are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them, Matt. xiii. 14, 15.

1. Pharaoh hardened his heart, and hearkened not, Ex. viii. 15.-Zedekiah stiffened his neck, and hardened his heart from turning unto the Lord, 2 Chr. xxxvi. 13.-Take heed lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, Heb. iii. 13.-Happy is the man that feareth alway: But he that hardeneth his heart [as Pharaoh did] shall fall into mischief, [God will give him up,] Prov. xxviii. 14.-They are without excuse : because when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, &c. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, &c. For this cause God gave them up to vile affections, &c. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, Rom. ii. 20, 28.

1. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? Gen. xviii. 25.-That thou mighest be justified in thy saying, and clear when thou art judged. Ps. li. 4. Com. Pr.

Who but Zelotes could justify an imaginary being, that should, by the channel of irresistible decrees, pour sin and wrath into vessels made on purpose to hold both; and should call himself the God of love, the Holy One of Israel, and a God of judgment? Nay, who would not detest a king, who should absolutely contrive the contracted wickedness and crimes of his subjects, that he might justly sentence them to eternal torments, to show his sovereignty and power?

The rigid Calvinists triumph greatly in this objection started by St. Paul: They suppose, that it can be reasonably levelled at no doctrine but their own, which teaches that God by irresistible decrees has unconditionally ordained some men to eternal life, and others to eternal death; and therefore, their doctrine is that of the apostle. To show the absurdity of this conclusion, I need only remind the reader once more, that in this chapter St. Paul establishes two doctrines; (1) That God may admit whom he will into the covenant of peculiarity, out of pure distinguishing, sovereign grace: And (2) That he has an absolute right of hardening whom he will upon the gospel terms, i. e. of taking the talent of † softening grace from all that imitate the obstinate unbelief of Pharoah, such inflexible unbelievers being the only people whom God will harden, or give up to a reprobate mind. Now in both these respects the objection proposed is pertinent, as the apostle's answers plainly show. With regard to the first doctrine, that is, the doctrine of that distinguishing grace, which puts more honour upon one vessel than upon another; calling Abraham to be the Lord's pleasant vessel, whilst Lot or Moab is only his wash-pot; the apostle answers: "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" Why am I a wash-pot, and not a pleasant vessel ? "Hath not the potter power over the clay ?" &c. Besides, is it not a blessing to be comparatively a vessel to dishonour? Had not Ishmael

and Esau a blessing, though it was inferior to that of Isaac and Jacob? Is not a wash-pot as good in its place as a drinking cup? Is not a righteous Gentile,-a Melchisedec, or a Job, &c. as acceptable to God according to his dispensation, as a devout Jew and a sincere Christian according to their's?-With respect to the second doctrine, that of hardening obstinate unbelievers, and making his wrathful power known upon them; of tacitly granting, that it is impossible to resist God's absolute will, the apostle intimates in his laconic, and yet comprehensive way of writing, that God has a right to find fault with, and display his wrathful power upon hardened sinners, because he hardens none, but such as have personally made themselves vessels of wrath, and fitted themselves for destruction by doing despite to the Spirit of his grace, instead of improving their day of initial salvation: And he insinuates,

"

Mr. Henry comments thus upon these words, "I will harden his heart, i. e. withdraw his softening grace,' which God undoubtedly did upon just provocation. Whence it follows, that, inconsistent Calvinists being judges, Pharoah himself had once softening grace; it being impossible for God to withdraw from Pharoah's heart what never was there. Query: Was this softening grace which God withdrew from Pharoah, of the reprobating or of the electing kind?

that even then God, instead of presently dealing with them according to their deserts, endures them with much long-suffering, which, according to St. Peter's doctrine, is to be accounted a degree of salvation. Therefore, in both senses the objection is pertinently proposed, and justly answered by the apostle, without the help of sovereign free-wrath and Calvinistic reprobation.

1. Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? Rom. ix. 21.

I have observed again and again that the apostle with his two edged sword defends two doctrines 1. The right which God, as our sovereign benefactor, has to give five talents, or one talent, to whom he pleases, that is, to admit some people to the covenant of peculiarity, while he leaves others under a more general dispensation of grace and favour. Thus a Jew was once a vessel to honour,—a person honoured far above a Gentile; and a Gentile in comparison to a Jew, might be called a vessel to dishonour; Moab to use again the Psalmist's expression, was once only God's wash-pot, Ps lx. 8; whilst Israel was his pleasant vessel : But now the case is altered: The Jews are nationally become the vessel wherein is no treasure, and the Gentiles are the pleasant vessel. And where is the injustice of this proceeding? If a potter may make of the same lump of clay what vessel he pleases, some for the dining-room and others for the meanest apartment, all good and useful in their respective places; why should not God have the same liberty? Why should he not, if he chooses it, place some moral vessels above others, and raise the Gentiles to the honour of being his peculiar people :-an unspeakable honour this, which was before granted to the Jews only.

2. The vessel that he [the potter] made of clay, was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again into another vessel, as seemed good to the potter, &c. O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter, says the Lord, &c. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, &c. to destroy it [for its wickedness :] If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil I will repent of the evil, that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, &c. to build it, if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.

When St. Paul wrote Rom. ix. 21, he had probably an eye to the preceding passage of Jeremiah, which is alone sufficient to rectify the mistakes of Zelotes: there being scarce a stronger text to prove, that God's decrees respecting our salvation and destruction are conditional. Never did "Serjeant If" guard the genuine doctrines of grace more valiantly, or give Calvinism a more desperate thrust, than he does in the potter's house by the pen of Jeremiah. However, lest that prophet's testimony should not appear sufficiently weighty to Zelotes, I strengthen it by an express declaration of God himself.

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord; and not that he should return from his ways and live? Yet ye say, the way of the Lord is not equal [in point of election to eternal life, and appointment to eternal death.] Hear now, O house of Israel, Is not my way equal? When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, &c. for his iniquity shall he die. Again, When a wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, &c. he shall save his soul alive, Ez. xxxiii. 17, &c.

The apostle's second doctrine respects ve sels of mercy and vessels of wrath, which in the present case must be carefully distinguished from the vessels to honour or to nobler uses, and the vessels to dishonour, or to less noble uses: And, if I mistake not, this distinction is one of those things which, as St. Peter observes, are hard to be understood in Paul's epistles. The importance of is appears from this consideration that God may, as a just and gracious sovereign absolutely make a moral vessel for a more or less honourable use, as he pleases; such a prefer ence of one vessel to another being no more inconsistent with divine goodness, than the king's appointing one of his subjects lord of the bedchamber, and another only groom of the stable, is inconsistent with royal good nature: But this is not the case with respect to vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath. If you insinuate with Zelotes, that an absolute God, to show his absolute love and wrath, absolutely made some men to fill them unconditionally and eternally with love and mercy, and others to fill them unconditionally and eternally with hatred and wrath, by way of reward and punishment, you charge the truth of God into a lie, and serve the great Diana of the Calvinists more than the righteous judge of all the earth. Whatever Zelotes may think of it, God never made an adult a vessel of eternal mercy, that did not first submit to the obedience of faith: nor did he ever absolutely look upon any man as a vessel of wrath, that had not by personal, obstinate unbelief first fitted himself for destruction. Considering then the comparison of the potter, as referring in a secondary sense to the vessels of mercy, and to the vessels of wrath, it conveys the following rational and scriptural ideas: May not God, as the righteous

Maker of moral vessels, fill with mercy or with wrath whom he will, according to his essential wisdom and rectitude? May he not shed abroad his pardoning mercy and love in the heart of a believing Gentile, as well as in the breast of a believing Jew? And may he not give up to a reprobate mind, yea fill with the sense of his just wrath, a stubborn Jew, a Caiaphas, as well as a refractory Gentile, a Pharoah? Have not Jews and Gentiles a common origin? And may not the Author of their common existence, as their impartial lawgiver, determine to save or damn individuals, upon the gracious and equitable terms of his gospel dispensations? Is he bound absolutely to give all the blessings of the Messiah's kingdom to Abraham's posterity, and absolutely to reprobate the rest of the world? Has a Jew more right to reply against God than a Gentile? When God propounds his terms of salvation, does it become any man to say to him that formed him, Why hast thou made me thus subject to thy government? Why must I submit to thy terms? If God without injustice could appoint, that Christ should descend from Isaac, and not from Ishmael :-If, before Esau and Jacob had done any good or evil, he could fix that the blood of Jacob, and not that of Esau, should run in his Son's veins; though Esau was Isaac's child, as well as Jacob: how much more may he, without breaking the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, fix, that the free-willing believer, whether Jew or Gentile, shall be a vessel of mercy prepared for glory chiefly by free-grace; and that the free-willing unbeliever, shall be a vessel of wrath, fitted chiefly by free will for just destruction? Is not this doctrine agreeable to our Lord's expostulation, With the light of life, which lightens every man, you will not come unto me that you might have life-more abundant life-yea, life for evermore? Does it not perfectly tally with the great, irrespective decrees of conditional election and reprobation, He that believeth and is baptized, that is, he that shews his faith by correspondent works, when his Lord comes to reckon with him shall be saved: And he that believeth not, though he were baptized, shall be damned? And is it not astonishing, that when St Paul's meaning in Rom. ix, can be so easily opened by the silver and golden key, which God himself had sent us from heaven, I mean reason and scripture, so many pious divines should go to Geneva, and humbly borrow Calvin's wooden and iron key, I mean his Election and Reprobation? Two keys these, which are in as great repute among injudicious protestants, as the keys of his Holiness are among simple papists. Nor do I see what great difference there is between the Romish and the Geneva keys: If the former opened and shut a fool's paradise, or a knave's purgatory, do not the latter shut us all up in finished salvation, or finished damnation?

Zelotes indeed does not often use the power of the keys: one key does generally for him. He is at times so ashamed of the iron key, which is black and heavy; and so pleased with the wooden key, which is light and finely gilt; that instead of holding them out fairly and jointly as St. Peter's pictures do the keys of hell and heaven, he makes the shining key alone glitter in the sight of his

2. Shall [natural] evil be in the city, and the Lord hath not done it [for the punishment of the ungodly, and for the greater good of the godly?] Amos iii. 6.

charmed hearers. Now and then however, when he is driven to a corner by a judicious opponent, he pulls out his iron key, and holding it forth in triumph he asks, Who has resisted his will? To these wrested words of St. Paul, he probably adds two or three perverted scriptures. Which I beg leave to weigh next in my Scales.

1. They have [done moral evil]-they have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons with fire, &c. which I commanded them not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind -neither came it into my heart, Jer. xix. 5. vii. 31. The sceptre of thy kingdom is a right scepre: Thou lovest tighteousness and hatest wickedness, Ps. xlv. 7.-Abhor that which is evil, Rom. xii. 7.-Thus saith the Lord, I will bring [natural] evil upon this city, &c. because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words, Jer. xix. 15. Therefore, when David says, that “The Lord does whatsoever pleaseth him," he does not speak either of man's sin or duty but only of God's own work, which HE absolutely intends to perform: 1. Not of man's sin; for God is not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness, Ps. v. 4.-Nor 2. of man's duty for, though a master may do his servant's work, yet he can never do his servant's duty, It can never be a master's duty to obey his own commands. The servant must do it himself, or his duty [as duty] must remain for ever undone.

2. There are certain men, &c. who were 1. Ungodly men, turning the grace of our before of old ordained† to this condemnation, God into lasciviousness, and denying &c. The words Talaι πpoyεypаμμεvot rendered before of old ordained, literally mean formerly fore-written, fore-typified, or fore-described: The condemnation of these backsliders, or apostates, was of old fore written by

&c. [namely the codemnation of the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, [whom] he [God] hath reserved in everlasting chains unto the judgment of the great day, Jude verse 4, 6.

2. To them that are disobedient, &c. he is a rock of offence, even to them who stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed: [Or rather] whereunto [namely, to being disobedient] they † have even disposed, [or] settled themselves, 1 Pet. ii. 7, 8.

our Lord Jesus Christ, [as lawgiver, judge, and king.] &c. These be they who separate themselves [from their self-denying brethren,] sensual, not having the spirit, [i. e. having quenched the spirit]-walking after their own lusts; and their mouth, speaking great swelling words [whereby they creep in unawares into rich widows' houses; seducing the fattest of the flock, and] having men's persons in admiration because of advantage, Verse 4, 16, 19.

1. Ye will not come to me that ye might have life, John v. 40.-Ye put the word of God from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, Acts xiii. 46.

David, Ps. cxxv. ; and by Ezekiel, Chap. xviii. 24. Their lusts were of old fore-typified by those of Sodom z the apostacy, by that of the fallen angels; and their perdition, by that of the Israelites, whom the Lord saved out of the land of Egypt, and afterwards destroyed for their unbelief: Three typical descriptions these, which St. Jude himself immediately produces, verse, 5, 6, 7, together wi h "Enoch's prophecy of the Lord's coming to convince them of all their ungodly deeds and hard speeches." Ver. 15, 17. Is it not strange then, that Zelotes should build his notions of absolute reprobation upon a little mistake of our translators, which is contrary both to the Greek and to the context? 'Beloved, say St. Jude, verse 17, remember ye the words [πpwεionμεvw v fore-spoken, answering to poyεypaμμɛvo fore-written, and not fore-appointed] which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ" For the apostles, no doubt, often enlarged upon these words of their master, Because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall wax cold [and they will fall away;] but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."

A beautiful face may have some freckels. Our translation is good, but it has its blemishes; nor is it one of the least to represent God as appoin.ing men to be disobedient. To vindicate all the divine perfections, which such a doctrine injures, of the two meaniugs that the word fairly bears in the original, I need only choose that which is not repugnant to reason and scripture. If charity, which thinketh no evil, and hopeth all things consistently with reason-if charity, I say, obliges us to put the best construction upon the words of our neighbour, how much more should decency oblige us to do it with respect to the word of God? When a modest person drops a word, that bears either a chaste or an unchaste meaning, is it not cruel absolutely to fix the unchaste meaning upon it? To shew that St. Peter's words bear the meaning, which I fix to them, I need only prove two things: 1. That the original word εTεnoav, which is translated appointed, means also settled or disposed: And 2. that a passive word in the Greek tongue frequently bears the meaning of the Hebrew, Hermaphrodite-voice, called Hithpael, which signifies a making oneself to do a thing, or a being caused by oneself to do it: a voice this, which in some degree answers to the middle voice of the Greeks, some tenses of which equally bear an active or a passive sense. To prove the first point, I appeal only to two texts, where the word inμt undoubtedly bears the meaning, which I contend for, Luke xxi. 14, 0ɛσe settle it in your hearts: And Luke ix. 62, evεTOS fit, or more literally well disposed for the kingdom of God.-And to prove my second proposition, [besides what I have already said upon that head, in my note upon Mr. Madan's mistake, p. 94] 1 present the critical reader with indubitable instances of it, even in our translation. Jude, verse 10, pepovraι, They are corrupted, or, They corrupt themselves.—2 Cor. xi. 13, μeтaoxnμatioμɛvoi, being transformed, or transforming themselves.—Acts xviii. 6. AVTWV AVTITAσooμɛvwv, literally, they being opposed or as we have it in our Bibles, when they opposed themselves.—John xx 14, εσтpa¶n, she (Mary) was turned, or, she turned herself.-Matt. xvi. 22. Jesus Grpapeis being turned, or, turning himself.-Matt, xxvii. 3. Judas μεταμεληθεις, having been penitent or having repented himself, &c. &c. In such cases as these, the sacred writers use indifferently the active and the passive voice, because man acts, and is acted upon:-he is worked upon, and he works. Thus we read Acts

iii. 19. εTISTρEATE, Convert, namely, yourselves, actively: though our translators render it passively Be converted. And Luke xxii. 32, our Lord speaking to Peter, does not say, επicтpages, when thon art converted, passively; but actively, εTITpeas, when thou hast converted, namely, thyself. Now if in so many cases our translators have justly rendered passive words, by words expressing a being acted upon by ourselves, I desire Zelotes to show by any one good argument taken from criticism, scripture, reason, conscience, or decency, that we must render the word of our text they were appointed, namely by God, to be disobedient, when the word εTεnoav may with as much propriety in all the preceding cases, be rendered they disposed, set, or settled themselves unto disobedience. What has the Holy One of Israel done to us, that we should dishonour him by charging our disobedience upon his appointment? Are we so fond of the new doctrines of grace, finished salvation, and finished damnation, that in order to maintain the latter, we must represent God as appointing, out of sovereign, distinguishing free-wrath, the disobedience of the reprobates, that by securing the means-their unbelief and sin, he may also secure the end-their everlasting burnings?

Zelotes makes too much of some strong figurative expressions in the sacred writings. He forgets that what is said of God must always be understood in a manner that becomes God. It would be absurd to take literally what the scriptures say of God plucking his right hand out of his bosom,-of his awakening as one out of sleep, -of his riding upon the heavens,-of his smelling a sweet savour from a burnt offering,-of his lending an ear, &c. is it not much more absurd to take the three following texts in a literal sense? 1. 2 Sam. xvi. 10. "The Lord said unto him [Shimei] Curse David," Is it not evident, that David's meaning in these words is only this? "The Lord. by bringing me to the deplorable circumstances, in which I now find myself, has justly given an opportunity to Shimei to insult me with impunity, and to upbraid me publicly with my crimes. This opportunity I call a bidding, to humble myself under the hand of God, who lashes my guilty soul by this afflictive providence,

good? If Zelotes shudders at his own doctrine, and finds himself obliged to grant, that so long at least as Adam stood, Cain, Esau, Saul, and Judas stood with him, and in him were actually loved, conditionally chosen and wonderfully blessed of God in paradise; it follows, that the doctrine of God's everlasting hate, and of the eternal absolute rejection of those whom Zelotes considers as the four great reprobates, is founded on the grossest contradiction imaginable.

I shall close the preceding scriptures by some arguments, which shew the absurdity of supposing, that there can be any free-wrath in a just and good God: 1. When Adam, with all his posterity in his loins, came forth out of the hands of his Maker, he was pronounced very good as being made in the likeness of God, and after the image of him, who is a perfect compound of every possible perfection. God spake those words in time; but, if we believe Zelotes, the supposed decree of absolute, personal rejection, was made before time; God having fixed from all eternity, that Esau should be absolutely hated. Now as Esau stood in and with Adam, before he fell in and with him; and as God could not but consider him as standing and righteous, before he considered him fallen and sinful; it necessarily follows, either that Calvinism is a system of false doctrine; or, that the God of love, holiness, and equity, once hated his righteous creature, once reprobated the innocent, and said by his decree, "Cain, Esau, Saul, and Judas are very good, for they are seminal parts of Adam my son, whom I pronounced very good, Gen. i. 31, But I actu ally hate those parts of my unsullied work manship without any actual cause I detest mine own perfect image. Yea, I turn my eyes from their present complete goodness, that I may hate them for their future, pre-ordained iniquity." Suppose the God of love had transformed himself into the evil Princi. ple of the Manichees, what could he have done worse than thus to hate with immortal hatred, and absolutely to reprobate his innocent, his pure, his spotless offspring, at the very time in which he pronounced it very 3. But this is only part of the mischief that but I would not insinuate that God literally said to Shimei, "Curse David," any more than I would affirm that he said to me, "Murder Uriah."

2. But Zelotes possibly complains, that I am unfair, because I point out the deformity of his "doctrine of grace," without saying one word of its beauty. 66 Why do you not, says he, speak of God's absolute everlasting love to Jacob, as well as of his absolute everlasting hate to Esau, Pharoah, and Judas? Is it right to make always the worst of things?" Indeed, Zelotes, if I am not mistaken, your absolute election is full as subversive of Christ's gospel as your absolute reprobation. The Scripture informs us, that when Adam fell he lost the favour, as well as the Image of God; and that he became a vessel of wrath from head to foot: but if everlasting changeless love still embraced innumerable parts of his seed, his fall was by no means so grievous and universal as the Scriptures represent it :-For a multitude, which no man can number, ever stood, and shall ever stand on the Rock of Ages; a rock this, which, if ye believe Zelotes, is made up of unchangeable, absolute, sovereign, everlas ting love of the elect, and of unchangeable absolute soverign everlasting wrath, for the reprobates.

2. God is represented, 2 Sam. xii. as saying to David, "I will take thy wives before thing eyes, and give them to thy neighbour, and he shall be with them in the face of the sun, for thou didst it secretly, but I will do it before all Israel :" And accordingly God took the bridle of restraining power out of Absalom's heart, who had already murdered his own brother, and was, it seems, by that time a vessel of wrath self-fitted for destruction. The divine restraint being thus removed, the corrupted youth rushed upon the outward commissions of those crimes, which he had perhaps a hundred times committed in intention and from which the Lord hath hitherto kept him out of regard to his pious father:-A regard this, which David had now forfeited by his atrocious crimes. The meaning of the whole passage seems then to be this: "Thou shalt be treated as thou hast served Uriah. Thy wild son Absalom has already robbed thee of thy crown, and defiled thy wives in his ambitious libidinous heart. When thou wast a good man; a man after my own heart, I hindered him from going such lengths in wickedness, but now I will hinder him no more: He shall be thy scourge; Thou sinnedst secretly against Uriah, but I will stand in the way of thy wicked son no longer, and he shall retaliate before the Sun. This implies only a passive permission, and a pro vidential opportunity to commit a crime outwardly. Nor could wicked men ever proceed to the external execution of their designs without such opportunities.

3. By a like figure of speech we read, Ps. cv. 25, that" God turned the heart of the Egyptians to hate his people and to deal subtily with his servants." But how did he do this? Was it by doing the devil's work? by infusing hatred into the hearts of the Egyptians? No: It was merely by blessing and multiplying the Israelites, as the preceding words demonstrate. He increased his people greatly, and made them stronger than their enemies." Hence it was that fear, envy, jealousy, and hatred were naturally stirred up in the breasts of the Egyptians. 1 repeat it not to explain such scriptures in a manner becoming the God of holiness, is far more detestable than to assert, that the Ancient of Days literally wears a robe, and his own white hair, because Daniel, after having seen an emblematic vision of his majesty and purity, said, "His garment as white as snow, and the hair of his head was like the pure wool." For every body must allow, that it is far less indecent literally to hold forth God as venerable old Jacob, than to represent him literally as a mischievous, sin-infusing Belial.

4. With regard to Jer. xx. 7," O Lord thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived," Mr. Sellon justly observes 1. That the Hebrew word, here translated deceive, signifies also to entice or persuade, as the margin shews. And 2. That the context requires the last sense; the prophet expressing his natural backwardness to preach, and, saying, “O Lord thou hast persuaded me (to do it) and I was persuaded." It is a pity, that when a word has two meanings,the one honourable, and the other injurious to God, the worse should once be preferred to the better. If Zelotes takes these hints, he will no more avail himself of some figurative expressions, and of some mistakes of our translators; to represent God as the author of sin, and the deceiver of men. When wicked men have long resisted the truth, God may indeed and frequently does judicially give them up to believe a destructive lie; but he as no more the author of the lie, than he is Beelzebub, the father of lies.