they have no where asserted—" that some men and angels "are foreordained to everlasting death, without any fore"sight of faith or good works." The Divines were incapable of such an assertion-they were incapable of writing such nonsense-nonsense, which the Doctor again and again palms upon them. They speak of the foreseen faith and good works of those who are saved.-This is intelligible-but they never speak, nor seem to speak, of the foreseen faith and good works of those who perish; of those who never believe nor do good works.-This would be

SHEER NONSENSE.

To prefer so absurd a charge against the Westminster Divines-a charge, to justify which, there is not in all their works one single syllable—is certainly a bold experiment on the credulity of the present age.

But again: The Westminster Divines no where assert, that the greater part of men are ordained to perdition. They no where assert, that the majority of Christians are foreordained to everlasting death. These are not the doctrines of the Confession of Faith; but the calumnies of Dr. Bruce.*

*Some years ago, an anonymous writer, subscribing himself "A REVEREND PRESBYTERIAN," attacked the Westminster Confession of Faith by misrepresentation. I endeavoured to defend, and to administer such chastisement, as I hoped would deter others from such a mode of attack. In this hope I soon found myself most sadly disappointed. Mr. M'Affee, then schoolmaster at White Abbey, with a hardihood seldom equalled, set to work, and wrote a pamphlet fraught with misrepresentations, misstatements, and forgeries. Of these I shall here exhibit a specimen. At the bottom of the 23d Page, we find the following bold and presumptuous appeal to the Westminster Confession." If," says Mr. M'Affee," the doctrine contained in the third "chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith be true, God has not "only chosen a certain number to everlasting life; but he has also pre"destined the remaining party to everlasting condemnation, to the "praise and glory of his grace." What! Predestinate men to condemuation to the praise and glory of his grace!" Yes, indeed! This doctrine-this most absurd and blasphemous doctrine-is forged by Mr. M'Affee, palmed on the Westminster Divines, recorded in different parts of his pamphlet, and the forgery stamped current by Mr. Drew, editor of the Imperial Magazine!!!

Again (Page 25th), he writes thus-"Take in plain terms the Cal"vinistic answer: God, from all eternity, doomed all those who will "perish at the last, without any foresight of faith or works to that "end." This ridiculous calumny, being exactly the same with that of Dr. B., requires no additional exposure I would only say in palliation, that I fondly hope these writers are not the inventors, but only the retailers of the calumny.

After misrepresenting the Westminster Divines and Synod of Dort-after laying to the charge of those venerable assemblies" things which they knew not," and imputing to them doctrines, the very reverse of those which they taught -after treating fellow Christians so unjustly and injuri ously, we will feel less surprise to find the learned Doctor misrepresenting Jews, Heathens, and Mahometans-preferring against them groundless accusations. We know,

"too," says the Doctor (P. 280), "that men were growing

more and more depraved, and that, except through the "medium of the Christian religion, not even the faintest "effort has ever yet been made to reclaim the world."

What! Were not efforts made under the patriarchal age? Were no efforts made under the legal dispensation? Did even the Heathens make no efforts? Does not every smatterer in history know, that thousands of efforts were

How

In reply to the question, Will all mankind be saved in the day of Judgment? Mr. M'Afee makes the Calvinist absurdly reply, " No; "because Christ did not die for all: he died only for the elect.' different is this forged answer from the following genuine Calvinistie reply-" All mankind will not be saved at the day of judgment; for "many of them live and die unbelievers, impenitent, and wicked!"

Mr. M'Affee charges me with granting, "that there is no such text in "the bible, as proves that God entered into covenant with Adam, as "the representative of his posterity"—I have granted NO SUCH

THING.

He charges me with saying, "that omniscience signifies the actual "knowledge of all things, that possibly can be known"-I have said

NO SUCH THING.

He says, I seem to triumph in asserting, that Dr. Clarke denies the "foreknowledge of God"—I have asserted NO SUCH THING.

He again affirms, that I "assert, without any qualification, that the "Doctor denies the foreknowledge of the deity" again affirm, that I have asserted NO SUCH THING, either with qualification, or without qualification.

When did I say these things? NEVER.-Where have I made such assertions? No WHERE.

These and similar misrepresentations, misstatements and forgeries, are doubtless believed by the opponents of Calvinism. The editor of the Imperial Magazine has stamped them current. Were this not the case and were it not that I am anxious to detact fraud, and prevent deception, I would have suffered them to pass without notice, leaving them to sink into merited oblivion.

Mr. M'Affee gives his pamphlet the modest title of "A RATIONAL AND SCRIPTURAL INVESTIGATION”—and, with characteristic humility, he declares, that "reason, founded on revelation, always makes a noble attack."—He seems, however, unfortunately, to have forgotten, that misrepresentations, misstatements, and forgeries, always make ♣

PISGRACEFUL ATTACK.

made to reclaim the world? Yes, efforts were made by patriarchs, priests and prophets; by poets and politicians; by orators and philosophers. Equally groundless and unjust is the accusation, which the Doctor prefers against the man who has not read his bible, (P. 6.) As to the conduct of providence, and the history of mankind, he has "not a notion of them beyond the period of his own ex"istence. So far is this accusation from being true, that many of those, who never read the bible, have nevertheless been the authors of histories-histories of providencehistories of mankind-histories extending backward centuries before their existence.

In describing the man who has not read his bible, our author adds and if he be so completely enveloped in "darkness concerning this life, he must be totally destitute "of any conception of a life to come." What! All who have not read the bible completely enveloped in darkness concerning this life! How contrary to fact is such an assertion!-Again; are such characters "totally destitute of 229 any conception of a life to come Let Socrates and Plato-Let Heathens in general-let Mahometans-let blind or uneducated Christians answer the question, All these will contradict the Doctor. With one voice they will answer-No.

66

These misrepresentations, I firmly believe, are not voluntary. They arise rather from confusion of ideas, than from any worse principle. That this is the most correct, as well as the most charitable conclusion, the following quotations clearly prove:

In Page 6th, he "The mind of the first"-the man says, who has not read his bible-" is a perfect vacuum as to "spiritual qualities and endowments; or, if not a vacuum, "it is a chaos. Except some vague instinctive principle, "or rather feeling of moral obligation, and some hearsay "notion of God, he is a stranger to morals and piety." How inconsistent is all this with what he asserts, P. 64. The moral maxims which he (Christ) sanctioned with his 36 authority, were no new discoveries. The leading princi"ples of Christian morality are to be found in the wri"tings of Heathen Philosophers."

Again, Pages 81 and 82, the Doctor writes thus :

"As soon as man was capable of reflecting on his own "nature and situation, he must have perceived, that there is a God, some Being superior to himself and his fellow

"mortals. When he looked abroad into the world, he "must have been satisfied, that the magnificence, order,

and beauty of the universe were the effects of consum "mate wisdom and power. When he surveyed the living "creatures around him, and contemplated the provision "made for their subsistence and comfort, he must have "been sensible that this superior Being is bountiful and "kind. As his experience and reflecting powers increased, "his conviction of these truths would be strengthened; till he acquired the idea of an invisible power, supremely "mighty, benevolent and wise. A more comprehensive "view of the the creation might naturally lead to a belief, "that the whole was the production of one Being, assisted, "perhaps, by subordinate agents. This last idea unhappily took such strong possession of the minds of men, as "to give rise to the various systems of idolatry, which pre"vailed throughout the Heathen world, and still maintains "its ground over a large portion of the globe. From "these errors, the Jewish nation alone was exempted ;* "and that only by a divine revelation. By such observa"tions and reflections, the mind of man might have at"tained a conception of the Divine Being, and of our "relation and duties to Him, sufficiently sublime and edi"fying; and there are not wanting instances of men, who so far availed themselves of the light of nature, as, in a great degree, to fulfil these expectations."

86

Who sees not the inconsistency of such sentiments? The man who has never read the bible, “ except some vague "instinctive principle, or rather feeling of moral obligation, "is a stranger to morals;" and yet he may read "the "leading principles of Christian morality in the writings of "the Heathen Philosophers!-He has only "hearsay no"tions of God;" and yet, by reflecting on himself, and contemplating other creatures, he might "attain a concep"tion of the Divine Being, and of our relation and duties "to Him, sufficiently sublime and edifying "

Such inconsistent and contradictory statements induce me to believe that the Doctor's misrepresentations frequently arise from an inadvertent and incoherent mode of

*So far were the Jews from being exempted from the errors of idol atry-as Dr. B. erroneously states-that "God gave them up to worship the host of Heaven!"

thinking. This circumstance, however, does not render them harmless, and, of course, it neither supersedes my duty to point them out, nor the reader's duty to beware of them.

I shall say no more at present on this painful subject. I would only caution my readers-Beware of quotations; beware of misrepresentations, beware of forgeries. "Be not deceived!"

OBJECTION IV.

I have another objection against the Doctor's mode of managing the controversy. He blends the sentiments of Antinomians, and other enthusiasts, with those of Calvinists. This is a piece of generalship unworthy of a learned Christian divine. The Antinomian sentiments of Crisp, Brierly, Hawker, &c.—and the raptures and rhapsodies of other enthusiasts, are held in as great abhorrence by Calvinists, as by any Socinians or Arians in the world. Were I to blend the sentiments of Socinians and Arians, and confound all distinctions between them, it is probable Dr. B. would conceive himself injured. As he would that Calvinists should do unto him, the learned Doctor should do also the same.

OBJECTION V.

Dr. Bruce's attack on Calvinism is liable to another strong objection. He has not studied the system he opposes. To show that this objection is well founded, and the censure it conveys just, I shall only quote two passages, one from his sermons, and the other from his Being and Attributes. In his sermons (p. 202) he writes thus:

"I ask, then, in the first place, did this decree originate "before or after the fall? This is a subject of controversy "with Predestinarians themselves, who are accordingly "divided between Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians.”

In this passage the Doctor has betrayed his ignorance of the Calvinistic system. "Did this decree originate before or after the fall?" What decree? No decree is mentioned in the preceding context. Without any previous notice, without any visible connexion, he leaps from original sin to the decrees of God.* From the subsequent context, how

*The instance noticed above, is not the only one calculated to show that Dr. B. is a writer extremely confused and incoherent; and that,