« ForrigeFortsæt »
tently in England, till Baxter began to make a firm stand against Antinomian dotages.”
Sect. IX. P. 20. You produce these words of mine, taken from the Fourth Check, “Your imputation stands upon a preposterous supposition, that Christ the Righteous was an execrable sinner.” To this you reply with the warmth of a gentleman, who has learned politeness in mystic Geneva: “ I tell you, Rev. Sir, with the bluntness and honesty of an Englishman, that this is execrable Swiss slander.” – Now, Sir, that what you call “ execrable Swiss slander,” is sterling English truth, I prove by these quotations from your favourite divine, Dr. Crisp, who, as quoted by D. Williams, says : (P.328 :) “God makes Christ as very a sinner as the creature himself was.”—Again, (p. 270,) “ Nor are we so completely sinful, but Christ, being made sin, was as completely sinful as we.”—And it is well known, that Luther, in one of his, unguarded moments, called Christ the greatest, and consequently the most execrable sinner in the world. Now, Sir, if “ Christ was as completely sinful as we,” (to use the words of your oracle,) does it not follow, that he was a sinner as completely execrable as we are ? And that you deviate a little from brotherly kindness, when you call Dr. Crisp's Calvinistic mistake, an execrable slander of mine?
Sect. X. P. 21, 22. You find fault with my saying, “ Is this (Christ's praying for Peter) a proof that he never prayed for Judas ?” And you declare, that this « assertion" (you should have said query)
“ does little honour to the advocacy of Christ.” Permit me, Sir, to explain myself. Though I believe, with Bishop Latimer, that Christ shed as much blood for Judas as for Peter, I never said nor believed, as you insinuate, “ That Christ took more pains for the salvation of Judas than for that of Peter." You cannot justly infer it from my mentioning a matter of fact recorded in scripture, viz. that once our Lord spoke to Judas, when he only looked at Peter; for he had explicitly warned Peter before. Therefore, in either case, Christ shewed himself
void (not of a peculiar regard for Peter's peculiar sincerity but) of Calvinistic partiality. Again, I am persuaded, that during the day of Judas's visitation, Christ prayed for him, and sincerely too; for if Christ had borne him a grudge, and, in consequence of it, had always made mental reserves, and excepted him, when he prayed for his apostles ; would he not have broken the second table of the law ? And might he not be proposed as a pattern of inveterate malice, rather than of perfect charity ?
You reply, p. 22, “ If this were the case, [i.e., if our Lord prayed for Judas,] those words of his, “I know thou hearest me always,'must be untrue; for wheu he prayed for Judas, his prayer was rejected.” But is your inference just? Christ always prayed with divine wisdom, and according to his Father's will. Therefore he prayed consistently with the eternal decree, that moral agents shall be invited, drawn, and gently moved, but not forced, to obey the gospel. Now, if our Lord prayed conditionally for Judas, (as he certainly did for all his murderers, since they were not all forgiveu) he might say, ' I know thou hearest me always ;' and yet Judas might, by his perverseness, as a free-agent, reject against himself the gracious counsel of God, till he was absolutely giveu up. Thus our scheme of doctrine, instead of dishonouring Christ's advocacy, represents it in a rational and scriptural light; while your's, I fear, wounds his character in the tenderest part, and fixes upon him the blot of cunning uncharitableness, and profound dissimulation.
Sect. XI, P. 25. You say, “ Time would fail me to pretend to enumerate the many gross misrepresentations,” &c. However, as you have actually represented ine as saying, that the more a believer sins upon earth, the merrier he will be in heaven, I beg you will point out to me where, in the plain, easy sense of my words, I have spoken any such thing; or where I have erer used so ludicrous an expression as mirth, &c. when speaking of those pleasures which are at God's right hand for evermore,'
I conclude my Antinomian creed thus, (Fourth Check, p. 55,) “ Adultery, incest, and murder, shall, upon the whole, make me holier upon earth and merrier in heaven.”- Two lines below, I observe that “ I am indebted to you for all the doctrines, and most of the expressions of this creed."-You have therefore no right to say, " Where have I used the expression merry ? For I never said you have used it, though our Lord has. (Luke xv. 32.) But as you have a right to say, Where is the doctrine? I reply, In your Fourth Letter, Sir, where you tell us, that “ grievous fall will make believers sing louder in heaven to all eternity.” Now as louder songs are a certain indication of greater joy, where nothing is done in hypocrisy, I desire even Calvinists to say, if I have wrested “ the plain, easy, sense of your words," in observing that, according to your scheme, apostates shall be merrier, or, if you please, more joyful in heaven for their grievous falls on earth.
P. 27. “ Now, Sir, give me leave to pluck a feather ont of your high soaring wings, &c. by asking you simply, whence have you taken it? [this quotation so called.] Did I ever assert any thing like this?, &c. Prove your point, and then I will confess that you are no calumniator of God's people." I answer,
1. I did not produce as a quotation the words which you allude to : I put them in commas, as expressive of the sentiments of “ many good men :" How then could you think, that you alone are many good men ? - (2.) But you say that you, for one, understand the words of St. John, 'He that does righteousness is righteous,' of personal holiness : Now, Sir, to prove me a calumniator,” you have only to prove that David did righteousness when he defiled Uriah's wife ; for you teach us directly, or indirectly, that when he committed that crime he was 'undefiled,' and continued to be 'a man after God's own heart,' i. e., a righteous man, for the Lord alloweth the
righteous, but the ungodly dues his soul abhor.' (3.) However, if I have mistaken oue of the scriptures, on which you found your doctrine, I have not mistaken the doctrine itself. What are the words for which you call me a “calnmniator,” and charge me with “ horrid perversion, falsehood, and base disingenuity ?” Why, I have represented “ many good men” as saying, (by' the general tenour of one of their doctrines of grace, the absolute perseverance of fallen, adulterous, idolatrous, incestuous believers,) “Let not Mr. W. deceive you : He that actually liveth with another man's wife, worships abomivable idols, and commits incest with his father's wife, may not only be righteous, but complete iu imputed righteousness," &c. This is the doctrine I charge upon many good men :
And if you, for one, say, “ Did I ever assert any thing like this ?” I reply, Yes, Sir, in your Fourth Letter, which is a professed attempt to prove, that believers may, like adulterous David, idolatrous Solomon, and the incestuous Corinthian, go any length in sin without ceasing to stand complete in, what I beg leave to call, Calvinistic righteousness. Thus, instead of “ plucking a feather out of my wings," you wing the arrow which I let fly at your great Diana.
Sect. XII. For brevity's sake, I shall reduce my answer to the rest of your capital charges into plain queries, not doubting but my judicious readers will see their uureasonableness, without the help of arguments.
8. Is it right in Mr. Hill to call, (p. 34, 35,) my Extract from Flavel, “a citation,” and “a quotation;" and then to charge. me with “ disingenuity, gross perversion, expunging," &c., because I have not swelled my extract by transcribing all Flavel's book, or because I have taken only what suits the present times, and what is altogether consistent ? Especially, when I have observed, Fourth Check, p. 10, “ That, when Flavel encounters Antinomian errors as a disciple of Calvin, his hands hang down, Amalek prevails,
and a shrewd logician could, without any magical power, force him to confess, that most of the errors, which he so justly opposes, are the natural consequences of Calvinism ?"
2. Is it right in Mr. Hill to charge me, (p.57,) with “ base forgeries ;” and to represent me, (p. 56,) as “ descending to the poor, illiberal arts of forgery, and defamation,” because I have presented the public with a parable in the dress of a royal proclamation, which I produce as a mere “ illustration,”-because I charge him with indirectly propagating tenets which as necessarily flow from his doctrines of grace, as light does from the sun,-and because I have distinguished, by commas, a creed framed with his avowed principles ? Although I have added these words, to shew that I took the composition of it upon myself : “You speak indeed in the third person, and I in the first, but this alters not the doctrine. Some clauses and sentences I have added, not to misrepresent and blacken, (for what need is there of blackeving the sable mantle of midnight ?) but to introduce, connect, and illustrate your sentiments.”
3. Angry as the Pharisees were at our Lord, when he exposed their errors by . parables, did they ever charge him with base forgery, because his “ illustrations" were not true stories ? Is it not strange that this admirable way of defending “ the truth,” should have been found out by the grand defender of “ the doctrines of grace ?"-Again, if marking with commas a paragraph of our composing, to distinguish it from our own real sentiments, is a crime ; is not Mr. Hill as criminal as myself? Does he not, (p. 31,) present the public with a card of his own composing, in which he holds forth the supposed sentiments of many clergymen, and which he distinguishes with commas thus : The Feather's Tavern fraternity present compliments to Messrs. J. Wesley and Fletcher," &c.—Shall what passes for wit in the author of Pietas Oxoniensis, be gross disingenuity, and base forgery, in the author of