are not conditions in the sense of merit." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us." Titus 3: 5. * We admit that in the sense just stated, Presbyterians do teach "unconditional election," meaning thereby to exclude all merit of good works, from the idea of salvation by grace. And so long as they believe the Scriptures, they can teach no otherwise. But this is not saying that men can be saved without faith and repentance. The case is even more obvious in regard to what Messrs. Foster and Simpson call "unconditional reprobation;" i. e. men are damned without any fault of theirs"—“given an existence which they are compelled to employ in sin," &c.! If any thing further is necessary on this point, we refer to the Commentary of that eminently judicious writer, Dr. Scott: "Wickedness foreseen," he says, "is doubtless the cause of the Lord's purpose to condemn; because it is of a man's self by nature, and God condemns none who do not justly deserve it. But holiness foreseen in a fallen creature cannot be the cause of his election; because it is the effect of new-creating grace and never comes from any other source. Thus preterition," continues Dr. Scott, " or non-election of a fallen creature, is not gratuitous, but merited; election, shown in regeneration, is gratuitous." "God may justly leave fallen creatures to themselves, to proceed in rebellion and sink into destruction. He might justly have left all it is of infinite mercy that any are saved." "Thus he makes them (the saved) willing by regeneration, as says the Psalmist, Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power;' but those who are not thus willing and diligent, are not made unwilling by any positive act of God; but their unwillingness is the consequence of pride, self-will, &c." "The words, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,' imply that all deserved wrath: so that the lump of clay in the hands of the potter,' must refer to men existing in God's foreknowledge as * Works, vol. iv. pp. 50, 51. fallen creatures." "The language used" (Rom. 9:22, 23), adds Dr. Scott, "viz. 'vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,' is not that God had 'fitted them;' but of the vessels of mercy it is, ‘he had afore prepared them unto glory.'"* The difference in the two forms of speech is striking and instructive, as Dr. Scott well observes. Is this the same as "unconditional reprobation," or that "God makes men sinners as a pretense to damn them?" It would be easy to show that "Reprobation" as now explained, is the common doctrine of the Presbyterian church. "God CANNOT punish creatures as such," says Dr. Ridgely, "but as criminals and rebels; and he must be supposed to have considered them as such, when in his eternal purpose he determined to punish them."† Is this unconditional reprobation? In like manner, Dr. John Owen, that giant Calvinist of two centuries ago, second only to the illustrious Calvin himself, when accounting for the fact that "the work of the Holy Spirit is often ineffectual and imperfect upon the hearts of men," employs the following language: "They faint not for want of strength to proceed; but by a free act of their own will, they refuse the grace which is further tendered unto them in the gospel. This will, and its resistance to the work of the Spirit, God is pleased in some to take away; but the sin of men and their guilt is in it, where it is con * * * tinued." ‡ Is this the same as to say: "God's eternal decree * * compels them to sin till they drop into everlasting burnings."§ Such, then, is the doctrine of Reprobation as held in the Presbyterian church. Woods, Scott, Ridgely, Owen, are standard authorities among sound Calvinists. To allege that such men did not comprehend the logical bearings of their own scheme of doctrine, but by such statements only involved themselves in "great confusion, perplexity and contradic See his Com. on Rom. 9. † Vol. i. p. 491. ? Foster's "Objections," &c. p. 100. tion," * will serve only to produce a smile on the countenance of every intelligent man. Especially when such charges originate with those who had previously prejudged Calvinism to be worse than Atheism. LETTER VIII. PREDESTINATION-ELECTION-REPROBATION. REV. SIR-The doctrine of Election, as it has been stated in previous Letters, would seem to possess no element which ought to be offensive to any devout mind. It is God's purpose of grace and mercy toward his fallen creatures, and embraces chiefly the following propositions : 1. Man is by nature a guilty and ruined being, having hopelessly destroyed himself by his sin. 2. His most merciful Sovereign provides, at infinite expense, an all-sufficient remedy in the life and death of his Son. 3. This remedy the whole race of guilty rebels, if left to their native stubbornness of heart, would certainly reject and despise, and thus increase their guilt and punishment. 4. He sends his Holy Spirit to subdue and soften the hearts of all who ever become reconciled-having graciously purposed to pardon and restore as many of the rebel race as to his infinite wisdom seemed most consistent with his holy and beneficent authority in the universe. 5. This system of grace was determined and agreed upon in the counsels of eternity, in view of the helpless ruin and misery of mankind-thus election is eternal, not a sudden and unexpected provision for the occasion. Such is the doctrine of election to eternal life. But the question is instantly presented: Why does not God save more-why not save all? This inquiry is urged with great *Foster's "Objections," p. 29. pertinacity by Universalists, and seems to have been adopted by some Arminians. We might retort upon the latter by inquiring: Why did not God provide salvation for fallen angels? Why, since all power is in his hands, did he create two races of beings which were infallibly certain to be involved in sin, and many of them to suffer endless misery? Why does he continue, even under the gospel, to bring into being thousands upon thousands in each succeeding generation, who, he infallibly foresees, will, after a brief existence. in this world, be plunged in the abyss of ceaseless sin and hopeless suffering? Yea, millions whose guilt and misery will be greatly increased by abused mercies-salvation offered but despised. These are questions which are too high for us—we cannot attain unto them-for who by searching can find out God? Yet they are equally embarrassing to the Arminian. In cases of treason or rebellion against human governments, we know that mercy has often been exercised toward a part, even those not less guilty than others; while the interests of justice and the safety of the innocent seemed to demand the execution of the penalty of the law upon the rest. A procedure which is eminently wise and merciful, and even the dictate of benevolence in order to the stability and permanence of lawful authority, regarding, as it must, the welfare of the whole, may well be transferred from the Executive of Earth to the Supreme Executive of Heaven. Who is prepared to say that if the whole human family were saved, the interests of justice would not have suffered an eclipse? Who will pretend to affirm that the welfare of the whole moral universe would not have been compromised—the order and peace of the creation been exposed to no disaster, if all men were restored to favor? The Universalist exalts the goodness and compassion of God at the expense of his inflexible justice and holiness; and some Arminians do likewise. "God," says Adam Clarke, "hates nothing that he has made. He cannot hate, because he is love." (Com. on 1 John 4:8.) We grant that God does not hate his creatures, considered merely as his creatures, apart from moral qualities. But did not he teach his ancient church to sing "Thou hatest all workers of iniquity?" Psalm 5:5. While he reveals himself as "the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin"-does he not add-" he will by no means clear the guilty"-"but visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate him?" If in one place it is said, "God is love”—if, as Dr. Clarke suggests, He is never called holiness or justice, he is called "A CONSUMING FIRE.' "Clouds and darkness are round about him; yet justice and judgment (not love) are the habitation of his throne." It is not true, therefore, that according to the Scriptures, "LOVE seems to be the essence of his nature, and all the other attributes to be only modifications of this."* Such representations of the Great Being before whose throne cherubim and seraphim cry continually-" HOLY, HOLY, HOLY is the Lord of Hosts"-are serious errors and lead to mischievous results. In answer to the inquiry, Why are not all saved? genuine modesty will instruct both the Arminian and the Calvinist to say with our blessed Saviour, on a similar occasion—“ Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight." "Secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those which are revealed unto us and our children." III. A third topic now demands some further attention in connection with Predestination. It relates to the character and final destiny of those of mankind who will never realize the saving blessings of the gospel, but will perish under the Divine wrath. The views of Calvinists upon these subjects have furnished abundant matter of denunciation and misrepresentation to our Methodist neighbors. "Does it come to pass that some are lost?" inquires Dr. Fisk (Disc. pp. 26, *Clarke's Com. on John 5: 8. |