savouring of heresy, maintains that no man is physically capable of obedience to the claims of God, and that the atonement of Christ is restricted to a chosen few.

From the contrast exhibited of the two systems, and the phraseology employed by the reviewer, I presume we may justly infer, that, in his opinion, the ultra evangelical doctrines are, to say the least, unscriptural, and actually impute to the moral administration of God something unequal and unjust. As some of the propositions or statements in the selections from the Sermons, and in the remarks upon them, seem to me alike objectionable, not to say, heretical, I will thank the reviewer to appear once more in the Spectator, and explain or harmonize the following senti

ments.

Before I present the passages alluded to, permit me to observe that I have not seen the Sermons in extenso, but only so much of them as appears in connexion with the review.

On page 534 of the Christian Spectator, we have from the Sermons, as follows: "The ability of sinners, as well as their obligation, to repent, appears from the fact, that God has commanded them to repent. The command presupposes an ability, that constitutes the basis of obligation; for it is a dictate of common sense, that no one can be to blame for not doing, what he is in no sense able to do." To proceed a little in the same paragraph. "We must conclude, therefore, since God has commanded men to repent, and has threatened them with his sore displeasure, if they do not repent, either that they are able to repent, and thence, are both formally, and actually, guilty for not repenting; or, we must adopt the only alternative, and implicate the rectitude of the Divine Being, in requiring of his creatures, under the most tremendous sanctions, the doing of impossibilities."

VOL. I.-No. VI.

37

On page 536 of the Spectator, near the bottom, from the Sermons: "The apostle Paul, when speaking of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, observes, Whom God hath set forth, to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past. To declare, I say at this time his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." On the same page, from the Sermons: "We learn, not only, from the passage to the Romans noticed above, but also from various other portions of the Bible, that the benefits of the atonement are sure only to him" that believeth in Jesus."

But if the benefits of the atonement can then only be enjoyed by creatures, as they believe, it is very evident that it enters into no part of its nature, to secure the salvation of a single individual, and much less then, can it have had for its exclusive end, a select and particular number. Its efficacy, in rendering the salvation of any one of the human family secure, lies in the sovereign and glorious purpose, and will of God." Same paragraph, a little further on. "It is then the electing sovereignty of God, by which the benefits of the atonement are rendered effectual to salvation in any case : But for this all powerful and gracious interposition, the death of Christ notwithstanding, not one of the human family would ever have been saved."

Page 537, at the top, from the Sermons: "Christ has died. He is offered to all men. All refuse to embrace him. God interposes, by his gracious electing sovereignty, and delivers all whom it is his good pleasure to save." Same page, near the top: "This view of atonement, not only, vindicates the sincerity of God, in inviting all men to come to Christ, that they may be saved, but also, leaves the sinner who rejects the offered salvation without ex cuse."

I could add one or two extracts more, on the subject of "man's physical power to obey God," his want of "inclination" to do so, and the " means by which God makes his people willing, and thus distinguishes them from those sinners, who persist in rejecting Christ;" but I judge the citations already made are sufficient to present a fair and rather continuous view of the doctrines taught in so much of Mr. Lansing's Sermons as the reviewer has selected for the subject of his remarks. The system now before us is the following: that man by the fall has not lost the physical power, but only the inclination, to obey God; that, by reason of his physical power, he is justly commanded in the gospel to repent; that an atonement for sin has been made by Christ in behalf of all men; that, by virtue of the atonement, free pardon is tendered to every one that believeth in Jesus;" that, hence, God is just, and all men, while impenitent and unbelieving, are guilty and inexcusable; and yet, "that the efficacy of the atonement, in rendering the salvation of any one of the human family secure, lies in the sovereign and glorious purpose, and will of God. But for this all powerful and gracious interposition, the death of Christ notwithstanding, not one of the human family would ever have been saved."This system is pronounced evangelical. In the main, or in many features of it, I readily admit it to be so, but in one or more members vitally important, it is distressingly encumbered, and thereby rendered in itself exceedingly inharmonious and conflicting.

Mr. Lansing and the reviewer talk of physical ability, unlimited offers of mercy, matchless grace in electing love. I ask, was ever a sinner brought to Christ, to repentance and salvation, by the exercise of his physical ability? What mean then to him unlimited offers of mer

cy, when he is never to feel on his heart the influence, the smallest influence, of that matchless grace, without which all besides is unavailing? Does not this system as effectually and necessarily consign him to perdition as if God had from eternity fixed his doom by an unconditional and unalterable decree? In our opinion, to speak of another school, although it may not accord exactly with the theology of what is commonly called the New England school, the system would be much more evangelical, did it maintain, that, with the provision of atonement for sin, the Holy Spirit knocks at every human heart, operates in convincing the world of sin, of rightcousness, and a judgment to come, and that the guilt of final impenitence, is, not the neglect of an imagined ability, which never did, and never can, do any thing towards the salvation of man, but a criminal and ungrateful despite to the Spirit of Grace.

The reviewer intimates harsh things of the ultra evangelical system, as that, when carried out inte its extreme results, it is the most dangerous and deadly of all heresies, &c. Now, so far as the equity of God's moral government, and his goodness also, is concerned, I cannot, for my part, distinguish between the bearings of the two systems. What is the difference in point of justice, between restricting the benefits of the atonement of Christ, originally and prospectively, to a chosen few, and-after it has been proclaimed with a voice from heaven, that the atonement was made for all-still restricting its benefits, physical power and the death of Christ notwithstanding, to a chosen few, whom only it is the gracious purpose of God, by his electing sovereignty, to save?

Will the reviewer-if he cannot will Mr. Lansing, be so good as to split this hair? I confess I cannot. II geobúr egos.

REPLY TO Пgarburagos.

Пgarregos asks. "Was ever a sinner brought to Christ, to repentance and salvation, by the exercise of his physical ability?" We answer for ourselves, not for Dr. Lansing-certainly; never was a sinner brought to Christ in any other way than in the exercise of his physical ability. His coming to Christ, his repenting, is as truly an operation of the moral powers which he has possessed all his days, as any other act of his life. Dr. Lansing expressly guards against any is onstruction on this point, by dec ar ng that whatever may be the operation of the holy Spirit on the mind of the penitent, it is not such as in any wise to increase or impair his moral freedom.

He asks next, "What mean then to him unlimited offers of mercy, when he is never to feel on his heart the influence, the smallest influence of that matchless grace, without which all besides is unavailing?" We answer, These unlimited offers of mercy mean all that the language can mean--quite as much, surely, as the language means in the system which our correspondent, if we understand him, has embraced. They mean that the salvation of the sinner depends on the question whether he will be reconciled to God--a question which he must and will decide for himself in the exercise of his physical ability. God sincerely wills the acceptance of these offers on the part of the sinner. The sinner is a complete moral agent, and as such, in every respect qualified to accept of these offers, and, therefore, whether there be or be not, any superadded influence of grace, the question of his salvation is fairly presented to his decision. The mere certainty that a fair offer will

be rejected, by a complete moral agent, cannot affect the propriety of making it, so far as this propriety depends on the powers of the agent. Whether it be consistent with God's moral perfection, to make offers of mercy to such agents which he knows beforehand they will reject, is entirely another question from that which respects their ability to accept of these offers; and that question Пgregos may answer for himself on his own principles.

He asks again, "Does not this system as effectually and necessarily consign him to perdition as if God had from eternity fixed his doom by an unconditional and unalterable decree?" We answer, The sinner's perverseness of heart will indeed, (not by physical necessity,) without the interposition of grace, result in perdition. Still, if he is lost, he consigned himself to perdition, in the exercise of his voluntary agency, choosing to do evil, and refusing to do well.

He goes on to say, In our opinion, to speak of another school, although it may not accord exactly with the theology of what is commonly called the New England school, the system would be much more evangelical, did it maintain, that, with the provision of atonement for sin, the Holy Spirit knocks at every human heart, operates in convincing the world of sin, of righteousness, and a judgment to come, and that the guilt of final impenitence, is, not the neglect of an imagined ability, which never did, and never can, do any thing towards the salvation of man, but a criminal and ungrateful despite to the Spirit of Grace." We reply, The system which we hold, and we are not prepared to ascribe any other system to Dr. Lansing, does "maintain that with the provision of atonement for sin, the Holy Spirit knocks at every human heart, operates in convincing the world of sin, of righteousness, and a judgment to come,

and that the guilt of final impenitence is, not the neglect of an "imagined ability," but the neglect of a real ability to repent and obey, in the exercise of which the sinner might have wrought out his own salvation, and “ a criminal and ungrateful despite to the Spirit of Grace." IIgedregos speaks of an Πρεσβύτερος "imagined ability." We know not what he means. If he means to deny that man has the physical ability to obey God, we cannot but think that he must find his own system "distressingly encumbered, and thereby rendered in itself exceed ingly unharmonious and conflicting. If he means to deny that this physical ability is actual ability, we are still more at a loss to imagine what other ability can be asked for than that which is expressly described as including every thing necessary to obedience except simply that disposition or willingness to obey which is obedience itself. If man has not the powers of a complete moral agent without the provisions of gospel grace, how does the gospel find man a sinner? And if not a sinner without grace, grace is no more grace.

Our correspondent asks once more, "What is the difference, in point of justice, between restricting the benefits of the atonement of Christ, originally and prospectively, to a chosen few, and-after it has been proclaimed with a voice from heaven, that the atonement was made for all-still restricting its benefits, physical power and the death of Christ notwithstanding, to a chosen few, whom only it is the gracious purpose of God, by his électing sovereignty, to save?" If we may be allowed to answer this inquiry after "the New England" method, we would ask, Are all men actually saved by the atonement of Christ? And if not, "What is the difference, in point of justice, between restricting the benefits of the atonement of Christ, originally and

prospectively to a chosen few, and -after it has been proclaimed with a voice from heaven, that the atonement was made for all-still restricting its benefits," the knocking of the Holy Spirit, "and the death of Christ notwithstanding, to a" "few" who alone are made at last the subjects of salvation? This question surely it is not difficult to answer. The difference, if there be any, is not very recondite. In the former case, those who are lost are lost not because in the exercise of a perfect freedom of action, they rejected a complete atonement, for there was no atonement for them to reject. In the latter case they are lost because when a free salvation was provided, and when the Holy Spirit knocked at their hearts, they still rejected the complete and full atonement. Let our friend apply just this answer to the question which he has stated, and judge if the answer does not square equally well with that question and with this.

But there is another, and a more strictly accurate answer to this question. "In point of JUSTICE,” there is no difference between an atonement limited in its nature and an atonement limited in the ultimate application of its benefits; neither of them can be properly charged with injustice. Our objection to the doctrine of a limited atonement is not that it involves the character of God in any imputation of injustice, but that a limited atonement and unlimited offers of salvation are inconsistent with each other, the former proving the insincerity of the latter. If the human race are justly exposed to the penalty of the law, then those who suffer that penalty suffer justly;God may save as many or as few as he sees fit, and who shall charge him with injustice towards those whom he does not see fit to save? God may provide an atonement for the elect, while he makes no such

1