Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

not have them come unto him? No: that cannot be : for in his revealed will, which is the only rule that we are to walk by, he has told us the contrary in plain terms, and has confirmed it too with an oath, saying, "As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that he should turn from his ways and live," Ezek. xxxiii, 11. And elsewhere he assures us that he "would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth," 1 Tim. ii, 4. And therefore if we believe what God says, nay, if we believe what he has sworn, we must needs acknowledge that it is his will and pleasure that as many as are called should be all chosen and saved: and indeed if he had no mind we should come when we are called to him, why should he call us all to come? Why has he given us his word, his ministers, his ordinances; and all to invite and oblige us to repent and turn to him; if after all he has resolved not to accept of us, nor would have us come at all? Far be it from us that we should have such hard and unworthy thoughts of the great Creator and Governor of the world; especially considering that he has told us the contrary, as plainly as it was possible to express his mind unto us."

Then the bishop mentions five reasons why many are called but few are chosen: and he closes them by these words, (page 310 :) " The last reason which our Saviour gives in this parable, is because, of those who are called, and come too at the call, many come not aright, which he signifies by the man that came without the wedding garment: where, although he mentions but one man, yet under that one is comprehended all of the same kind, even all such persons as profess to believe in Christ, and to expect salvation from him, yet will not come up to the terms which he propounds in the Gospel to them, even to "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith they are called," Eph. iv, 1. And indeed this is the great reason of all, why of so many, who are called, there are so few chosen, because there are so few who do all things which the Gospel requires of them. Many, like Herod, will do many things; and are almost persuaded to be Christians, as Agrippa was, &c. Some are all for the duties of the first table without the second, others for the second without the first. Some [like heated Honestus] are altogether for obedience and good works without faith in Christ: others [like heated Zelotes] are as much for faith in Christ, without obedience and good works. Some [like mere moralists] would do all themselves, as if Christ had done nothing for them: others [like mere Solifidians] fancy that Christ has so done all for them, that there is nothing left for them to do and so between both sorts of people [between the followers of Honestus, and those of Zelotes] which are the far greater parts of those who are called, either the merits or else the laws of Christ are slighted and contemned. But is this the way to be saved? No, surely."

Hence it is evident, that if Bishop Beveridge be right here, the saving truth lies exactly between the mistake of Zelotes and the error of Honestus. Now if this be the true state of the question, is it possible to propose a plan of reconciliation more Scriptural than that which so secures the merits of Christ as not indirectly to overthrow his laws, and so enforces his laws as not indirectly to set aside his merits? And is not this effectually done in the reconciling declarations? Do they not equally guard the two Gospel axioms? Do they not with impartiality defend free grace and

free obedience? And might not peace be restored to the Church upon such a Scriptural, rational, and moderate plan of doctrine?

I fear that a lasting reconciliation upon any other plan is impossible: for the Gospel must stand upon its legs, (the two Gospel axioms,) or it must fall. And if Satan, by transforming himself into an angel of light, prevail upon good, mistaken men to cut off one of these legs, as if it were useless or mortified; some good men, who are not yet deceived, will rise up in its defence. So sure, therefore, as "the gates of hell shall never prevail against the Church of the living God-the pillar and ground of the truth," there shall always be a succession of judicious, zealous men, disposed to hazard their life and reputation in the cause of Gospel truth, and ready to prevent the mystical ark from being overset on the right hand or on the left. If a pious Crisp, for example, push it into the Antinomian ditch, for fear of the Pharisaic delusion; a pious Baxter will enter his protest against him: and if a Taylor throw it into the Pharisaic ditch, for fear of the Antinomian error; God will raise up a Wesley to counterwork his design. Nay, a Wesley is a match for a benevolent Taylor, and a seraphic Hervey; and I hope, that should Mr. Shirley ever desire him to sign an anti-Pharisaic declaration, he will not forget to desire Mr. Shirley to sign also an anti-Solifidian protest: every Gospel minister being an equal debtor to both axioms. Nor can I conceive why Mr. Shirley should have more right* solemnly to secure the first axiom, than Mr. Wesley has solemnly to guard the second.

But leaving those two divines, I return to Zelotes, who seems very much offended at my saying, "We have no trust nor confidence that any thing will stand us instead of repentance, faith, and obedience." An assertion this which implies, that (with respect to the second causes and secondary means) we place a secondary trust and confidence in the graces which compose the Christian character. But I ask, Wherein does the heresy of this doctrine consist? Do I renounce orthodoxy when I say

Mr. Wesley is too judicious a divine to sign a paper that leaves the second axiom quite unguarded. Accordingly we find that axiom guarded in these words of Mr. Shirley's declaration: "No one is a believer, (and consequently cannot be saved,) who doth not good works where there is time and opportunity." Nevertheless, this clause does not by far form so solemn a guard as might have been demanded upon so remarkable an occasion. Mr. Shirley, and the clergy that accompanied him, might with propriety have been desired to remove the fears of those who signed the declaration which he had drawn up, by signing at least the following memorandum: "Forasmuch as Aaron, David, Solomon, Peter, and the incestuous Corinthian did not do good works when they, or any of them worshipped a golden calf, Milcom, and the abomination of the Zidonians,-denied Christ, or committed adultery, murder, or incest, we hereby solemnly declare, in the sight of God, that we abhor the doctrine of the Solifidians, who say that the above-mentioned backsliders had justifying, saving faith, while they committed the above-mentioned crimes; such a doctrine being perilous and abominable; be. cause it absolutely overturns the twelfth article of our Church, and encourages all Christians to make Christ the minister of sin, and to believe that they may commit the most atrocious crimes, without losing their faith, their justification, and their title to a throne of glory."

If Mr. Shirley and his friends had refused to sign such a memorandum as this, the world would have had a public demonstration that Calvinism is the doctrine of Protestant indulgences; and that it establishes speculative, and consequently makes way for practical Antinomianism in all its most flagrant immoralities, as well as in its tnost winning refinements.

that with respect to some second means, and some second causes, I have no trust nor confidence but in my EYES to see, in my EARS to hear, and in my THROAT to swallow? Should I not be fit for Bedlam, if I trusted to see without eyes, to hear without ears, and to swallow without a throat? If I had not a trust that my shoes will answer the end of shoes, and my hat the end of a hat; may I not wisely put my shoes upon my head, and my hat on my feet? And if I have not a confidence that my horse will carry me better than a broomstick, may I not as well get upon a broomstick as on horseback? What would Zelotes think of me, if I did not trust that bread will nourish me sooner than poison, and that fire will warm me better than ice? Is it not a branch of wisdom to trust every thing, just so far as it deserves to be trusted; and a piece of madness to do otherwise?

O ye admirers of Zelotes' gospel, come and I will explain to you all my supposed error. I trust only and solely in God as the first and capital cause, and in Christ as the first and capital means of my present and eternal salvation. But beside this primary trust, I have a thousand inferior trusts. Take a few instances: I have a sure trust and confi. dence that the Bible will farther me in the way to eternal salvation, more than the Koran: baptism more than circumcision: the Lord's Supper more than the Jewish passover: the house of God more than the play house: praying more than cursing: repentance, faith, hope, charity, and perseverance more, far more than impenitency, unbelief, despair, uncharitableness, and apostasy.

If I am a heretic for saying that something beside Christ is conducive to salvation, and of consequence may, in its place and degree, be trusted in for salvation; is St. Paul orthodox when he exhorts the Philippians to "work out their own salvation," assures them that his afflic tions shall "turn to his salvation through their prayers," and writes to Titus, that "in DOING the work of an evangelist he shall SAVE himself and them that hear him?".

66

Again will Christ stand to me instead of repentance? Has he not said himself, Except YE repent, ye shall perish?" Will he be to me instead of faith? Did he not assert the contrary when he declared, that he who believeth not shall be damned?" Will he be instead of an evangelical obedience? Does he not maintain the opposite doctrine, where he declares that he will bid them "depart from him, who call him Lord, Lord, and DO NOT the things which he saith?" Will he stand me instead of perseverance? Has he not said himself that he will deny them that deny him;" that he will finally own us as his "disciples, if we continue in his words;" and that "he who endureth to the end, the same shall be saved?" Zelotes finds it easier to raise difficulties than to remove those which are thrown in his way. He comes, therefore, with his mouth full of objections, against my second declaration. Let us lend him an ear, and give him an answer.

$6

OBJECTION I. "If, with respect to the doctrine of second causes, and second means of eternal salvation, you have no trust or confidence to be saved as a penitent, obedient, and persevering believer, but by true repentance, faith, obedience, and perseverance, you cannot repose your whole trust upon God alone; nor can you give Christ all the glory of your salvation."

ANSWER. To make God a second cause, and Christ a second means of salvation, is not to give them the glory: it is to pull them out of their throne, and make them stoop to an office unworthy of their matchless dignity. If the king gave you a purse of gold, could you not give him all the glory of his generosity, without supposing that he was the laborious digger of the golden ore, the ingenious coiner of the gold, and the diligent knitter of the purse? If you complimented him in all these respects, lest he should not have all the glory, would you not pour contempt upon his greatness? And do you not see, that by a parity of rea son, what you call "robbing God and Christ of their glory" is only refusing to dishonour them, by ascribing to them a dishonourable office; I mean the office of a second cause, or of a secondary means of salvation? Can you not conceive, that to give a general the honour of a sergeant, under pretence of giving him all the honour, is to set him below an ensign, and rank him with a halberd bearer? Again: when you say, that in general, upon a journey, with respect to second causes and means, you have no trust or confidence but in your money, in the goodness of your horses and carriage, in the passable state of the roads, in the skill of your driver, &c, do you betray any mistrust of Divine Providence? On the contrary, does not your distinction of second causes and second means show that you reserve your primary trust or confidence for God, who is the first cause of your blessings; and for his providential care over you, which is the first means of your preservation? And if a pretender to orthodoxy charged you with Atheism or heresy for your assertion, would you not give him your vote to be an officer of the Protestant inquisition,-if the black tribunal, which totters in Spain, should ever be set up in England?

OBJECTION II. "Your first declaration indeed exalts Christ; but the second uncrowns him, to crown our graces-yea, to crown ourselves as possessed of such and such graces; which is the rankest popery, and the very quintessence of Pharisaism."

ANSWER. How can my crowning repentance, faith, and obedience, with a Scriptural coronet, rob Christ of his peculiar crown? Are we not indebted to him both for our graces and for the coronet with which he rewards our acceptance and improvement of his favours? Would it be right in you to represent me as an enemy to the crown and king of England, for asserting that barons, earls, and dukes have received from him or his predecessors, the right of wearing coronets, or secondary crowns? Is it not the glory of our sovereign to be at the head of a crowned peerage? And would you really honour him, if, on a coronation day, you secured the glory of his imperial crown, by kicking the coronets off the heads of all the peers who come to pay him homage? Would he thank you for that ill-judged proof of your loyalty? Would he not reprove you for your unparalleled rashness? And think you that Christ will commend the Antinomian zeal, with which you set up the great image of finished salvation in the plain of mystical Geneva, upon a heap of the coronets, wherewith he and his apostles have crowned the graces of believers? Can you search the sacred records without finding there the doctrine which you represent as treasonable or heretical? Did you never read, "O woman, great is thy faith! THY FAITH hath saved thee?" And what is this but allowing believers to wear o

salvation coronet-a coronet this, which they will justly "cast before the throne" of the grace that gave it them, and offered it all the day long to those who obstinately "put it from them?" Did you never read, "We are saved by hope: be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life: he is the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him: he will give the crown of life to them that love him," &c? Is not this a salvation coronet to the hopeful, faithful, obedient, loving believer? And if you throw my Scales away, and cry out, "Arminian* Methodism turned out rank popery at last!" think you there are no Bibles left in the kingdom? No people able to read such scriptures as these? "Let no man beguile you of your reward through voluntary humilityfair speeches-and deceivableness of unrighteousness. Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown," on any pretext whatever, no, not on the most plausible of all pretexts, "Pray, give me thy crown, for it is not consistent with that of the Redeemer." Who could suggest to good men so artful and dangerous a doctrine? Who but the deceitful adversary that can as easily "transform himself into an angel of light,” to rob us of our "crown of righteousness," as he formerly could transform himself into a serpent, to rob our first parents of their crown of innocence?

OBJECTION III. "You may turn and wind as long as you please, but you will never be able to reconcile your doctrine with the doctrine of grace; for if you have the least trust and confidence in your graces, you do not trust wholly in the Lord; you trust partly in an arm of flesh,' in direct opposition to the scripture, Cursed is the man who trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm,' Jer. xvii, 5."

[ocr errors]

ANSWER. I grant that our doctrine can never be reconciled to what you call "the doctrines of grace," because your partial doctrines of grace are irreconcilable with the holy, free, and equitable Gospel of Christ. But we can as easily reconcile the primary trust mentioned in our first declaration, with the secondary trust mentioned in the second, as you can reconcile my second Scale with the first. Our secondary confidence, which arises from the testimony of a good conscience, no more militates in our breasts against our primary confidence, which arises from the love of Christ, than our regard for the queen excludes our respect for the king. In mystic Geneva indeed they teach, to the honour of the king, that the royal spouse is all filthy; but in our Jerusalem we assert that "she is all glorious," and that "the king greatly desires her beauty." To uncrown her, therefore, and load her with infamy, can never be the way of honouring and pleasing our Melchisedec. With respect to the passage which you produce from Jeremiah, the sense of it is fixed by what immediately follows:-"And whose heart departeth from the Lord." These words show that the trust forbidden in that scripture is only such a trust in man and things as makes our hearts depart from the Lord. Now this can never be the trust and confidence mentioned in our second declaration: for in both declarations we secure to God, as the first cause, and to Christ, as the first means, all the glory which is worthy of the first cause, and of the first means: and, I repeat it, if you ascribe to the Lord any other glory, you insult him as much as you would do a prince, if you gave him the glory which * The title of a Calvinistic pamphlet published against the Fourth Check.

« AnteriorContinuar »