gift of his Son for sinners in their damnation, as it is
in their salvation; whereas it was his intention that his grace and mercy might
be glorified in their salvation, and therefore, if they are not saved he is
disappointed of his end in this extraordinary transaction, and his Son suffered
death in vain, or the end intended, in his death is unaccomplished. That this
was the end designed is evident; for God so loved the world, that he
gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him,
should not perish, but have everlasting life. The reader may see this
more largely insisted on, in the answer to the author of Ruin and Recovery.
2.
The justice and
holiness of God are fully vindicated, and gloriously displayed, in the remission
of sin, and in the eternal salvation of sinners, upon the foundation of Christ’s
death, (Rom. 3:25,26);
and therefore, the infliction of penalty on those for whom Christ died, cannot
be to the glory of his justice.
3. It
would be contrary to justice; for Christ having made satisfaction for the sins
of those, for whom he suffered, it cannot consist with justice to punish them
for their offences.
4. How
are the riches of divine grace now glorified in God’s dealings with the heathen,
whom he suffers to live in gross darkness and in the shadow of death?
How can his justice be hereafter glorified in punishing of them for impenitence,
who never had an opportunity of hearing of Christ, and by consequence, could not
believe in him nor reject him. The author, Sir, again advances his opinion of
preparatory works to regeneration, but offers nothing worth consideration to
support it. I would just observe to you, Sir, that he objects, if the soul is
entirely passive in all the steps of the saving change, how can you
assert anything about the manner of it. And represents the
Calvinists as saying,
this is a point which is divinely revealed to the believing Son. Answer, as
the implantation of spiritual principles in the mind is regeneration, the soul
is passive in it, and it is instantaneous or wrought at once, it is not gradual
and progressive, and therefore, it is improper to speak of steps in this
change. Again, I can’t, Sir, but complain here of great unkindness done to the
Calvinist, to represent him as
an enthusiast, there is no candor in this;
Calvinists believe in
this matter, upon the light and evidence of God’s word, and not upon an
imaginary revelation, which he makes the
Calvinist to express. He
seems to flatter himself with having fully proved, that evangelical repentance
and special faith are the duties of sinners, and that he has brought over, at
least very nearly so, one of the disputants in the dialogue. How much soever he
may be satisfied with his performance, I can’t think it will gain the
approbation [approval; Ed.] of many of those, who agree with him in [their]
points. A great number of ill consequences are drawn from that opinion, in
answer to which, it is sufficient to observe, that sinners ought to pray, to
read the Word of God, to hear it preached and consider of the dreadful effects
of sin. That ministers ought to let before them the danger of their state by
nature, and the necessity of an interest. In Christ, and the necessity of faith
in him.
That sinners, sin against God, as the God of all grace, when
they oppose the doctrines of his grace, —against Christ as a Saviour, when they
oppose their own works to his merits and righteousness, —against the Holy Ghost,
as the Author of all gracious and sanctifying influences, when they oppose the
necessity of his influences, —against the Gospel of salvation, when they oppose
the important doctrines of it, as this writer does. Sinners are condemned for
abusing the Gospel. Parents and heads of families ought to warn and exhort their
children and servants, —to call them to their Bibles, to send them to their
knees before God, or put them upon prayer, to offer up a desire, a cry, to
heaven for mercy and salvation for them, —and with importunity and holy
wrestling. —After he has said, none of these things can be practiced,
consistent with this principle, and made a supposition of a visit by the
pious soul of a departed minister, and his observing, how things are
going with us, what a dismal report he must carry back to the world above,
(one might make the same supposition upon his principles).
I am afraid, says he, of
every offence against the royal law of charity; I can easily admit,
that great mistakes and real Godliness may inhabit the same breast: —
I would always love and honor every good Christian, though not exactly of
my size, and in my way. And
yet I am at a loss to account for it, how tenets so formidable in
their aspect, can sit easy upon serious and good minds.
But
without farther aggravation, as there objections are just,
and attended with a train of consequences no way favorable to practical religion,
(all there dismal consequences are entirely false, and far from being justly
drawn). I leave them to your own contemplation, and repentance,
and faith, to the word and blessing of God. You, Sir, will observe
his candor and charity, which I am sure will be highly agreeable to you, for
that kindness and charity to those who differ from you, which inspire your
breast, must certainly gain your approbation, when exercised by others. Whether
the consequences he draws are just, as I think the contrary, I desire you to
inform me, whether you concur with me in that opinion, and pray, let me know,
wherein you may think me mistaken: I the more desire this favor of you, because
I suppose, I am a person too contemptible, to be favored with a correction of my
mistakes, by the author of the performance.
The qualifications he requires in one, who should undertake
to animadvert on his work, are most desirable indeed; may the Lord of his
infinite mercy make me a real and fervent lover of truth, peace and
Godliness. Whether I have acted the part of an angry scribe, I submit
to your judgment, and conclude this address, with hearty desires, that truth may
prevail, with whomsoever it is found.
I am,
Sir, your most obliged, and humble servant,
John Brine.
JUST PUBLISH’D, BY THE SAME AUTHOR,
The
certain efficacy of the death of Christ, asserted: or, the necessity, reality,
and perfection, of his satisfaction are pleaded for: the objections of the
Socinians, and
Arminians are answered:
the moral law proved to be in full force: and the unconditional nature of the
new covenant is demonstrated; in answer to a book, called, The Ruin and
Recovery of Mankind; the mistakes of the author, on various subjects are
discovered and corrected, viz. The annihilation of infants. The
imputation of original sin to men. The charge of sin on Christ. The imputation
of his righteousness to his people. Also, the necessity, and nature of the work
of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, are treated of: the Scriptural account of
their important doctrines is clearly stated, and vindicated from his, and the
exceptions of some others. With a Postscript, proving that a charge of guilt is
inseparable from punishment. Secondly, the Christian religion not destitute of
arguments sufficient to support it. In answer to a pamphlet, entitled,
Christianity not founded on argument, etc.
