I.

will] come to me; and him that cometh unto me I will in no wise cast out. [If he be lost it will not be by my losing him, but by his losing his own soul. It will not be by my casting him out, but by his casting himself out. Witness the young man, who thought our Lord's terms too hard; and "went away sorrowful :" witness again Judas, who "went out," and of his own accord "drew back unto perdition."] John vi, 37.

II.

they were [they belonged to thy dispensation, they believed in thee] and thou gavest them me, [they entered my dispensation, and believed in me.] Those that thou gavest me, I have kept [according to the rules of my dispensation] and none of them is lost BUT [he that has destroyed himself, Judas,] the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, John xvii, 6, 12.

Inquire we now what scriptures were fulfilled by the perdition of Judas. They are either general or particular: (1.) The general are such as these: "The turning away of the simple shall slay them," Prov. i, 32. "When the righteous man turneth from his righteousness, [and who can be a righteous man' without true faith ?] he shall die in his sin." Again: "When I say to the righteous," that "he shall surely live, if he trust to his righteousness, and commit iniquity, he shall die for it," Ezek. iii, 20; xxxiii, 13. (2.) The particular scriptures fulfilled by the destruction of Judas are these: Psa. xli, 9, "Mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." These words are expressly applied to Judas by our Lord himself, John xii, 18, and they demonstrate that Judas was not always a cursed hypocrite, unless Zelotes can make appear that our Lord reposed his trust in a hypocrite; whom he had chosen for his "own familiar friend." Again: "Let his days be few, and let another take his office, or his bishopric." These words are quoted from Psa. cix, and particularly applied to Judas by St. Peter, Acts i, 20. Now, to know whether Judas' perdition was absolute, flowing from the unconditional reprobation of God, and not from Judas' foreseen backsliding, we need only compare the two Psalms where his sin and perdition are described. The one informs us, that before he lifted up his heel against Christ, he was Christ's own familiar friend, and so sincere that the Searcher of hearts trusted in him and the other Psalm describes the cause of Judas' personal reprobation thus: "Let his days be few, and let another take his office," &c, "because that [though he once knew how to tread in the steps of the merciful Lord, who honoured him with a share in his familiar friendship, yet] he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor, that he might even slay the broken in heart. As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him: as he clothed himself with cursing like as with a garment, so let it come into his bowels like water," Psa. cix, 8, 16, &c. Hence it is evident, that if Judas was lost agreeably to the Scriptural prediction of his perdition; and if that very prophecy informs us that "his days were few, because he remembered not to show mercy, &c,” we horribly wrong God when we suppose that this means, because God never remembered to show any mercy to Judas, because God was a graceless God to Iscariot thousands of years before the infant culprit

drew his first breath. Brethren and fathers, as many as are yet concerned for our Creator's honour, and our Saviour's reputation, resolutely bear your testimony with David and the Holy Ghost, against this doctrine; so shall Zelotes blush to charge still the Father of mercies with the absolute reprobation of Judas, not only in opposition to all good nature, truth, and equity; but against as plain a declaration of God, as any that can be found in all the Scriptures. "Let his days be few, and let another take his office, &c, because he remembered not to show mercy, but persecuted the poor, that he might [betray innocent blood, and] even slay the broken in heart.”*

To say that God stood in need of Judas' wickedness to deliver his Son to the Jews, is not less absurd than impious. "God has no need of the sinful man." Any boy that had once heard our Lord preach in the temple, and seen him go to the garden of Gethsemane, might have given as proper an information to the high priest, and been as proper a guide to the mob, as Judas: especially as Christ was not less determined to deliver himself, than the Jews were to apprehend him. With regard to the notion that Judas was a wicked man-an absolute unbeliever -a cursed hypocrite when our Lord gave him a place in his familiar friendship, and raised him to the dignity of an apostle, it is both unscriptural and scandalous. (1.) Unscriptural: for the Scripture informs us, that when the Lord immediately proceeds to an election of that nature, "he looketh on the heart," 1 Sam. xvi, 7. Again: when the eleven apostles prayed that God would overrule the lot which they were about to cast for a proper person to succeed Judas, they said, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which of these two thou hast chosen, that he might take part of the ministry, from which Judas by transgression fell," Acts i, 24. Now as Judas fell by transgression, he was undoubtedly raised by righteousness, unless Zelotes can make appear, that he rose the same way he fell; and, that as he fell by a bribe, so he gave some of our Lord's friends a bribe, to get himself nominated to one of the twelve apostolic bishoprics: but even then, how does this agree with our Lord's "knowing the heart," and choosing accordingly? (2.) This notion is scandalous: it sets Christ in the most contemptible light. How will he condemn, in the great day, men of power in the Church, who for by-ends commit the care of souls to the most wicked of men? How will he even find fault with them, if he did set them the example himself, in passing by all the honest and good men in Judea, to go and set the apostolic mitre upon the head of a thief-of a "wolf in sheep's clothing?" In the name of wis dom I ask, Could Christ do this, and yet remain the "good Shepherd ?" How different is the account that St. Paul gives us of his own election to the apostleship. "The glorious Gospel of God was committed to my charge," says he; "and I thank Christ, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry," 1 Tim. i, 11, 12. Now, if we represent Christ as putting Paul into the ministry because he counted him faithful, and Judas because he counted him unfaithful-a thief-a traitor-a cursed hypocrite, do we not make Christ a Proteus? Are his ways equal? Has he not two weights? God, I grant, sets sometimes a wicked king over a wicked people, but it is according to the ordinary course of human affairs, and in his anger; to chastise a sinful nation with a royal rod. But what had the unformed Christian Church done to deserve being scourged with the rod of apostolic wickedness? And what course of human affairs obliged our Lord to fix upon a wicked man in a new election to a new dignity-and, what is most striking, in an election to which he proceeded without the interposition of any free agent but himself?

O Zelotes, mistake me not: if I plead the cause of Judas' sincerity, when he "left all to follow Christ," and when our Lord passed by thousands, immediately to choose him for his "own familiar friend in whom he trusted "for a preacher of his Gospel, and an apostle of his Church; I do not do it so much for Judas' sake, as for the honour of Christ, and the comfort of his timorous, doubting followers. Alas! if Christ could show distinguishing favour and familiar friendship to a man, on whom he had absolutely set his black seal of unconditional reprobation-to a man whom, from the beginning of the world, he had without any provocation marked out for

To conclude: if God has taken such particular care to clear himself from the charge of absolutely appointing Judas to be a "son of perdition!?? Nay, if CHRIST himself asserts that the FATHER gave him Judas, as well as the other apostles :-and if the HOLY GHOST declares, by the mouth of David, that Judas was once Christ's familiar friend, and as such honoured with his trust and confidence; is it not evident, that the doctrine of free wrath, and of any man's (even Judas') absolute, unconditional reprobation is as gross an imposition upon Bible Christians, as it is a foul blot upon all the Divine perfections? II.

a goat, and for unavoidable damnation; if he could converse, eat, drink, travel, lodge, and pray for years with a man to whom he bore from everlasting, and will bear to all eternity, a settled ill will, an immortal hatred, where is sincerity? where is the Lamb without blemish? the Lamb of God in whose mouth no guile was ever found? If Christ be such a sly damner of one of his twelve apostles as the "doctrines of grace" (so called) represent him to be, who can trust him? What professor-what Gospel minister can assure himself that Christ has not chosen and called him for purposes as sinister as those for which it is supposed that Judas was chosen, and called to be Christ's familiar friend? Nay, if Christ, barely on account of Adam's sin, left Judas in the lurch, and even betrayed him into a deeper hell by a mock call, may he not have done the same by Zelotes, by me, and by all the professors in the world? O ye "doctrines of grace," if you are as sweet as honey, in the mouth of Zelotes, as soon as I have eaten you, my belly is bitter; poison corrodes my vitals; I must either part with you, my reason, or my peace.

I.

kings unto him:] my Father, I say, who gave them me, is greater than all, and none shall pluck them [that thus hear my voice and follow me] out of my Father's hand: for I and my Father are one [in nature, power, and faithfulness, to show that "the way of the Lord is strength to the upright; but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity," Prov. x, 29.] John x, 2, 26, &c.

No man can come unto me except the Father draw him, [and he be faithful to the Father's attrac. tion:] every man, therefore, that hath heard and learned of [that is, submitted to] the Father [and to his drawings] cometh unto me. There are some of you that believe not, &c. Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given him of my Father, John vi, 44, 45, 64, 65.

The meaning is, that no man can believe in the Son, who has not first a degree of true faith in the Father. "Ye believe in God, believe also in me," says Christ. "All must honour the Son, as they honour the Father." All, therefore, that do not "learn of," that is, submit to, and honour the Father, cannot come to the Son and pay him homage. He that obstinately refuses to take the first step in the faith, cannot take the second. To show, therefore, that Zelotes cannot with propriety ground the doctrine of free wrath upon John vi, any more than upon John x, I need only prove the three propositions contained in the opposite Scale.

II.

science, you would have believed Moses; and] had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: but if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? John v, 44, &c. [If ye believe not in God, how shall ye believe in me? If you dishonour my Father, how can you honour me?]

[FIRST PROPOSITION. The Father draws all to himself, and gives to the Son all those who yield to his drawings. Witness the following scriptures.] All the day long I have stretched forth my hand to [draw] a disobedient people, Rom. x, 21. Despisest thou the riches of God's forbearance, not considering that his goodness leadeth [that is, gently draweth] thee to repentance, [and of consequence to faith in a Mediator between God and man?] Rom. ii, 4. Of those whom thou hast given me none is lost [hitherto] but [one, Judas, who is already so completely lost, that I may now call him] a son of perdition, John xvii, 12.

SECOND PROPOSITION. The Son likewise, “who is the light that enlightens every man, draws all to himself," and then brings to the Father those who yield to his attraction, "that they may receive the adoption of sons." Witness the follow. ing scriptures:-"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me, John xii, 32. Come unto me, all ye that labour [and are restless] and I will give you rest." If you come to me, I will plainly reveal to you the Fa. ther: I will enable you by my peaceful Spirit to call him ABBA, FATHER, with delightful assurance: [for] no man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he, to whomsoever the Son will reveal him [by the Holy Ghost,] Matt. xi, 27, 28.

THIRD PROPOSITION. These drawings of the Father, and of the Son, are not irresistible, as appears from the following scriptures: "Because

I have stretched out my hands, and no man [comparatively] regarded [my drawings,] I will mock when your destruction cometh as a whirlwind, Prov. i, 24, 27. These things I say unto you [obstinate Pharisees,] that you might be [drawn unto me, and] saved, &c, and [notwithstanding my drawings] ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life," John v, 34, 40.

The preceding propositions are founded upon the proportion of faith, upon the relations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and upon the doctrine of the dispensations explained in the Essay on Truth.

Should Zelotes compare these propositions, he will see that if the Father does not particularly give all men to the Son, that they may receive the peculiar blessings of the Christian dispensation; and if the Son does not explicitly reveal the Father to all men by the Spirit of adoption, or the baptism of the Holy Ghost; it is not out of free, reprobating wrath; but merely for the two following reasons: (1.) As in the political world all men are not called to be princes and kings; so in the religious world all are not blessed with five talents; all are not called to believe explicitly in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, or to be “made kings and priests to God" in the Christian Church. (2.) Of the many that are called to this honour, few (comparatively) are obedient to the heavenly calling; and, therefore, few are chosen" to "receive the crown of Christian righteousness:" or, as our Lord expresses it, few "are counted worthy to stand before the Son of man" among them that have been faithful to their five talents. But, as all men have one talent till they have buried it, and God has judicially taken it from them: as all men are at least under the dispensation of the Father, as a gracious and faithful Creator: as Christ, "the light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world," draws all men implicitly to this merciful Creator; while the Spirit, as "the saving grace which has appeared unto all men, implicitly teaches them to deny ungodliness," and to live soberly, righteously, and piously in this present world; as this is the case, I say, what can we think of the absolute election or reprobation of individuals, which insures saving grace and heaven to some, while (through the denial of every degree of saving grace) it secures damning sin and everlasting burnings to others?

If it be asked, how it has happened that so many divines have embraced these tenets? I reply, It has been chiefly owing to their inattention to the doctrine of the dispensations. Being altogether taken up with the particular dispensations of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, they overlooked, as Peter once did, the general dispensation of the Father, which is the basis of all the superior economies of Divine grace. They paid no manner of attention to the noble testimony, which that apostle bore when, parting with his last scrap of Jewish bigotry, he said: "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him." As if he had said, Though distinguishing grace should never give two talents to a heathen that fears God and works righteousness; though he should never explicitly hear of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; yet shall he enter, as a faithful servant, into the joy of his merciful Lord, when many "children of the kingdom shall be thrust out:" for it is revealed upon earth, and of consequence it is decreed