election, and the doctrines of impartial justice. And therefore, to unite these contending rivals, you need only prevail on the Arminians to bow to God's sovereignty, to acknowledge an unconditional election, and to receive the doctrines of partial grace; and as soon as they do this, they will be reconciled to Bible Calvinism and to all moderate Calvinists. And, on the other hand, if the Calvinists can be convinced that they should bow to God's equity, acknowledge a conditional election, and receive the doctrines of impartial justice, they will be reconciled to Bible Arminianism, and to all moderate Arminians. Should it be said that it is impossible to convince the Arminians of the truth of an unconditional election, &c, and that the Calvinists will never receive the doctrine of a conditional election, &c, I answer, that bigots of either party will not be convinced, because they all pretend to infallibility,, though they do not pretend to wear a triple crown. But the candid, on both sides of the question, lie open to conviction, and will, I hope, yield to the force of plain Scripture and sound reason, the two weapons with which I design to attack their prejudices.

But before I open my friendly attack, I beg leave, candid reader, to show thee the ground on which I will erect my Scriptural and rational batteries. It is made up of the following reasonable propositions:

(1.) When good men warmly contend about truth, you may in general be assured that, if truth can be compared to a staff, each party has one end of the staff, and that to have the whole you need only consistently hold together what they inconsiderately pull asunder. (2.) The Gospel contains doctrines of partial grace and unconditional election, as well as doctrines of impartial justice and conditional election. Nor can we embrace the whole truth of the Gospel, unless we consistently hold those seemingly contrary doctrines. (3.) Those opposite doctrines, which rigid Calvinists and Arminians suppose to be absolutely incompatible, agree as well together as the following pair of propositions: God has a throne of grace and a throne of justice; nor is the former throne inconsistent with the latter. God, as the Creator and Governor of mankind, sustains the double character of sovereign Benefactor, and righteous Judge: and the first of these characters is perfectly consistent with the second. This is the ground of my reconciling plan: and this ground is so solid, that I hardly think any unprejudiced person will ever enter his protest against it. Were divines to do it, they would render themselves as ridiculous as a pilot, who should suppose that the head and stern of the vessel he is called to conduct, can never be two essential parts of the same ship.

If Christianity were compared to a ship, the doctrines of grace might be likened to the fore part, and the doctrines of justice to the hinder part of it. This observation brings to my remembrance a quotation from Dr. Doddridge, which will help the reader to understand how it is possible that an election of grace, maintained by moderate Calvinists, and an election of justice, defended by moderate Arminians, may both be true: "I have long observed," says the judicious doctor, "that Christians of different parties have eagerly been laying hold on particular parts of the system of Divine truths, and have been contending about them as if each had been all; or as if the separation of the members from each other, and from the head, were the preservation of the

body, instead of its destruction. They have been zealous to espouse the defence, and to maintain the honour and usefulness of each part; whereas their honour as well as usefulness seems to me to lie much in their connection: and suspicions have often arisen between the respective defenders of each, which have appeared as unreasonable and absurd as if all the preparations for securing one part of a ship in a storm, were to be censured as a contrivance to sink the rest." In the name of God, the God of wisdom, truth, and peace, let then the defenders of the doctrines of grace cease to fall out with the defenders of the doctrines of justice, and let both parties seek the happy connection which Dr. Doddridge speaks of, and rejoice in the part of the truth peculiarly held by their brethren, as well as in that part of the Gospel to which they have hitherto been peculiarly attached.

Many good men, on both sides of the question, have at times pointed out the connection of the opposite doctrines, which are maintained in these sheets. Mr. Henry, a judicious Calvinist, does it in his notes on the parable of the talents, where he contends for the doctrines of partial grace and impartial justice, and exalts God both as a sovereign Benefactor, and a righteous Judge. Commenting upon these words, "Take therefore the talent from him" [the slothful servant] says he, "The talents were first disposed of by the master as an absolute owner, [that is, a sovereign benefactor, who does what he pleases with his own.] But this was now disposed of by him as a judge; he takes it from the unfaithful servant to punish him, and gives it to him that was eminently faithful to reward him." This is "rightly dividing the word of truth," and wisely distinguishing between the throne of grace and that of justice.

Dr. John Heylin, a judicious Arminian, in his discourse on 1 Tim. iv, 10, is as candid as Mr. Henry in the above-quoted note; for he stands up for God's sovereignty and the doctrine of partial grace, as much as Mr. Henry does for God's equity and the doctrine of impartial justice. After pointing out in strong terms the error of those who, by setting aside the doctrines of justice, "sap* the foundation of all religion, which is the moral character of the Deity," he adds:

"Nor, on the other hand, dot they less offend against the natural prerogative, I mean the absolute sovereignty of God, who deny him the free exercise of his bounty, as they seem too much inclined to do who are backward to believe the great disparity among mankind with regard to a future state, which revelation always supposes. His mercy is over all his works, but that mercy abounds to some much more than to others, according to the inscrutable counsel of his own will.' Nor is there a shadow of injustice in such unequal distribution of his favours. The term favours implies freedom in bestowing them; else they were not favours, but debts. The almighty Maker is master of all his productions. Both matter and form are his: all is gift, all is bounty; nor may the lizard complain of his size, because there are crocodiles; nor is the worm injured by the creation of an eagle."

I shall conclude this section by producing the sentiments of two persons, whose authority is infinitely greater than that of Mr. Henry and * He means the rigid Calvinists.

He means the rigid Arminians.

Dr. Heylin. Who exceeds St. Paul in orthodoxy? And yet what Calvinist ever maintained the doctrines of grace more strongly than he does? "By the grace of God," says he, "I am what I am," 1 Cor. xv, 10. By grace you are saved [that is, admitted into the high state of Christian salvation] through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God:" [a special gift, which God has kept back from far the greatest part of the world;] "not of works, lest any man should boast," Eph. ii, 8. "At this time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works, other. wise grace is no more grace," Rom. xi, 5, 6. "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us," or made us partakers of the glorious privileges of Christians, which he has denied to millions of the human race," Tit. iii, 5. "He is the Saviour of all men, especially. of those that believe;" for he saves "Christians with" a special salvation, which is called "the great salva. tion,” 1 Tim. iv, 10; Heb. iii, 3. Christ indeed "is not the propitiation for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world," 1 John ii, 2. Nevertheless, he is especially our Mediator, our passover or paschal Lamb, and “the High Priest of our Christian profession, in whom God hath chosen us Christians before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy" above all people: "having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, to the praise of the glory of his grace:" a high adoption, which is so superior to that to which the Jews had been predestinated in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, that St. Paul spends part of his Epistle to the Ephesians in asserting the honour of it, and in extolling the glory of the peculiar grace given unto us in Christ. And if you exclaim against this Divine partiality, the apostle silences you by a just appeal to God's sovereignty: sce Rom. ix, 20.

But was St. Paul Calvinistically partial? Did he so contend for the doctrines of grace, as to cast a veil over the doctrines of justice? Stands he not up for the latter, as boldly as he does for the former? What Arminian ever bowed before the throne of Divine justice more deeply than he does in the following scriptures? "God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love," Heb. vi, 10. "I have fought the good fight, &c. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day, 2 Tim. iv, 7, 8. These passages strongly support the doctrines of justice, but those which follow may be considered as the very summit of Scripture Arminianism. "Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord," Eph. vi, 8. "Whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, &c, knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that does wrong shall receive [adequate punishment] for the wrong which he hath done," Col. iii, 23, &c. "We must all appear before the judgment scat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that which he hath done, whether it be good or bad," 2 Cor. v, 10. "In the day of wrath and revelation of his righteous judgment, God will render to every man according to his deeds; eternal life to them who, by patient continuance in well doing, seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but indignation and wrath to them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey un

righteousness, &c; for [before the throne of justice] there is no respect of persons with God," Rom. ii, 5, &c.

Should it be asked how these seemingly contrary doctrines of grace and justice can be reconciled, I reply, They agree as perfectly together as the first and second advent of our Lord. At his first coming he sustained the gracious character of a Saviour; and at his second coming he will sustain the righteous character of a Judge. Hear him explaining the mystery, which is hid from the rigid Calvinists and the rigid Arminians. Speaking of his first coming, he says:-"I came not to judge the world, but to save the world," by procuring for mankind different talents of initial salvation: a less number for the heathens, more for the Jews, and most for the Christians, who are his most pecu. liar people: "for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved," John xii, 47; iii, 17. "The Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," Luke xix, 10. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain," John xv, 16. Here are doctrines of grace! But did our Lord so preach these doctrines as to destroy those of justice? Did he so magnify his coming to save the world, as to make nothing of his coming to judge the world? No: hear him speaking of his second advent: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory, and before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one from another, [them that have done good from them that have done evil,] and these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal," Matt. xxv, 31, 32, 46. "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be," Rev. xxii, 12. "For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his [the Son of man's] voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good unto the resurrection of life: and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation," John v, 28, 29. Here are doctrines of justice! And the man who says that such doctrines are not as Scriptural as the above-mentioned doctrines of grace, may as well deny the succession of day and night.

But

Dr. Watts, in his excellent book entitled, Orthodoxy and Charity United, gives us a direction which will suitably close the preceding appeal to the Scriptures :-" Avoid," says he, "the high flights and extremes of zealous party men, &c. You will tell me, perhaps, that Scripture itself uses expressions as high upon particular occasions, and as much leaning to extremes as any men of party among us. remember, then, that the Scripture uses such strong and high expressions not on one side only, but on both sides, and infinite wisdom hath done this more forcibly to impress some present truth or duty but while it is evident the holy writers have used high expressions, strong figures of speech, and vehement turns on both sides, this sufficiently instructs us that we should be moderate in our censures of either side, and that the calm, doctrinal truth, stript of all rhetoric and figures, lies nearer to the middle, or at least that some of these appearing extremes are more reconcilable than angry men will generally allow. If the apostle charges the Corinthians, So run that ye may obtain,' 1 Cor.

ix, 24; and tells the Romans, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy,' Rom. ix, 16; we may plainly infer that our running and his mercy our diligence and Divine grace are both necessary to salvation."

From all these scriptures it evidently follows: (1.) That as God is both a Benefactor and a Governor, a Saviour and a Judge, he has both a throne of grace, and a throne of justice. (2.) That those believers are highly partial who worship only before one of the Divine thrones, when the sacred oracles so loudly bid us to pay our homage before both. (3.) That the doctrines of grace are the statutes and decrees issuing from the former throne: and that the doctrines of justice are the statutes and decrees issuing from the latter. (4.) That the principal of all the doctrines of grace is, that there is an election of grace: and that the principal of all the doctrines of justice is, that there is an election of justice. (5.) That the former of those elections is unconditional and partial; as depending merely on the good pleasure of our gracious Benefactor and Saviour: and that the latter of those elections is conditional and impartial; as depending merely on the justice and equity of our righteous Governor and Judge: for justice admits of no partiality, and equity never permits a ruler to judge any men but such as are free agents, or to sentence any free agent, otherwise than ac cording to his own works. (6.) That the confounding or not properly distinguishing those two elections, and the reprobations which they draw after them, has filled the Church with confusion, and is the grand cause of the disputes which destroy our peace. And (lastly) that to restore peace to the Church, these two elections must be fixed upon their proper Scriptural basis, which is attempted in the following section.

SECTION III.

Eight pair of opposite propositions, on which the opposite doctrines of grace and justice are founded, and which may be considered as the basis of Bible Calvinism and Bible Arminianism, and as a double key to open the mysteries of election and reprobation.