believing either that "the wicked are sinless," or that "there is a mountain of gold." On what a slender foundation does Logica Genevensis rest her charges of craft and malice! And yet, this foundation is as solid as that, on which she raises her doctrines of Unscriptural Grace and Free Wrath. But Mr. T. advances other arguments :

ARG. LV. (p. 69, 70.)-" The holy Baptist, without any ceremony or scruple, compared some of his unregenerate hearers to stones; saying, 'God is able even of these stones to raise up children to Abraham, &c. Ye therefore, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, &c. They [the elect] shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts-in the day when I make up my Jewels: Now, unless I am vehemently mistaken, Jewels are but another name for precious stones."Hence the reader is given to understand, that when Mr. Wesley opposes the doctrine of Absolute Necessity, by saying, that, "It cannot be a sin in a stone to fall," he turns "the Bible's own artillery against itself, and gives us too much room to fear, that it is as natural to him to pervert-as it is for-a stone to sink.”

By such arguments as these, I could prove transubstantiation: For Christ said of a bit of bread, 'This is my body.'-Nay, I could prove any other absurdity: I could prove that Christ could not "think," and that his disciples could not "walk :" For he says, I am the vine, and ye are the branches ;' and a vine can no more think, than branches can walk.-I could prove that he was a 'hen,' and the Jews chickens' For he says, that he would have gathered them, as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings.' Nay, I could prove, that Christ had no more hand in our Redemption, than we are supposed by Calvinists to have in our conversion; that his "poor Free Will," (to use Mr. Toplady's expressions, page 70, with respect to us,) "had no employ," that he was absolutely passive, and that [redemption] is as totally the operation of [the Father] as the severing of stones from

66

their native quarry, and the erecting them into an elegant building, are the effects of human agency."If the astonished reader ask, How I can prove a proposition so subversive of the gratitude which we owe to Christ for our redemption? I reply, By the very same argument by which Mr. T. proves, that we are absolutely passive" in the work of conversion, and that "conversion is totally the operation of God :" That is, by producing passages where Christ is metaphorically called a Stone;' and of these there are not a few. 'Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion a Stone, a tried Stone, a precious CornerStone, a sure foundation. (is. xxviii. 16.)-Whosoever shall fall on this Stone, shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Matt. xxi. 34.)—The Stone which the builders reject-ed is become the head of the corner. (Acts iv. 11.)—– To whom coming as to a living Stone,' &c. (1 Pet. ii. 4.)-If to these texts, we add those in which he is compared to a "foundation," to a rock," and to "jewels," or precious" stones," I could demonstrate, (in the Calvinian way,) that Christ was once as absolutely passive" in the work of our redemption as a Stone. When I consider such arguments as these, I cannot help wondering at the gross impositions of Pagan, Popish, and Calvinian Doctors. I find myself again in the midst of Ovid's Metamorphoses. Jupiter, if we believe the poet, turned Niobe into a rock. The tempter wanted Christ to turn a stone' into bread.' Logica Romana turns bread' into Christ. But Logica Genevensis carries the bell; for she can, even without the Hocus Pocus of a massing priest, turn Christ into a Stone.-Mr. Toplady, far from recanting his argument a lapide, confirms it by the following

66

6

66

ARG. LVI. (p. 71.)-"A stone has the advantage of you: Man's rebellious heart is, by nature, and so far as spiritual things are concerned, more intractable and ́ unyielding than a stone itself. I may take up a stone, and throw it this way or that—and it obeys the impulse

of my arm. Whereas, in the sinner's heart, there is every species of hatred and opposition to God: Nor can any thing, but Omnipotent Power, slay its enmity."

I

I am glad Mr. T. vouchsafes, in this place, to grant, that" omnipotent power can slay the enmity." I hope he will remember this concession, and no more turn from the Prince of life, and preach up the monster Death, as the Slayer of the enmity. But, to come to the argument: Would Mr. T. think me in earnest, if I attempted to prove that a stone "had [once] the advantage" of him, with respect to getting learning, and that there was more Omnipotence required to make him a scholar, than to make the stone he stands upon, fit to take a degree in the University? However, I shall attempt to do it: Displaying my skill in orthodox logic, I personate the schoolmaster, who taught Mr. Toplady grammar, and probably found him once at play, when he should have been at his book, and say, Indeed, master, a stone has the advantage of you. A boy's playful heart is by nature, so far as grammar is concerned, more intractable and unyielding than a stone itself."-[Now for the proof!] "I may take up a stone, and throw it this way or that, and it instantly, and without the least degree of resistance, obeys the impulse of my arm : Whereas you resist my orders; you run away from your book; or you look off from it. In your playful heart there is every species of hatred and opposition to your Accidence; and therefore more power is required to make you a scholar, than to make that stone a grammarian." Mr. Toplady's voluntary humility' claps this argument as excellent; but his Good Sense hisses it as absrud, and says with St. Paul, When I was a child, I spake as a child: But when I became a man, I put away childish things.'

6

ARG. LVII. (p. 71.)-Ah, but "God's gracious promise to renew his people runs in this remarkable style: I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh." And does this prove Calvinian Bound Will, any more

than these gracious commands to renew our own hearts prove Pelagian Free Will?, Circumcise the fore-skin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.-Make you a new heart and a new spirit.-Turn yourselves, aud live ye?' Who does not see, that the evangelical uniou of such passages gives birth to the scripture doctrine of assisted Free Will, which stands at an equal distance from Calvinian Necessity, and from Pelagian, self-sufficient Exertion?

ARG. LVIII. (p. 73.)-But, God "worketh ALL things according to the counsel of his own will. (Eph. i. 11.)”—By putting the word "all" in very large capitals, Mr. T. seems willing to insinuate, that God's decree causes all things; and, of consequence, that God absolutely works the good actions of the righteous, and the bad deeds of the wicked. Whereas the apostle means only, that all the things which God works, he works them according to the counsel of his own' most wise, gracious, and righteous will.' But the things which God works are, in many cases, as different from the things which we work, as light is different from darkness. This passage, therefore, does not prove Calvinian Necessity: For, when God made man, according to the counsel of his will,' he made him a Free-agent, and set before him life and death;' bidding him choose life. Now, to include Adam's eating of the forbidden fruit, and choosing death, among the things which God worketh,' is to turn Manichee with a witness: It is to confound Christ and Belial; the acts of God, and the deeds of sinners. It is to suppose (horrible to think!) that God wi!! send the reprobates to hell for his own deeds; or, if you please, for what he has wrought absolutely in them, and by them, according to the counsel of his own necessitating will.' This dreadful doctrine is that capital part of Calvinism which is called Absolute Predestination to death. If Mr. T. denies, that it is the secoud pillar of his doctrine of grace, he may turn o Sect. II, where he will find his peculiar gospel 66 upon its legs,"

I hope I need say no more upon this head, to convince the unprejudiced reader, that Mr. T.'s arguments in favour of Calvinian Necessity are frivolous; and that Mr. Wesley advances a glaring truth, when he asserts, that, on the principle of Absolute Predestination, there can be no future Judgment; (upon any known principle of Wisdom, Equity, and Justice ;) and that it requires more pains than all rational creatures will be ever able to take, to reconcile the doctrine of (Calvinian) Reprobation, with the doctrine of a Judgment-day.

SECTION VIII.

An Answer to the Argument taken from God's PRESCIENCE, whereby Mr. Toplady tries to prove, that the VERY CRUELTY which Mr. Wesley charges on Calvinism, is really chargeable on the Doctrine of General Grace.

MR. Toplady is a spirited writer. He not only tries to reconcile Calvinian Reprobation with Divine Mercy, but he attempts to retort upon us the charge of holding a cruel doctrine.

ARG. LIX. (p. 47.)-"But what, if, after all, that very cruelty, which Mr. Wesley pretends to charge on Calvinism, be found really chargeable on Arminianism? I pledge myself to prove this-before I conclude this tract."-And accordingly (p. 86, 87) Mr. Toplady, after observing in his way, that, according to Mr. Wesley's doctrine, God offers his grace to many who put it from them,' and gives it to many who receive it in vain,' and who, on this account, are condemned: Mr. Toplady, I say, sums up his argument in these words : "If God knows that the offered grace will be rejected, 'twould be mercy to forbear the offer. Prove the contrary if you are able."