latter certainly win such a race, would not the army be mad to say, Then we will not fight a stroke? Would not the racer be insane to add, Nor will I move so much as one of my feet? &c. Equally illogical is Mr. Wesley's impudent slander, that The elect shall be saved do what they will, &c.-Either he is absolutely unacquainted with the first principles of reasoning; or he offers up the knowledge he has, as an whole burnt sacrifice on the altar of malice, calumny, and falsehood."

This severe censure will appear Calvinistically gratuitous, if we consider, that it is entirely founded upon the impropriety of the illustrations produced by Mr. Toplady. If he had exactly represented the case, he would have said, "Suppose it were infallibly revealed to an army, that they should certainly gain such a battle; that they could do nothing towards the victory by their own fighting; that the battle was fought, and absolutely won for them 1700 years ago; that if they refused to fight to-day, or if they ran away, or were taken prisoners, their triumph would not be less certain; and that putting their bottle to their neighbours' mouths, and defiling their wives, instead of fighting, would only make them sing VICTORY louder, on a certain day called a day of power, when Omnipotence would sovereignly exert itself in their behalf, and put all their enemies to flight:-Suppose again it were revealed to a racer, that he should certainly win such a race, and receive the prize, whether he ran to-day backward or forward; because his winning the race did not at all depend upon his own swift running, but upon the swiftness of a great racer, who yesterday ran the race for him, and who absolutely imputes to him his swift running, even while he gets out of the course to chase an ewe-lamb, or visit a Delilah; that the covenant, which secures him the prize, is unconditionally ordered in all things and sure; that though he may be unwilling to run now, yet in a day of irresistible power he shall be made willing to fly and receive the prize; and that his former loitering will only set off the greatness of the power, which is absolutely engage

carry him, and all elect racers, quite from Egypt to Canaan in one hour, if they have loitered till the eleventh hour;"-suppose, I say, Mr. Toplady had given us such a just view of the case, who could charge the soldiers with "madness," and the racer with "being insane," if they agreed to say, "We will neither fight nor run, but take our case and indulge ourselves, till the day of power come, in which we shall irresistibly be made to gain the battle, and to win the race?"

an

From these rectified illustrations it appears, if I am not mistaken, (1.) That, when Mr. Wesley advanced his consequence, he neither "shewed himself ahso.. lutely unacquainted with the first principles of reasoning;" nor" offered up the knowledge he has, as whole burnt-sacrifice on the altar of malice, calumny, and falsehood: "--And, (2.) That, when Mr. Toplady's appeals to scripture and reason are made fairly to stand 66 upon their legs," they do his doctrine as little service as his limping arguments.

SECTION IV.

An Answer to the Arguments, by which Mr. Toplady endeavours to reconcile Calvinian Reprobation with Divine JUSTICE.

We have seen how unhappily the translator of Zanchius has reconciled his doctrines of Grace and Absolute Election with God's holiness: Let us now see if he has been more successful in reconciling his doctrines of Wrath and Absolute Reprobation with Divine Justice.

ARGUMENT XVI. (Page 35.)-"Justice consists in rendering to every man his due."-Mr. Toplady gives us this narrow definition of Justice to make way for this argument: God owes us no blessing, and there

he may gratuitously give us an everlasting curse.

He does not owe us heaven, and therefore he may justly appoint, that eternal sin and damnation shall be our unavoidable portion.-But is not a king unjust when he punishes an unavoidable fault with uninterrupted torture, as well as when he refuses to pay his just debts?

ARGUMENT XVII. (Ibid.)—“ God is not a debtor to any man."-True, (strictly speaking;) but (1.) Does not God owe to himself, to behave like himself, that is, like a gracious and just Creator, towards every man ? -(2.) When God, by his promise, has engaged himself judicially to render to every man according to his works,' is it just in him to necessitate some men to work righteousness, and others to work iniquity, that he may reward the former, and punish the latter, according to arbitrary decrees of absolute election to life, and of absolute reprobation to death?—And (3.) Do not the sacred writers observe, that God has condescended to make himself a debtor to his creatures by his gracious promises? Did Mr. Toplady never read, 'He that hath pity upon the poor, leudeth to the Lord, and look, what he layeth out it shall be paid again ?' (Prov. xix. 17.) When Evangelical Paul hath' fought a good fight,' does he not look for a crown from the 'Just Judge,' and declare that 'God is not unrighteous to forget our labour of love;' and, if we confess our sins,' is not God bound by his Justice, as well as by his Faithfulness, to forgive, and cleanse us?'-(1 Johni. 9.)

ARGUMENT XVIII. (Ibid.)—“If it can be proved "that He [God] owes salvation to every rational being "he has made; then, and then only will it follow, that "God is unjust in not paying this debt of salvation to "each, &c.-What shadow of injustice can be fastened 66 on his conduct, for, in some cases, withholding what "he does not owe?" This argument is introduced by Mr. Toplady in a variety of dresses. The flaw of it consists in supposing that there can be no medium between eternal salvation, and appointing to eternal damnati and that, because God may absolutely elect

of his creatures as he pleases to a crown of glory, he may absolutely reprobate as many as Calvinism pleases to eterual sin and everlasting burnings. The absurdity of this conclusion will be discovered by the reader, if he look at it through the glass of the following illustrations. Mr. Toplady is not obliged, by any rule of justice, to give Mr. Wesley a hundred pounds, because he owes him no money; and therefore Mr. T. may give Mr. Wesley a hundred gratuitous stripes, without breaking any rule of justice. The king may without injustice gratuitously give a thousand pounds to one man, ten thousand to another, an hundred to a third, and nothing to a fourth; and therefore the king may also, without injustice, gratuitously give an hundred stabs to one man, a thousand to another, and ten thousand to a third, or, he may necessitate them to offend, that he may hang and burn them with a show of justice.

ARGUMENT XIX. (P. 36.)—“ I defy any man to shew in what single respect the actual limitation of happiness itself is a jot more just and equitable (in a Being possessed of infinite power) than the decretive limitation of the persons who shall enjoy that happiness."-The question is not whether God can justly limitate the happiness of man; or the number of the men, whom he will raise to such and such heights of happiness, This we never disputed; on the contrary, we assert with our Lord, that when God gives degrees of happiness, as a Benefactor he may do what he pleases, with his own;' he may give five talents to one man, or to five thousand men; and two talents to two men, or to two millions of men. Wherein then does the fallacy of Mr. Toplady's argument consist? In this most irrational and unjust conclusion: God may, without injustice, "limit the happiness" of his human creatures, and the number of those, who shall enjoy such and such a degree of happiness ; and therefore, he may also without injustice absolutely reprobate as many of his unborn creatures as hepleases, and decree to protract their infernal torments to all eternity, after having first decreed their necessary fall into sin, and their necessary continuance in sin,

as necessary means, in order to their necessary end, which is eternal damnation. Is not this an admirable Vindication of Calvin's Decrees? Who does not see that the conclusion has no more to do with the premises, than the following argument: The Lord Chancellor may, without injustice, present Mr. T. to a living of fifty pounds, or to one of two hundred pounds, o he may reprobate Mr. T. from all the crown livings; and therefore the Lord Chancellor may without injustice sue Mr. T. for fifty pounds, or two hundred pounds, whenever he pleases. What name shall we give to the Logic which deals in such arguments as these?

rather

ARGUMENT XX. (Page 37.)-" He [man] derives his existence from God, and therefore [says Arminianism] God is bound to make his existence happy."-I would say, God is bound both by the rectitude of his nature, and by the promises of his gospel, not to reprobate any man to remediless sin and eternal misery, till he has actually deserved such a dreadful reprobation, at least by one thought, which he was not absolutely predestinated to think. But Calvinism says, that God abso. lutely reprobated a majority of men before they thought their first thought, or drew their first breath. If Mr. Toplady had stated the case in this plain manner, all his readers would have seen his doctrine of wrath without a veil, and would have shuddered at the sight.

ARGUMENT XXI. (Ibid.)—" If God owe salvation to all his creatures as such, even the workers of iniquity will be saved, or God must cease to be just."-I never heard any Arminian say, that God owes salvation, that is, heavenly glory, to all his creatures as such: For then all horses, being God's creatures as well as men, would be taken to heaven. But we maintain, that God will never mediately entail necessary, remediless sin upon any of his creatures, that he may infallibly punish them with eternal damnation. And we assert, if God had not graciously designed to replace all mankind in a state of initial salvation from sin and hell, according to the various dispensations of his redeeming grace, he would