V A Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/lettersfromaristOOIeec V LETTERS FROM ARISTARCHUS TO PHILEMON ; IN WHICH THE DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL ARE DISCUSSED, AND OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. _ _ 1/ ' BY CHAUNCEY LEE, D. D, PASTOR OF A CHURCH IN MARLBOROUGH, (CONN.) For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things : to whom be glory forever. Amen. paul. HARTFORD : PRINTED BY HANMER AND COMSTOCK. 1833. INTRODUCTION. It could hardly have been expected, that in the present day, the necessity would arise of going over the ground of the Arminian controversy. After what has been published by Hopkins, Bellamy, Scott and Dwight, and a host of American divines ; and more especially the complete triumph of the immor¬ tal Edwards, on this field ; it might well have been supposed, that the occasion of renewing this contro¬ versy, would never recur. Who could imagine, that, in the next generation, men would be found, and men too of great pretensions to reasoning powers, who would venture to revive the questions con¬ cerning moral suasion , and the self determining power of the will ; with confident claims of high improvements in Christian theology ? But so it is : and the tide of popular opinion seems to be setting strongly in favour of these specious and flattering doctrines : and the friends of truth are called to ad¬ dress themselves in good earnest, to the work of de¬ fence. This duty is as necessary and imperious, as if these errors had but now made their first appear¬ ance, and never before been the subject of contro¬ versy. There is but one view which affords a so¬ lution of this mystery. A selfish system of religion men naturally love, and most readily embrace — for, IV. it cherishes their independent feelings — fosters pride, and gives them an easy passport to heaven. All men are born Arminians. Pride and self confidence are characteristics of human nature. Hence, they are at heart opposed to the humbling doctrines of the gospel, and the most sophistical arguments in oppo¬ sition to them received as sound and conclusive ; while their feelings become more and more strongly enlisted in the cause of error. If, in the progress of truth, one generation, by special grace, be in a good degree redeemed from error ; the next is found in¬ volved in the same thraldom. Every successive gen¬ eration, must be successively redeemed from error, by essentially the same means ; and all the labours ol past ages, and past defenders of the faith, will avail only to furnish materials for renewed defence. The ground must be repeatedly gone over. The argu¬ ments which have again and again proved decisive, must again be applied. In manner and form they may be new modelled ; but in substance, they are and must be the same. Among other causes, powerfully cooperating to produce this necessity is the fact that men will al¬ ways be found, disposed to take advantage of this obliquity of human nature, for the purpose of prose- lytism. It is well known that great pains are taken, and systematic measures pursued in the present day. The pulpit and the press are employed ; and licen¬ tiate preachers of this stamp continually going forth —widely disseminating the pernicious doctrines of Arminius — misleading the ignorant and unthinking ; sowing discord and division in churches, and de- nouncing as fools and formalists, the regular and or- thodox pastors. Such and so great are the evils existing, and threatening the interests of pure religion in our coun¬ try ; and these are the apologies offered for calling the attention of the Christian publick to the discus¬ sion presented in the following pages. The author confides not in his own talents, but in the force of divine truth — the candour of the pious — the author¬ ity of God’s word — but above all, the blessing of his Spirit. True indeed the principles are of ancient date, and the chief arguments are those in substance which have been repeatedly and successfully advan¬ ced. But the occasion is new. A new generation has arisen, which reads not the writings of Hop¬ kins, or Edwards. These have with the generality, gone into the lumber-room of old and obsolete au¬ thors ; and the Pelagian spirit of human nature is manifesting itself, by unequivocal signs in some of our periodical publications, and theological semina¬ ries. — Human efficiency, and self will are contami¬ nating our revivals of religion. And now what is to be done, but to apply the balm of truth to those wounds, which will otherwise spread disease and death through the whole body. But while there is a cause of truth in the world, to be defended against the errors and abuses of corrupt nature, this militant state of things will continue. The millenium alone will end the controversy. The author of the following pages has endeavour^ ed to present a fair view of the arguments and ob¬ jections of his opponents, and to meet those argu- 1 * VI. ments and objections with sound logic and divine testimony. The epistolary form being more famil¬ iar, has been adopted — desiring that the attention of all may be drawn, to subjects in which all are deep¬ ly interested. The whole is committed to the Spirit of truth, with earnest prayer that it may in some degree contribute to promote the cause of evangelic¬ al piety, the salvation of men, and the glory of God. CONTENTS. LETTER I. The original and fallen state of man; — what our natural character; — the kind and degree of human depravity. Page 9. LETTER II. The same subject continued ; — applied to infants ; illustrated and proved by Scripture. 19. LETTER III. On the doctrine of Election and Predestination ; and the persever¬ ance of Saints. 29. LETTER IV. Sin derived from Adam to his posterity by divine constitution — not imputed. Spiritual death, guilt and not punishment. No proof of the moral purity of children, either from Scripture, or their natural amiable qualities. Conscience defined and shown lobe consistent with total depravity. 44. LETTER V. Natural and moral impotence distinguished. Regeneration an un¬ sought grace — effected by the immediate, instantaneous and irre- sistable operation of the Spirit of God. 57. LETTER VI. Free moral agency explained, and shown to be consistent with abso¬ lute dependence. The doctrine of a self determining power in the human will, examined and refuted. 71. . LETTER VII. Regeneration wrought by the sovereign power of God, exclusive of the agency of its subject. 80. LETTER VIII. Universal divine agency, explained and vindicated from Scripture and Reason. 98. LETTER IX. The strivings of the divine Spirit, what — have no tendency to change the sinner’s heart — therefore consistent with hardening his heart. • • • Vlll Conviction, what — its design and benefit. God’s will respects not his commands, but his purposes. 117. LETTER X. Universal Redemption examined, and shown to be unfounded in Scripture. 129. LETTER XI. Universal sufficiency of grace to destroy the power of sin no conse¬ quence of the atonement of Christ 5 and not taught in the word of God. - 141. LETTER XII. The sovereignty of God consistent with the equity of his government. His sovereignty distinguished from his independence. Discrimin¬ ating grace asserted and defended. 153. LETTER XIII. Election consistent with the free and universal invitations of the gos¬ pel; and with the use and benefit of means. 164. LETTER XIV. The doctrine of election consistent with the divine impartiality. 174. LETTER XV. The same subject continued — and the distinction between and distributive justice stated and applied. LETTER XVI. Conditional election ; examined and its absurdity exposed. LETTER XVII. The doctrine of predestination has no tendency to licentiousness, but to the greatest moral purity : — affording also the highest and only encouragement to the duty of prayer. 201. LETTER XVIII. ^ ^ The doctrine defended against sundry common cavils of its opposers — and the correspondence closed with a solemn and affectionate ex¬ hortation. 210. general 182. 193. LETTER I. My Dear Friend, That we have embraced different religious senti¬ ments, and that our views of some of the fundamental points in the gospel scheme are essentially diverse, is a fact as disagreeable as it is true. Both cannot be right. Opposite extremes can never be united in a common centre : nor is it the part of Christian can¬ dour, but of sceptical liberality, to depreciate senti¬ ment, confound distinctions, and reconcile contradic¬ tions. Place the door on this hinge, and it will open immeasurably wide. Once admit that it is of no con¬ sequence what the man’s religious sentiments, if he but believe sincerely and practice according to his creed, and you will have nothing to reserve ; — no such thing as truth in the moral world ; — the religion of Je¬ sus would claim no preeminence to the wisdom of Pla¬ to or Seneca ; and the arms of charity expand alike to encircle the Christian and the infidel, the moral and the profane. On this point, I need not dwell. We both believe there is such a thing as truth ; and that it can suffer no variation from the perverse humours of mankind ; — but, like its author, is immutable and eternal. This gem, whose price is above rubies, is attainable to the honest dispassionate inquirer. We are profes¬ sing to seek it. Let us do it with such views ; and may the Blessed Spirit of all truth direct and succeed our inquiries. Let us be serious in so serious a cause ; — for, the result of the proposed discussion, may be no less important, than our eternal salvation. I begin then by remarking that there are some im¬ portant distinctions which you do not make, besure, to any practical effect, and are thence, led into mista- 10 ken views of divine truth. You do not, as I think, correctly distinguish between moral being and moral character — between the love of benevolence, and the love of complacence — between abhorrence and enmi¬ ty ; — between the holy anger of God, and the passion¬ ate anger of men ; — between natural and moral abli- ty ; — between the conscience and the heart ; — between the agency of God, and that of the creature ; — between restraining, and sanctifying grace ; — and between the natural affections of the human mind, which are as va¬ rious as the countenance, and the moral affections, which are invariable and uniform. And can you say that here are no grounds of distinction ? not a real but merely verbal difference? If so, there can be no reli¬ gious system formed ; — if otherwise, yours must em¬ brace principles which will forever wage war with each other. That we may fully know each other’s ground, I shall in the first place sketch an analysis of some of the es¬ sential points in the scheme of doctrines, which I em¬ brace as divine truth. The way will then be prepar¬ ed for a more intelligent and useful discussion of those parts of it, in which we are disagreed. Our first inquiry, then must be, what is our moral condition by nature ; or the character and state, in which we are born ? Here is a point to be determined, that will materially affect the issue of the grand ques¬ tion between us. It is, I conceive, a cardinal point, upon which the whole argument must eventually turn. And I recollect with pleasure, the candour with which you made this fair and honest concession at our part¬ ing interview, that, the merits of the whole dispute were poised in this scale — Are infants possessed of moral purity ? — Your scheme stands or falls, with the affirmative position — mine, with the negative. Let us then attend closely to the investigation of this point — for here I join issue, and stake the whole controversy on the result. That, mankind are naturally, in a depraved and un¬ holy state, appears to me a truth confirmed by the uni¬ ted testimony of scripture and experience ; — and I hes¬ itate not to say, that wherever any right notions of De- 11 ity, and of our relation and obligation to him as crea- tures are known and realized; this doctrine will be embraced, as an obvious and important article of reli¬ gion. An impartial examination of the exercises and affec¬ tions of our own minds — together with a view of the external displays of divine justice, in the infliction of natural evils, may be sufficient, to convince us of our want of original uprightness — of our being in a state of guilt, and under the power and condemnation of sin. From the Scriptures we learn that all mankind have descended from one common parent— that he was cre¬ ated in innocence and after the moral image of God ; — that with him God entered into a covenant of life, as it is called, because eternal life was the good promis¬ ed, “ upon condition of his perfect obedience, forbid¬ ding him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil upon the pain of death.” See Gen. ii. 16, IT. Thus was the first man upon probation, in a state of holiness, unconfirmed ; and his will, though liable to change, yet attempered to the divine will, and capable of rendering a perfect and persevering obedience to all the divine commands. In this covenant made with Adam, all mankind were interested, as he was by divine appointment consti¬ tuted the head and representative of his race — so that they should all take their moral characters from him. Not that Adam’s sin by any transfer of guilt should be our sin— or that the perfect obedience of Adam had he stood, would have been in itself more than sufficient for his own justification ; — but, that, upon condition of his obedience, his children should be brought into exist¬ ence, in a state of holiness confirmed. Now as this moral image of God, was an absolute gift of the Creator, and superadded to the work of cre¬ ation, none may pretend to say, that God might not justly and consistently, either withhold or grant the same, to whom, in what manner, and upon what con¬ dition he saw fit. God was under no obligation to have conferred it upon Adam, any more than upon his posterity since the forfeiture ; — for Adam sinned and lost the covenanted blessing. 12 Thus mankind by Adam’s forfeiture of the moral image of God, became fallen depraved creatures. Ad¬ am we read, “ begat a son in his own image, after his likeness.” This cannot intend, merely that Seth was born, in the bodily shape and figure of a man ; but that he was born possessed of the same moral char¬ acter with his father — a true copy, or fac simile of the original. It is explained by the account of Adam’s creation, and has the same extent of signification as the same terms which are there used — “ And God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness .” — And Adam’s son begat his son in his own image after his likeness — and so has every succeeding generation, down to the present day. The general fact being established, let us next in¬ quire into the kind and degree of human depravity. 1. The kind. — In what does human depravity con¬ sist ? The moral rectitude of an intelligent being, which stands opposed to his depravity consists in his confor¬ mity to the Divine Being, who is the only standard of perfection ; — or in other words, it consists in a love to the divine excellence as such. Hence our depravity is of a moral nature, and lies only in the will; — the un¬ derstanding being distinct, is not the seat of depravi¬ ty, nor but mediately affected ; and that in proportion to the degree of its subjection to the influences of the former. — “ Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of the heart.” (Eph. iv. 18.) By heart, here, as in all other places of scripture, where the word is used in a spiritual sense, is meant the affections. These are the exerci¬ ses of the will. And the blindness of the heart, which is but another word for hardness or insensibility, as the original Greek, might most fitly have been render¬ ed, is assigned, by the apostle, as the cause of that ig¬ norance, through which the understanding became darkened. This expresses the disaffection and enmi¬ ty of the heart, and is directly opposed to the idea, that mental ignorance is the essence of human deprav¬ ity, and that all we need in order to love the true char- acter of God, is to see it. According to this text, that ignorance of God which there is in mankind is the ef¬ fect and not the cause — it arises from the contrariety of the heart — they are alienated from the life of God — this means estrangement of affection — a contrariety of moral temper. It is concluded, therefore, that the fall of man, consists in the change of his affections from the supreme love of God, to the supreme love of self ; and that the perverseness of the will constitutes de¬ pravity. 2. The degree of depravity. — On this point, there is a diversity of opinions. Many are disagreed in the thing itself ; and many who are professedly agreed in the doctrine, draw different consequences from the same premises ; and build different superstructures up¬ on the same foundation. For myself, I hesitate not, to embrace it as a prime article of faith and to build upon it as a foundation stone of Christianity, that, by natural birth, mankind are utterly destitute of holiness, or the moral image of God — that the earliest exercises of infants, are the same in kind, as in adult years of impenitency ; — that is to say, evil without mixture ; or, in other words, that by nature, there is nothing in us morally good. — As degrading as this is to the human character, I can- not recede from the sentiment, without resisting the conviction of truth. A candid attention to the nature of the will, joined to a comparative view of the nature of sin and holi¬ ness, were there no other proofs in the case, will, I think, to the unbiassed mind, establish the doctrine be¬ yond the reach of doubt. The nature of the will is to be active, always in ex¬ ercise ; and it is certain that it cannot love and hate, choose and refuse the same objects, at the same time, and that for the same perceptible qualities. Neither of two objects perfectly dissimilar, and in their natures opposed, can it view both with complacence. It will necessarily choose the one and refuse the other. Now sinning or self gratification which is the direct object of choice to the depraved mind, being diametrically 2 14 opposed to holiness, it is absurd to suppose, that a su¬ preme love to the one does not go to the exclusion of the other. It is the true character of the depraved mind, as delineated in the word of God, that it cannot cease from sin, but is continually bringing forth fruit unto death ; — that it is as prone to do evil, as water is to run downward, or sparks to fly upward — or in oth¬ er words, that it has a natural propensity only to sin. And our Saviour assures us that “ no man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other ; or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” Mattk.v i. 24. The principle is adopted by some, that the human mind when it first comes into being, is, in relation to sin and holiness, equipoized, and without any inclina¬ tion to either; — that, it neither loves God nor hates him — but is in a state of neutrality, alike indifferent both to right and wrong. But how this can be, I con¬ fess myself unable to conceive. In my view, it is in¬ consistent with the nature of things and would be an anomaly in the moral world. A rational being, is and must be a moral agent, and to suppose him destitute of moral character implies a contradiction. It is incon¬ sistent and absurd. Men do not love the persons or things towards which they are indifferent. Indiffer¬ ence towards God in a rational being, implies con¬ tempt, and is a state of feeling highly criminal. In¬ deed it is impossible for men to be neuters in their af¬ fections towards God the supreme good ; or in their in¬ clination towards moral good and evil. This is es¬ tablished by the highest authority — “ He that is not with me is against me.” It is with many a favorite sentiment, that the human mind has native powers to direct the choice of the will ; and the same persons will admit the necessity of a divine interposition to change the sinner's will from an evil to a good choice. How these ideas can be reconciled is difficult to apprehend. If the mind have the native powers to direct the choice of the will, it certainly can and does exercise them ; and if so, what need is there of a divine interposition ? Why may 15 not the mind that has willed evil, in the exercise of these its native powers, as easily direct the choice of the will, to good, as to a continuance in evil ? Is not this confounding the distinction between divine and human agency, by ascribing to the latter, that which is an appropriate effect of the former ? and while avow¬ ing the very sentiment here advocated, explaining it in a manner that amounts to a denial of it? But waving this thought, I proceed to inquire whether total moral depravity be not as evident from scripture as it is from Reason. I. It appears essential to the doctrine o £ free grace. This, all must agree, is a scripture-doctrine and a grand pillar of the gospel plan — “ for by grace are ye saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Ephesians ii. 8. But if holiness be a requisite, and indeed an essential part of our salva¬ tion, and this we are naturally possessed of, how is it by grace? Where is the instrumentality of faith ? Why is it not of ourselves , as much as any thing nat¬ ural to us can be? How is it any more the special gift of God, than our being, or any of the common boun¬ ties of his providence? The grace of God has respect only to the guilty; and in this the grace of the gospel eminently shines, that God should pardon and save sin¬ ners, not only without any respect to their righteous¬ ness or good works, but against the highest positive desert of punishment — over the head of infinite guilt. Agreeable to this is that other declaration of the apostle. — “ Not for works of righteousness which we have done, but according to bis mercy he savetli us by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the .Holy Ghost.” Mercy has the same respect to the wretched, as grace has to the guilty ; and a moral agent cannot be a wretched creature, unless he be a guilty one. If then we are not polluted, what need of washing? If we have any inherent natural holiness, what occasion for renovation — what possibility of it ? There could be no room for the idea of a renewal, un¬ less the expression mean an entire change of moral af¬ fection in the subject. Let us now look at the case of infants, and honestly * ✓ 16 apply these scriptural principles to them. That they are objects of the divine compassion and that of such is the kingdom of God, there can be no doubt. But in what way are they saved? We must resort to scrip¬ ture for an answer. Except a man be born again , he cannot see the king - dom of God. Justified freely by his grace , through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. There is no other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved. There is, then, but one and the same method of sal¬ vation for mankind in all ao-es of life— for the child and x O for the adult — for the infant in the cradle, and for the man of grey hairs. But if children, before they come to the age of understanding and a capability of know¬ ing the rule of duty, be incapable of moral exercises, or of committing sin, and they be taken out of the world in this state, what guilt, or desert of punishment can belong to them. They have committed no sins, and a transfer of the guilt of Adam’s first sin by impu¬ tation is justly and by all exploded. What sins, then, can be charged to their account ? Certainly none. If . so, how are they fallen or lost creatures? how expos¬ ed to any punishment ? They will not be punished for Adam’s sin — neither for sins which they might have committed had they lived to adult years : and if they be judged according to the deeds done in the body — they had committed no sins in the body; — how then can they need the merits, and mediation of a Redeem¬ er ? What room for the display of mercy or grace, for they are neither guilty nor wretched. Salvation im¬ plies an exemption from deserved punishment — they could not therefore be the subjects of salvation, for they are not deserving of punishment. They would be entitled to happiness, independent of any atone¬ ment, the same as Adam, had he never sinned. The justice of God would exempt them from punishment. 80 that -a part of the human race, and a considerable part too, would be saved independently of the atone¬ ment and mediation of Christ, for many, if not most of our mortal race, die in infancy and childhood. But 17 perhaps, it would be difficult to reconcile these ideas with those declarations of the apostle — “there is salva¬ tion in none other — there is no other name given un¬ der heaven among men whereby we must be saved. 2. To admit the moral purity of children would su¬ percede the necessity of regeneration, or indeed the possibility of it. The operation of the Holy Spirit for this purpose would be needless — for if we have natu¬ rally any love to God, we cannot want what we already possess. Holiness is all that is effected by regenera¬ tion, and this we have by nature. Why should we not in that casa see at least as many righteous as wick¬ ed characters among mankind ■? It is only for them to improve what they already possess ; and a natural dis¬ position to holiness, is a disposition to holy practice. This has always the governing influence over the nat¬ ural or physical powers of the moral agent. Should it now be objected, that there is not a fair chance for experiment — that the child is born into a world already full of wickedness, and the influence of constant evil examples before him, gives a sinful bias to the first buddings of his natural inclinations, and thence directs them from the channels, in which they would otherwise have flown. I answer — what force or conforming influence can evil examples have upon a holy heart ? The more they are seen, the more they would be abhorred and shunned. That the propensities of nature will habitually rule and govern the man, we find is not merely a doctrine of the Bible, but was an acknowledged sentiment among the heathen of remote antiquity. Horace in one of his poetical odes has this expression upon the . subject, - “ si naturam furea repellas Usque recurret'’— - In plain English, Jf you repel nature with a pitch- fork, it will return again. I cite not the opinion of a heathen as authority in a point of gospel doctrine, but simply to evince what is the dictate of unprejudiced reason, and of human experience, on this truth, that neither force nor art, can change the natural disposi¬ tion of the human mind. 2* 18 But to return to the point; I would ask, how came the world to be already full of wickedness ? We equal¬ ly want a cause for this cause: Supposing the great¬ er part of the present generation to be wicked, in con¬ sequence of the evil examples of the preceding gen¬ eration — whence did they become wicked ? Continue to pursue this inquiry further and further back, and see if it do not necessarily lead to the natural inher¬ ent wickednass of the human heart ? Our Saviour told the Jews expressly, “ I know ye, that ye have not the love of God in you and he de¬ clared to Nicodemus, “ Except a man* be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Now as long as this holds true of mankind, it will be true that they are destitute of holiness — for holiness is the only qual¬ ification requisite for admission into the kingdom of heaven. It thence also follows, that Regeneration is an entire change of the native moral disposition, im¬ mediately, instantaneously and irresistably effected by the operation of the Holy Spirit ; — is the bestowment of something of which nothing of the kind was in the soul before ; — and all these circumstances necessarily presuppose a native total depravity in the subject. Yours with much respect, Aristarchus. * LETTER II. Dear Sir, In continuance of the subject of my former letter, I now propose to adduce a number of scripture passa¬ ges in support of the doctrine of human depravity ; and we will begin with that in Genesis v. 3. And Ad¬ am lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness after his image. It is very observable from the form of the expres¬ sion that it is contrasted with that in Genesis i. 26. “And God said let ns make man in our image after our likeness ; — and therefore is equally expressive of moral character. It was Adam’s image and likeness and not God’s. If Adam became a sinner by his first transgression, and lost the moral image of God, such was the moral character of Adam’s son by natural re¬ generation. It was not what he first acquired by the influence of evil example, and the habit of evil exer¬ cises, after he had arrived to the age of knowledge and understanding, but what he possessed and therefore exercised from his very birth. Adam begat him in his own likeness after his image. Genesis vi. 5. But God saw the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart ivas only evil, continually. The doctrine cannot be more clearly, fully, or forci¬ bly expressed. It is not in language, more perfectly to define it. Yourt,will observe, that the predicate is not restricted to a particular class of offenders, who by long and inveterate habits of wickedness had extin¬ guished their inherent, natural principles of goodness, and become more vicious and hardened than the rest of their species; — but it is applied in the universal sense, as extensively as the word man can reach. This, as a generic term includes all of every moral description. 20 But should it be suggested that though this wicked¬ ness was great in degree and universal in extent, yet it did not exclude those natural principles of virtue, which exist in all, from operating in some degree, although the opposite principles prevailed and were greatly pre¬ dominant ; — the objector is at once met upon his own ground and the contrary affirmed ; — “ every imagina¬ tion of the thoughts of his heart was only evil.” And again ; lest this should not be sufficiently full and de¬ cisive — lest some self righteous theorist should still plead, that, though the principles of vice might at cer¬ tain periods, so far prevail in men, as wholly to ex¬ clude all virtuous exercises, yet this was but at inter¬ vals ; — the natural goodness of the heart would awake and brighten at the first call of conscience, and again direct the conduct of the man ; — lest, I say, any should resort to this subterfuge, the last word of the sentence, cuts up the whole dispute, root and branch — “ every imagination of the thoughts of his heart, was only evil, continually .” Can words more definitely express the entire extinction of moral virtue ? Psalms x iv. 2, 3. — “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there were any that did understand and seek after God. They are altogether become filthy. They are all gone aside. There is none that doth good, no not one.” These words need no comment. They are quoted by Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, to this same point. Job xiv. 4, and xxv. 5. “ Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? Not one. How can he be clean that is born of a woman ?” The words clean , and unclean, in this passage, can respect nothing but mor¬ al purity, and moral pollution ; and is a declaration that no man is, born pure, or free Trom sin. The na¬ tive moral purity of children, therefore, cannot be sup¬ ported by Scripture. Psalms li. 5. “ Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” This is a most penitential Psalm. David penned it in the deepest humiliation before God, for his wicked¬ ness in the case of Uriah. He makes the most perti- 21 nent acknowledgements of bis sin. He is not confes¬ sing his father’s or his mother’s sins, but his own. He says, in the verse, next blit one preceding, “ Fori ac¬ knowledge my wickedness and my sin is ever before me.” And he does not alledge, that, I did not com¬ mence moral agency, till I arrived to the years of un¬ derstanding — but “ I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” I began to be a sin¬ ner as soon as I began to exist — or as soon as 1 had any exercises at all ; and my whole after life has been a continued course of sin. Psalms lviii. 3. “ The wicked are estranged from the womb — they go astray as soon as they be born , speaking lies.” This is in perfect unison with the forecited passage declaring the same thing with still greater explicitness. If then, being estranged from God, — going astray and speaking lies, be consistent with the moral purity of children, let this passage be brought to prove, that they are incapable of moral exercises, until they are of an age to read and understand the ten commandments. To say here, as some do, that the passage is figurative, and not to be literally understood— -but that the child will be a sinner if he lives to be a moral agent, and that his first moral exercises will be evil — is an unrea¬ sonable evasion perverting the true sense of the pas¬ sage : — and the argument to support their theory, from the expression, speaking' lies — because young children have not the faculty of speech, is a mere quibble. Mankind can speak lies without the use of words — and they thus do in every sinful exercise of the heart. Every sin is a practical falsehood — it denies the rela¬ tion and fitness of things — the authority of God and the justice of his law. — Among other traits of moral char¬ acter by which the Psalmist describes the righteous man, one, is, that, “ he speaketh the truth in his heart ” — Psalms xv. 2, because his moral disposition, and moral a flections are in accordance with the truth : but the sinner’s character is a contrast — He speaks falsehood in his heart — because it is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law. — Children, there- 22 fore, are not incapable of “ going astray,” and of “speaking lies,” as soon as they are born. Romans viii.7. — “The carnal mind is enmity against God — for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” The carnal mind is the same as the fleshly mind : and our Saviour tells us, “ that which is born of the flesh is flesh — that is, by natural birth, every man is possessed of a carnal mind ; and this Paul does not say is in a certain degree inimical, towards the divine character, but he puts it in the very abstract — the car¬ nal mind is enmity against God. Matthew xii. 33 and Luke vi. 43, 44. — “ Either make the tree good, and his fruit good ; or else make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt, for the tree is known by its fruit. For, a good tree bringeth not forth cor¬ rupt fruit, neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit — for of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramblebush gather they grapes. By this similitude the Saviour represents the char¬ acter and state of mankind ; and he evidently goes up¬ on this ground, that mankind are universally corrupt, or there could be no occasion, or propriety in making the tree good. And that this is natural, the parable teaches, or it would be improperly applied, and lead us into an important error. Can any thing be more nat¬ ural, to a tree than its own proper fruit, which it bears ? Just as natural is the corrupt fruit of sin to the carnal heart ; and, the same tree while possessing the same nature, will universally produce the same kind of fruit. It is impossible without an alteration of its nature, that it should produce, from its natural boughs, fruit of a different kind. And it is equally morally impossible, that mankind in their natural state, should bring forth any other than evil fruit, or have any other than evil exercises. May we not, hence infer that were mankind as or¬ thodox in religion as they are in the science of hus¬ bandry and horticulture, there would be but one senti¬ ment upon this subject? We may, at least, gather this from it, that sin being natural to us, as the fruit is to the tree, does not make us the less sinful but, on the contrary, the more natural it is to us, the more wicked and abominable we are. It is the taste of the fruit which determines its quality, and marks the char¬ acter of the tree that produced it — and nothing extrin¬ sic. to it, as whether it grows in the sunshine, or in the shade — in a rich or barren soil — with much manuring, or none. So it is with the affections and exercises of mankind. If man be, naturally an evil tree, the moral quality of his exercises does not depend upon external circumstances, but upon their own proper intrinsic na¬ ture. The knowledge or ignorance of the man does not effect the being, but only the degree of his guilt. The apostle indeed says that “ where there is no law, there is no transgression” — but we do not hear him say, that where there is no knowledge of the law, there is no transgression. He says too, that, “ by the law is the knowledge of sin ; but nowhere, that by the knowledge of the law, is the being of sin. The Sav¬ iour tells us that the ignorant servant who commits sin, shall be beaten with few stripes (not acquitted with impunity) while the servant who knew his duty and did it not, is worthy to be beaten with many stripes. This makes it evident that light and knowledge affect not the being but only the degree of guilt. There is in nature such things as right and wrong, virtue and vice independent of any revealed law. Neither is it the law, but their respective qualities, which consti¬ tutes their moral nature. Had there been no law re¬ vealed to men, yet sin and holiness would as really have been what they now are. Sin would still be sin, and a transgression of the law — for the law of God has had an eternal existence in the divine nature. “ The law entered that the offence might abound.” All we can say, therefore, is, that the guilt of sin is greatly in¬ creased ; and its evil clearly discovered by the knowl¬ edge of the law. This is expressly taught us — “ that sin, by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.” From this view of the subject we may rea¬ sonably conclude, that children are moral agents, and capable of committing sin, as well before, as after they have the knowledge of the law. Some, perhaps, will here say that the criminality of 24 him who sins ignorantly, consists principally if not wholly, in his wilfully neglecting to improve the means of knowledge in his power. They who sin ignorantly under the light of the gospel, refuse to receive the knowledge of God’s word. The ignorant heathen, destitute of Revelation, have reason to guide, and the light of nature to instruct them — but this they pervert ; and become vain in their imagination, and their fool¬ ish hearts are darkened, because they like not to re¬ tain God in their knowledge. But I ask whether, in both cases, this, is not, in reality, the same as sinning against light ; and whether it does not involve, (being sins of wilful and not necessary ignorance,) an equal degree of criminality with him who sins in opposition to the light and conviction of known duty? A wilful rejection of the means, of knowledge, discovers, per¬ haps, as much perverseness, and it surely is the same in kind, with that of counteracting knowledge itself. And how can it be true, in such a case, that the one is deserving of few stripes, and the other of many ? Shall we not then be again driven to the same conclusion, that, it is not our having or not having the knowledge of du ty, or even the means of that knowledge, which constitutes the essence of our guilt — but only the de¬ gree of it. If this be true, .it may be difficult to show, why young children may not be moral agents, as well before, as after they have attained to the knowledge of good and evil. Their having less guilt than adults, does not prove their innocence. Permit me now, to suggest another argument, equal¬ ly the dictate of reason and scripture, and founded up¬ on the character and perfections of God. It is this. Innocent beings, among rational creatures, cannot be the subjects of suffering. This is ever the fruit of sin. Natural evil is the consequence only of moral evil. It is an unequivocal expression of the divine anger, and a certain token of personal guilt; and even the suffering of brutes is a consequence of human apostacy ; — “ the creature was” hence “ made subject to vanity, not wil¬ lingly but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope ; — for we know that the whole creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain together until now.” — 25 But, “whoever perished being innocent, or when were the righteous cut off?” In the sufferings of moral innocence, the holy Saviour is the only example — the only existing exception to this rule ; but it tends to es¬ tablish and not to overthrow it. He indeed suffered without sin — but he suffered for sin, the just for the unjust. He suffered voluntarily, and with his own free consent. It would otherwise have been inconsist¬ ent with the justice and righteousness of God, as the moral governor of the world, to inflict evil upon Christ, or any other innocent rational creature. Here we are estopped from alledging, that God as a Sovereign proprietor of all things, hath a right to do as he will with his creatures and if he see it necessary for the accomplishment of hi3 wise and holy purposes, to bring evils upon the innocent and unoffending. — The merit of this argument it is unnecessary to bring into discussion, for it has no force or application. God himself hath settled and determined this point — that justice and judgment are the habitation of his throne. The rules of his moral government he hath establish¬ ed, and revealed them in his word — that natural evils are penal — and no arbitrary, or unmerited sufferings are inflicted. This principle is definitively stated in Ezekiel xviii. — “ What mean ye, that ye use this prov¬ erb concerning the land of Israel, saying the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge ? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Is¬ rael. Behold all souls are mine — as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine — the soul that sinneth, it shall die. — The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son — the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” — And again in lamentations iii. 39. “ Wherefore doth a living man complain — a man for the ■punishment of his sins ?” — These are no less than express declarations, that those natural evils which God inflicts upon mankind are penal evils — the fruits of his displeasure, and tokens of his disapproba¬ tion of the personal moral character of the sufferer. 3 26 And this is perfectly consonant to reason, and every correct notion of the holy character, and tender mercy of God. — A good father will not correct, or be displeas¬ ed with, an innocent, unoffending child — who never disobeyed his commands. Now let us again look to the case of infants, and ap¬ ply these well established truths to them, in consist¬ ence, if we can, with the principle of their moral puri¬ ty. Are they not sufferers? Yea often in the earliest stages of infancy, subject to very great and distress¬ ing sufferings ; — to pains — sickness — convulsions and death itself? Now what shall we say to this — what con¬ clusion form from this moral phenomenon? Are God’s works of providence destitute of meaning, and per¬ formed without any reason or cause. Or, are they op¬ posed in their instruction to the express declarations, and fundamental principles of his word? By the ex¬ press language of his Providence, he declares chil¬ dren, yea even infants to be sinful creatures — he treats them as such and his judgments are according to truth — his providence a practical comment upon his word — and shall we dare to reply against God, and contra¬ dict his solemn and pointed declaration by asserting that children are not sinners, or even moral agents ? Shall we yield to the feelings and doubts of unbelief, and say, “ look at that little creature, just stepped into being' — wliat are his thoughts ? Can he be a sinner — a moral agent , while ignorant as he is, of every moral object ? Let God determine this point, and divine prov¬ idence silence human philosophy. And by his author¬ ity it is determined — that man is born a sinner — by na¬ ture a child of wrath, and comes into the world unho¬ ly and unclean. — This is the testimony of God both in his word and providence. And were we candid obser¬ vers of children, and not blinded by pride, or the over¬ weaning fondness of natural affection, we might, in a very early stage, and long before they are allowed by some to possess any moral character, discern as evi¬ dent tokens of depravity, as after they have attained to adult age. They have affections and passions, and they express them by the language of action, though they have no words to do it. Look at the young babe 27 puling in its nurse’s arms — and say if it gives not evi¬ dences of its fallen character — of a depraved and unholy state ? and these as far as its infantile circumstances give scope and opportunity for the indulgence of sin¬ ful passions. What selfishness does it often discover — what petulence, peevishness, boisterous impatience of restraint — what refractory feelings, anger, restiveness and even resentment, clearly indicating that all the seeds of depravity are there, and in their native soil, and beginning to germinate. I will here barely notice, and that because it has been suggested, and even offered to the religious pub¬ lic, in the form and shape of an argument to invali¬ date the evidence of moral character in infants arising from the natural evils to which they are subject ; that the young of animals also suffer, and therefore, there is as little moral evidence in the one case, as the oth¬ er. This is indeed too sickening and revolting for contemplation. To rank the children of men, possess¬ ing rational and immortal souls, for whom the glorious Saviour suffered and died — who bear the seals, and are entitled to the blessings of the everlasting covenant — who are the capable subjects of divine grace, and of the eternal salvation of God in heaven : — to rank then I say with the brutes that perish — is an insult to rea¬ son and Scripture — an outrage upon humanity; and too absurd and degrading to merit a serious reply. To establish this point, I shall trouble you with on¬ ly one passage of scripture further. Ephesians ii. 1. 44 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in tres¬ passes and sins.” If the parts of this sentence be contrasted, and the quickening or restoring to spiritual life, ascribed to the mighty power of God, be considered as the effect of a supernatural divine agency put forth, in and upon the creature, communicating divine life, and begetting holy exercises in the soul — we must take considerable pains to misunderstand the apostle’s description of the state of mankind previous to this change — or make the words, dead in trespasses and sins , speak any thing less than an intire destitution of moral goodness — or in other words — total depravity. 28 The words, trespasses and sins, express the kind, and dead the degree of depravity. Now if we mean, when we say, a man is dead, that he is only half dead, then we may apply this rule of construction to the words before us. Or did the apostle mean that they would have died, had not divine grace interposed, so far had they already declined in the progress of lan- guishment ? But the word is used in an absolute and unqualified sense, and in the past time, as what had already taken place— “ who were dead.” Neither can it be the apostle’s primary meaning that they were dead in the eye of the law, as being un¬ der the sentence of death, and liable to suffer the exe¬ cution of it— as we say of a malefactor condemned to execution, that he is dead in law from the time that sentence is passed upon him. This is evident, at first view. It is plain that he looked further back, and to something distinct from their condemnation, and makes this death to consist, in that, for which they were con¬ demned, and not in their condemnation itself, or any of its consequences — placing it, not in a state of suffer¬ ing. but of action — not in judicial decision, but person* al moral character — “ who were dead in trespasses and sins” Furthermore. How would any other sense agree with the quickening mentioned ? The two parts of the sentence are contrasted, and the two different states of nature and grace held up in opposite points of light : — - and it is sanctification , not justification which marks the change and is the effect of the divine agency. It is not you hath he acquitted who were condemned to death — but you hath he quickened who were in fact dead, and dead in trespasses and sins. And it is easy to see that sanctification or spiritual life stands oppos¬ ed to moral depravity or spiritual death. If now, it should be suggested, that this total moral depravity, signified by the expression 44 dead in tres¬ passes and sins,” was not their natural character, but the effect of long continued habits of wickedness — let us read on to the end of the third verse, which is a continued description of their moral character, and closes with these emphatical words, “And were by net- 29 ture children of wrath even as others.” If, then, by nature they were children of wrath* they were by na¬ ture guilty creatures, and not by nature possessed of moral purity. Yours with much respect, Aristarchus. LETTER III. Dear Sir, The grand point in Christianity, viz. what is our natural character, or what the moral state in which we come into the world, I now consider as determined ; and the doctrine of native moral purity, fully disprov¬ ed by scripture authority. With the doctrine of total depravity, those of eter¬ nal election, and special efficacious grace are insepara¬ bly connected ; and, accordingly we find them form¬ ing essential parts in the system of revealed religion. If once admitted that a part of the human race will be saved (and without this the gospel is a nullity) on whom does the determination of this important point rest — who and how many shall he saved ? It must be determined by some being or power. A point so in¬ teresting to the general happiness of the intelligent system, we cannot with any reason suppose is left to the decision of chance, as an uncertain and contingent event. Who then is adequate to the task, but He who is infinite in wisdom and goodness ? Would any creature, or number of creatures, or the whole uni¬ verse of creatures, be equal to it ? If they were, who should vest them with authority to do it. Their whole 3* 30 wisdom and goodness collected is not infinite. Is it not therefore necessary and best that God should de¬ termine this important concern ? Is it not suitable and right that he should choose the members of his own family? We worms claim and exercise this privilege ; and shall we presume to deny this right to God ? Shall not the great and glorious governour of all worlds, pos¬ sess equal power and authority, with an earthly poten¬ tate — the right of awarding pardon or punishment to rebels according to his own discretion ? To the candid inquirer it is plain and certain, that moral necessity and natural liberty are perfectly con¬ sistent. That there is a moral and inevitable necessi¬ ty or certainty, that every event, should take place, in the exact time, manner and circumstance that it does, is manifest — being a necessary consequence of the di¬ vine foreknowledge. This may be argued from the truth of prophecies. — Suppose a certain event to be foretold by inspiration (as many have been and that for hundreds of years before they take place) then God who inspired the prophet, knew with infinite cer¬ tainty the futurition of the event, and it was morally impossible that it should not take place. It was given as a sure mark of false gods, that they could not foretell future events ; because the true God only is omniscient; — and no one can give the reason, or assign the mode of the divine prescience, in any other way, than by God’s will or purpose — or he fore¬ knows because he has determined what shall take place. Things that depend on God (and what things do not ?) can be effected only by the divine will. He wills and it is done. He speaks and it stands fast. What other idea can we form of creation, but as an act of the di¬ vine will? And God’s work is perfect. — “ Known unto God are all his works from the beginning. He work- eth all things after the counsel of his own will. He giveth account of none of his matters.” Can any one imagine that when God had created the world, and made man a free agent, he looked on the conduct, state and circumstances of the future race, and all the events of time, with their final results, as a dark, confused chaos — a scene of perfect uncertain- 31 ty ? But the event is as certainly fixed by prescience, as by decree. Absolute foreknowledge excludes all contingency. And now will 3*011 say that men are forc¬ ed, by the certainty of the event, and embrace the doc¬ trine of fatalism ? Who feels any force or constraint upon his will ? No one can pretend it in any action whatever. The murderers of our Lord, freely acted the malice of their own evil minds, and yet in the same thing fulfil] ed the eternal purpose of God. “ Him be¬ ing delivered by the determinate counsel, and fore¬ knowledge of God, ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.” Acts ii. 21. Paul’s shipwreck is another instance, in which we clearly see that the means as well as the end are or¬ dained, and that the same end could not be effected by any other means; — for after he was divinely assured, that the whole ship’s crew should be saved, he tells them, “ except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved.” Acts xxvii. 31. And so it has ever been in men’s doing what was eternally foreordained. All has come to pass and will yet come to pass, and still men act their own will and choice, with as much freedom as though they were the only beings in the universe; or there were no superi¬ or power to influence or control them. Here is no inconsistency — no room for controversy. The point is settled, and by the highest authority. There is no such moral necessity as injures the freedom of the will — or compels men to act as they do. Can we subscribe to the sentiment that God acts without design ; or that he does not perfectly under¬ stand Lis own plan. When he devised a plan to re¬ deem and save mankind, was the event doubtful in his view ? was it uncertain with him, whether ail}* would accept of Christ and obey the gospel call ? If the crea¬ ture be wholly dependent on God for his being — he must be also for his powers, and exercises. All his springs are in God. If so, the purpose of God from eternity, must be the great and only first cause of his being effectual]}' called in time. “ Whom ho* did pre¬ destinate them he also called.” Horn. viii. 30. God knoweth, who are his. This is called the foundation. 32 “The foundation of God standeth sure, having this, seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his.” 2 Tim. ii. 19. The sinners being brought out of darkness into marvellous light, is an event depending on the power and grace of God. And can we believe that God does any thing in time, that was not eternally in his mind and purpose? Has he any new ideas, or designs? Christ speaks of a number that were given to him ; of whom none should be lost; — and in his prayer to the Father for the elect, he says, “ I pray for them — I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” John xvii. 9. It is true, all are called and bidden welcome ; and nothing but their own un¬ willingness prevents their coming — but it is peculiar to the saints, to be chosen and effectually called of God. “ Many are called, but few are chosen.” Matt. xxii. 14 And the apostle addresses the Corinthian brethren, thus — “ To the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus called to be saints. 1 Cor. i. 2. — These passages must evince, that, though the external call of the gospel is to all, yet there is an internal, special and efficacious call, with respect to the saints, by which they are sanctifi¬ ed, and distinguished from the rest of mankind. Only consider the case of one truly taught of God, and effectually called, and pursue this enquiry with at¬ tention and candour — ivho made him to differ from oth¬ ers ? His character and moral disposition were by na¬ ture the same as theirs — yet singular and distinguish¬ ing grace is discovered towards him. He is sanctifi¬ ed and born of God, while others are going on in im¬ penitence and unbelief. He is taken, while they are left. Is it owing to his own exertions ? In what way did he exert himself for holiness, while he had not the least desire after it, but was obstinately opposed to it in the natural temper of his heart ? Or how did he strive to love God, while he only hated him— his mind was enmity against him him, and he was not subject to his law ? But even supposing it was the effect of his own ex¬ ertion as the proximate cause — the inquiry is still but begun, and no solution given ; — another question is 33 still to be asked, how and by whom was he moved and excited to make these exertions ? Should it be answer¬ ed that it was in the exercise of the power of his own free will — no advance will be made — the inquiring mind is still unsatisfied — unrelieved. — We have not yet found the bottom, but are floating upon the sur¬ face. Unless reason be hoodwinked, one question fur¬ ther is unavoidable, and must be satisfactorily answer¬ ed. — Admitting it to be a true maxim, and a general rule that has no exceptions, that like causes under like circumstances ever produce like effects ; how comes it to pass, that others, who have the same freedom of will, are under the same circumstances, and have the same motives set before them, do not put forth the same exertions and obtain the same end ? Now, my friend we have come to the testing point, and unless we lay aside all candour, and shut our eyes to the light of truth, we must feel ourselves driven to this alterna¬ tive, either that it is an effect produced without any cause, or produced by a special divine influence. If you admit the latter, you admit all that is contended for. If you adopt the former, you must do violence to reason, as well as renounce every passage of scrip¬ ture that intimates any thing like a divine election, ei¬ ther as without any meaning, or, what is worse, utterly false ; for every effect must have a cause, and chance is no cause, and can neither design nor choose. On this ground you must relinquish all assured foundation of hope, and all comfort of hope, for the issue of all would be too precarious, on which to place any de¬ pendence, or build any hope. You might chance to fail of salvation, as probably as to obtain it, and much more so, as might be shown : for your self-acquired holiness, even were it real holiness, is not in its nature such as cannot be lost. And if you resort to this ground of confidence, for that strong consolation of hope, which the scriptures promise to the believer, as an anchor to the soul sure and stedfast ; give me leave to say, you will never find it, but your hope will be like the giving up of the ghost. — Must not then, every rational attentive mind, that will allow itself to think candidly upon the subject, be convinced that all the 34 events of time are according to the eternal purpose of God ; and subscribe to that unpopular sentiment of the Assembly of Divines, that “ according to the coun¬ sel of his own will, and for his own glory God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass ?” His ways are indeed above to us. The mode of the divine ope¬ ration, or how it is that God worketh all in all, is an unsearchable subject, and among those deep and se¬ cret things of God, which it is his glory to conceal and our duty to receive and embrace, with.an implicit faith in his word. But, whatever is obscure and incompre¬ hensible, thus much is certain, that those effectually called, are the men chosen in Christ before the foun¬ dation of the world. This the apostle made the sub¬ ject of his joyful thanksgiving to God - “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who Ira th blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heav¬ enly places in Christ. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.” Ephesians i. 3, 4. In the foregoing passage, these several points of doctrine are fully expressed, viz. that God hath elect¬ ed some to eternal life — that this election is not made in time but from eternity — that, God had no motive out of himself for this election ; it was “ according to the good pleasure of his own will”--and that it was not for their foreseen good works, holiness or faith, that they were elected ; — their holiness was not the cause, but the effect of their election; — they were cho¬ sen, not because they were , but that they “ should be holy and without blame before him in love.” — But while grace and mercy shine on the elect, no injury is done to others ; and arguments and motives to indus¬ try, and the diligent use of means are not enervated but enforced by this very consideration. The words of Peter and Paul are full to this point — “ Wherefore the rather Brethren, give all diligence to make your calling and election sure, for if ye do these things, }'e shall never fall,” 2 Peter i, 10, ** Work out your 35 own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Who fulfilleth in us the whole good pleas¬ ure of his goodness, and the work of faith with pow¬ er.” The doctrine of the Saint’s perseverance in holi¬ ness, is inseparably connected with that of Election, and is essential to the accomplishment of God’s eter¬ nal purpose of grace to the redeemed. If there be evidence that any of our race, ever have been, or ever will be saved, it rests wholly upon this doctrine, and without it, must fall to the ground. It is granted that the Christian is in himself capable of falling away. His security lies not in his own strength or sufficiency. Creature holiness is in its nature loseable. Facts prove it. It has been lost. Adam fell from a state of perfect holiness ; and man recovers holiness on¬ ly by sovereign efficacious grace. Angels in glory fell, and are sealed in remediless ruin. If then crea¬ tures in perfect holiness, could not stand without di¬ vine aid, the evidence is much stronger, that creatures but partially sanctified, cannot stand, but will fall from grace, without divine aid to uphold them ; and if the Christian have not the aid of upholding and preserv¬ ing grace — If Christ hath not said, “ Because I live, ye shall live also” — farewell to the Christian hope — fare¬ well holiness — farewell heaven : — the gospel is but a farce — Christ has died in vain ; and hell must be the portion, the inevitable doom of every child of Adam, It is wonderful indeed — it is truly astonishing, how any rational being who discards this doctrine, can yet flatter himself with the hope of heavenly blessedness. What joy or confidence can a believer derive from the clearest evidence of his interest in Christ, if he have no promise to rest upon for his continuance in this state? He can have nothing before him, but the gloomy, sinking fear of final apostaey and separation from Christ. Could this afford that strong consolation which God hath provided for the heirs of promise, that sure and stedfast anchor to those that have fled for refuge to lay hold on the hope set before them ? Could this be joy unspeakable and full of glory ? How can 36 the believer have that peace of God which passeth un¬ derstanding, to keep his mind and heart, without a well grounded hope of eternal life ? And how can he have this hope, without a divine security for his continuance in a state of safety ? Or how can he possibly have such security, while he is ever actually liable to a final apos- tacy ? By this the believer would be left comfortless’. But blessed be God he has not left his children thus comfortless. No. He makes them joy in God, by whom they have received the sure atonement — nay the God of peace fills them with all joy and peace in believing. The Christian hope is built upon a stable and perma¬ nent foundation. It rests upon the oath and promise of a God who cannot lie; and who has promised that he will keep them by his power through faith unto sal¬ vation. So that every true believer in Christ, building his hope upon the immutable promise of God, may join in that triumphant challenge of the apostle, “ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribu¬ lation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or naked¬ ness, or peril, or sword ? Nay, in all these things, we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us ; for I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present northings to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other crea¬ ture, shall be able to seperate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” There are a few passages of Scripture, which in their form of expression seem to favour the sentiment of falling from grace, and are relied upon as proofs by the advocates of the doctrine. Of these I shall call your attention but to one, and occupy the remainder of my letter with an exposition of the memorable passage in Ezekiel xviii. 24, to examine its legitimate bearing upon the subject ; if any it have. “ But w?hen the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth ac¬ cording to the abomination that the wicked man doth — shall he live ? All the righteousness that he hath done, shall not be mentioned-— in his trespass, that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.” 37 This passage of scripture is differently construed, and by a certain class of Christians relied upon in sup¬ port of a scheme of doctrines essentially opposed to the orthodox creed. In the importance of its being rightly understood, all, however must be agreed. For this end, it is necessary to approach it with candour, and a sincere desire for the truth. In my view, there is no real obscurity in the passage itself. It is express¬ ed in terms so plain and definite, as to carry its mean¬ ing in the very face of it. The literal sense is obvious at a glance. It is not in this that the disagreement arises. All will concede that the righteous and wick¬ ed are contrasted — that moral character is marked by moral conduct — that when the righteous man ceases to live in obedience to the commands of God, and gives himself up to a life of sin — all the evidence of his mor¬ al goodness is invalidated, — he forfeits the character of a righteous man ; and is viewed and will be treated by God as a transgressor — an impenitent sinner. This is the plain, unequivocal instruction here given. “ When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth — shall he live ? All his righteousness that he hath done, shall not be mentioned — in his tresspasses that he hath tres¬ passed, and in the sin that he hath sinned, shall he die.” The misapplication of this passage, lies in a wrong inference which some draw from it. The question arises, does the righteous man ever in fact become a wicked man ? — or does the real Christian ever fall from grace ? The statement is supposed to imply the possibility of the thing, as an event to which the Chris¬ tian is liable ; — but, in fact, it decides nothing upon the point. It has no bearing on the subject. The con¬ clusion is unauthorized from the premises, and made but to support a preconceived and favourite sentiment. To resolve any doubts on this passage, its immedi¬ ate connexion, — the scope of the chapter, and its ac¬ cordance with the grand scheme of Scripture doc¬ trines, are all to be taken into view. In pursuit of this method, we shall not essentially mistake the meaning 4 38 of the Holy Spirit ; and a brief history of the text will cast no small light on the path of inquiry. In the time of Ezekiel’s prophecy, the Israelites were in their Babylonian captivity. They had suffer¬ ed the awful judgments of Heaven in the calamities of a most distressing war. The king of Babylon with his victorious army had overrun and ravaged their country — slaughtered many of their brethren — robbed and destroyed their temple, and carried the remainder of them away as captives into Chaldea, where in a state of depression and servitude, they were miserable ex¬ iles in a heathen land. Under these humbling and distressing circumstances, powerfully calculated to lead to repentance and reformation, they hardened themselves against the judgments of God — censured the rectitude of his government, and directly taxed him with injustice and cruelty. They would not acknowl¬ edge themselves deserving of the evils which they suf¬ fered. They would own that their fathers, who had been permitted to go to their graves in peace, had sin¬ ned and provoked the anger of God, for which these judgments were now sent upon them ; and that they were in fact suffering the punishment due to their fa¬ ther’s crimes, and not to their own. So fixed were they in this sentiment, that they had adopted it as a maxim, a common-cant proverb in general use, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge. The prophet was sent, charged with a special commission to reprove them for this horrid reflection on the divine government, and to silence their rebellious clamours, by justifying the ways of God as equal and right ; — to assure them, that he viewed and treated every one according to his real character ; — that he did not confound the innocent with the guil¬ ty — or punish one for crimes committed by another. “ What mean ye that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, the fathers have eaten sour grapes , and the children's teeth are set on edge ? As X live saith the Lord God ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine — as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine ; — the soul that sinneth, shall die.” That is, 39 your fathers, however wicked and rebellious they were in their day, are still my creatures and in my hands. They are not beyond the reach of punishment, because they are removed from the earth. You are punished for your own sins, and not for your fathers : — Every man shall bear his own burden. “ The soul that sin- eth, it shall, die.” The Most High then condescends to reason and expostulate with them upon the subject, by stating a number of opposite cases, in proof of the point, in the nature of an appeal to their own observa¬ tion and experience. He first states the example of a righteous man, who lives in obedience to the com¬ mands of God, and abstains from the impious practi¬ ces of the wicked, and declares, he shall surely live. He then varies the view- — If he have a son of an oppo¬ site character, who lives regardless of the duties of re¬ ligion, walks in disobedience, and indulges in a course of impiety towards God and injustice to bis fellow men — he shall surely die — -his blood shall be upon him. “Now, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father’s sins, which he did, and considereth and doeth not such like — but profits by his father’s evil example, to turn from sin, and lead a life of religion and holy obedi¬ ence — lie shall not die for the iniquity of his father — he shall surely live. The justice of God is impartial. His ways are equal. His righteousness is perfect. He will reward every man according to his works and ac¬ cording to the fruit of his doings. The soul that sin- eth it shall die. — “The son shall not bear the iniqui¬ ty of his father, nor the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be up¬ on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be up¬ on him.” The justice of God being thus copiously declared, his mercy is next exhibited, and the door of pardon and reconciliation set open to the penitent sinner, how¬ ever guilty and vile. “ But if the wicked will turn from all his sin that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgres¬ sions that he hath committed, shall not be mentioned to him — in his righteousness that he hath done he shall 40 Jive,” To give the important idea, the more forcible impression, he appeals to the reason, experience anc! common sense of mankind, and every correct notion of Deity, which the light of nature teaches. u Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should turn from Ins way and live Can a being of infinite perfection take any pleasure in the sufferings of his creatures ? Can the kind and benevolent parent of the universe, delight in the exercise of cruelty towards his rational off- •> spring? — Yet his mercy is not built upon the ruin of his justice : They are ever exercised in perfect har¬ mony and unitedly displayed, Pardon and salvation are promised only to the 'penitent sinner, who turns from his evil ways, and does that which is lawful and right. They cannot be extended to the impenitent, the incorrigibly wicked. It is impossible in the nature of things. It is infinitely inconsistent with the char¬ acter, law and government of God. Mankind are now forming £ their characters for eternity — preparing for an unchangeable state of retribution ; and accord¬ ing to the characters they now form, and with which they leave this world, will be their condition in the next. The test of sincerity is persevering obedience. To such only is the promise of salvation made. “ He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. And therefore, for the conviction and confusion of all apostatizing Christians, and selfrighteous hypocrites, the solemn declaration is added — “ But when the . righteous turneth away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth; shall he live ? All his righteousness that he hath done, shall not be mentioned — in his trespass that he hath trespass¬ ed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, shall he die.” From the exposition now made, it is evident that nothing said in the 18th Chapter of Ezekiel, has any application or relevancy to the present subject of in¬ quiry. It neither decides, nor touches it. Whether the righteous man under the gospel dispensation shall ever turn away from his righteousness, or the Christian fall from grace, is another question entirely distinct, 41 and must be supported, if it can be supported, by other Scripture authorities ; — and these, it is confidently presumed, cannot be found in the divine oracles. That we may not however fail of receiving the legi¬ timate instruction which this sacred passage affords, let us briefly notice a few important points of gospel doctrine, which are the most prominent, and fairly deducible from the exposition given. 1. The perfect rectitude and impartial justice of the divine government. God is influenced by no undue affection, prejudice or prepossession, but views and treats every individual according to his real present character. 2. In the government of God, there is no transfer¬ ence of moral character, or desert from one to another — no imputation either of guilt or righteousness — but every man’s moral character in the sight of God is formed by himself, and established upon the basis of his own moral conduct— “ the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son — the soul that sinneth it shall die.” How then, it may be asked, are mankind affected, ei¬ ther by Adam’s sin, or Christ’s righteousness? I answer, in neither by imputation, or an absolute, positive tranfer of personal moral desert. Holiness is the only quality in the character of moral beings, in which God takes any complacence. “ Without holiness no man shall see the Lord” — which as necessarily implies, that wherever holiness is found, it meets the divine accept¬ ance and secures the favour of God. Therefore, 3. To hope for the divine approbation, without per¬ sonal holiness, is a delusion — a mark of the deceived hypocrite. And yet are there not many professing Christians, and perhaps real Christians, in a measure betrayed into this inconsistency ? They do not enjoy God— their affections are cold and formal — they feel themselves destitute of the life and power of religion — they have no sensible communion with God — no mani¬ festations of his special grace; — and yet, notwithstand¬ ing all this evidence to the contrary, they will cherish the idea, that God loves them, and has complacency in them for Christ’s sake. It is a deception. God does 4 # 4£ not approve of tlieir characters for Christ’s sake ; and no farther does he approve of them, than as they are conformed to Christ, and possess and exercise his spir¬ it : — and as far as they think that God approves of them for Christ’s sake, while destitute of his spirit they deceive themselves, and if they continue to cherish this hope in a life of sin, it is a fatal deception. It was not Christ’s errand into the world to render sin accep¬ table to God, but to condemn it utterly. God’s appro¬ bation of any creature, is ever in exact proportion to the personal holiness of his present character ; and the man’s religious enjoyment never rises higher than his religious exercises. The Christians deadness and for¬ mality in religion, and his want of religious enjoyment, are in themselves evidences of God’s disapprobation. There is no affectation in the Most High. God ever manifests to every one of his creatures, all the appro¬ bation which he feels towards them, and no more. Sin is as hateful to God in his own children, as it is in his enemies — yea as it is in the devils. In this light ought Christians to view themselves, and not to think that God loves them and approves of them, any farther than they have and do exercise real holiness. — Therefore, 4. All who trust in past experience and supposed conversion, must stand reproved. The only evidence of grace, is the present exercise of it ; and God views every creature according to his real present character, let his past conduct have been whatever it may. Pre¬ sent wickedness of heart and life expunges all past evidence of holiness; — for when the righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and leads a life of sin — alibis righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned — but he shall die in his transgressions. Thus creatures are changeable, and creature holiness is capable of being lost. On this point God hath given us an ever memorable example, exactly corresponding with this declaration of his word. Adam the first parent of our race was created in holiness. He once loved God with all his heart. But this righteous man turned away from his righteousness and committed iniquity ; — of course, he immediately lost the approbation and favour of God, L 43 He acquired the character of a sinner and that only. All his righteousness which he once had and previ¬ ously exercised, shall never be mentioned. It is com¬ pletely obliterated and gone, as if it had never been ; and whether he stood a day or a year, or a thousand years, is wholly immaterial ; — the moment he turned away from his righteousness — all his righteousness that he had done was forever lost, both to himself and the universe, and shall never be mentioned. 5. The subject is a bright exhibition of the mercy of God ; — the infinite provision which he hath made for the sinners of mankind, and the moving encouragement he sets before the wicked to turn from his wickedness —repent of his sins, and do that which is lawful and right. “ If the wicked turn from all his sins which he hath committed, and keep my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath commit¬ ted, shall not be mentioned to him ; — in his righteous¬ ness that he hath done, he shall live.” God hath pro¬ vided an allsufficient remedy in the atoning blood of Christ. His holy displeasure against sin is fully mani¬ fested in the sufferings of his Son — the law honored — justice satisfied — every bar in the way removed, and the mercy of God is infinite — it is boundless as his na¬ ture. No sins are too many or too great for God to forgive. The invitation is universal. The promise of pardon to the penitent is unlimited. Past wicked¬ ness however great is no bar in the way of pardon to the penitent sinner. As soon as ever he repents of his sin — turns from his wicked way, and lives in obe¬ dience, all his past sins are forever blotted out, and he stands as fully in the divine favour, as if he had never committed one sin : — they will not be brought up against him— -nor mentioned.— -Let us then welcome the glad tidings of the gospel, as all our salvation and all our desire. Yours sincerely, Aristarchus. LETTER IV. Dear Sir, The character of God and man, are the two great foundation principles upon which the whole system of Christian Theology is built. The former is primary and of leading influence — but both are mutually connected by an inseparable relation. I shall not attempt, there¬ fore to disjoin them, but treat of them in their connex¬ ion and in a collective view. According to the views which a man entertains of the character of his God, will be his views of his own character ; and the nature and complexion of every part of his religious system, both in faith and practice, will be conformable to these two fundamental articles of his creed. “ Every man” saith the prophet “ will walk in the name of his God.” Were mankind agreed in these two points, they would not be essentially dis¬ agreed in any other. Your late favour in answer to the remarks made in my former communications, I have received, and care¬ fully examined its contents ; and while opposed in my views of divine truth, I am pleased with the honest frankness with which you express the reasons of your dissent to the doctrines I have advocated. I shall now endeavour to give each of your objections in their or¬ der, a fair and candid examination, making the knowl¬ edge and establishment of truth the primary object of research. The first objection offered, is stated in the following terms ; — “ Your views of the total depravity of mankind, as a natural and necessary consequence of the original apostacy, while you disclaim the idea of imputed guilt, do, in effect, establish it, by the evil consequences to his posterity which you connect with Adams first sin. And how is this consistent with that Bible sentiment 45 which you adduce in illustration of the subject, that the ‘ son shall not be punished for his fathers sins ’?” A minutes candid attention to this query, will, I think, be sufficient to remove the difficulty. The ob¬ jection arises from a mistaken view of the nature of punishment, and not making a proper distinction be¬ tween it and guilt. Let it be determined, then, in the fust place, what is punishment? And I hesitate not to say, that punishment must consist in something which is contrary to the choice, disagreeable to the feelings, and brings pain and suffering to the subject of it. It cannot, otherwise be punishment. It must, therefore consist, not in action but suffering — not in moral, but in natural evil. If so, the total depravity of mankind, as the consequence of Adam’s transgression, and which consists in moral character solely, and im¬ plies in itself no suffering — cannot be, to them, any punishment — for it is the object of their choice, and perfectly agreeable to their natural taste. We know that God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon their children — this is expressly declared in the second commandment, — that is, wicked parents shall have wicked children like themselves. This is according to the Adamic constitution, and an established princi¬ ple of the divine government — but it is not punishing the son for his fathers sins. Spiritual death is not punishment — but guilt. It is that which renders the subject deserving of punish¬ ment. Total depravity is indeed a great calamity to mankind. It is the cause of their misery, and of their eternal ruin— it is not a penal evil, but that for which they are punished. If it were punishment, such a case as this would be reasonable and parallel— a thief and a murderer are duly convicted of their respective crimes, and the Court awards sentence that the one shall steal, and the other murder again. Your next objection is of a kindred character, though an appeal is made to Scripture authority. You say— “The moral purity of children is proved by our Sav¬ iours declaration in Matthew 18. 3. “ Verily I say unto you except ye be converted, and become as little chil¬ dren, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven,” 46 Now if conversion necessarily implies holiness in its subject, these words of Christ necessarily ascribe holi¬ ness to children — or there could be no justice, or pro¬ priety in similitude. Otherwise, the construction would be, Except ye be converted, and become totally depraved, and wholly at enmity with God, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. This construction, my friend, give me leave to say, does not necessarily follow from the total depravity of infants — nor is their holiness either expressed or im¬ plied in this declaration of the Saviour. It does not arise from the immediate or remote connexion of the words — nor was it the particular instruction designed to be communicated by the comparison. A similitude does not imply likeness in all respects, between the objects compared. They may be in their nature en¬ tirely different, yet in some of their visible properties, a general resemblance traced, and fitly applied in illus¬ tration of some particular truth, perhaps totally diffe¬ rent from that of the object to which it is compared. — We have a striking example of this, in our Saviours parable of the unjust Steward, in Luke 16th and par¬ ticularly in the 8th and 9th verses, where the parable is applied. “ And the Lord commended the unjust Steward, because he had done wisely, for, the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. And I say unto you, make to your¬ selves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.” Here we see the unjust Steward is commended ; and his conduct while in office, in providing for his future maintenance, when divested of his stewardship, held up as an example worthy the imitation of mankind ; — in illustration of whose circumstances and future pros¬ pects, the parable was spoken and applied. But for what was the unjust Steward commended ? Was it for his dishonesty in wasting his Master’s goods, or de¬ frauding him of his just dues ? Certainly not. In this point, the parable had no application. Christ did not commend him as an example in this view, but only in a comparative light, as being so far worthy of imita- 47 tion by the children of light, as that they should by proper means take the same care and pains to secure the happiness of heaven, after this world, as the unjust Steward did by his dishonest practice, to secure a fu¬ ture living, after he had lost his stewardship. And no more does the passage which you have brought, signify a similitude in all respects. By the necessity of our being converted, and becoming as lit¬ tle children, in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, it is no more implied that little children have any nat¬ ural holiness, than in the other, that the unjust Stew¬ ard was commended for his dishonesty; or that because he was proposed as an example for our imitation, therefore he was an honest and good man. They are both parables or similitudes, and the extent of their instruction is to be learned, by viewing their design and occasion, and their connexion with other pertinent passages of scripture. Let us then examine your text by these rules. The disciples appliedto Christ with this question, “ Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Christ’s an¬ swer was in the best manner calculated to inform their understandings, and correct their pride. “ And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, and said, verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The feelings and behaviour of a little child towards his earthly parent, are brought to illustrate the holy affections of the child of God. Though the seeds of depravity are sown in the very constitution of the hu¬ man soul ; and through that root of bitterness shoots up in the first opening of the spring of life ; yet in lit¬ tle children, before the prejudices of others are imbib¬ ed, and their natural corruptions strengthened by evil example and vicious habits of adult years, nature then exhibits a fairer semblance of true virtue, than at any after period of an impenitent state. This comparison, therefore, of our Saviour implies, that, that spirit of de¬ pendence and filial love — that submission and respect to his authority — that attachment to his person, char¬ acter and interest — that hope, trust, confidence fear and 48 gratitude which a little child exercises towards his pa¬ rent, flowing from the source of natural affections-- or, in connexion with this, from a natural smoothness and tractability of temper ; are emblematic of the Christian temper towards God, flowing from a holy heart. But the natural are perfectly distinct from the moral affections ; and therefore the exercise of them does not imply any holiness in the child. Upon any other construction, this passage would be made to contradict those already adduced, which de¬ clare the natural total depravity of the human heart, in terms too plain to be misunderstood. — A recurrence to one of these will be sufficient; and it is our Sav¬ iour’s w'ords to Nicodemus — “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus expressing his sur¬ prise at the doctrine, Christ proceeded to instruct him in the nature of the new birth. “ Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit.” Here the first and se¬ cond, or the natural and spiritual birth are held up in contrast and distinguished by their nature and effects. By flesh here as in all other places of Scripture, where it is expressive of moral character, is meant the carnal mind. “ The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” we read, — that is, the exercises of the carnal mind are in oppo¬ sition to those of the renewed spiritual mind. That which is born in the flesh, is flesh — evidently meaning, that by natural birth we arc possessed of a carnal mind. What the carnal mind is, we are told, Rom . 8. 7. “ en¬ mity against God, and cannot be subject to his law” — or in other words, that it is totally depraved. This is given as a reason of the necessity of the New Birth. Is not this alone sufficient to disprove the native moral purity of children. If they are naturally possessed of it, they need no regeneration — they may see the king¬ dom of God without being born again. But should you say, that notwithstanding by nature they are destitute of holiness, yet the second birth im¬ mediately, or at the instant of baptism, succeeds the 49 first — this would be an assertion wholly without proof, either from Scripture or experience. But in doing this, you must relinquish the idea of the native moral purity of children — for there can be no moral purity unless it be native. Regeneration excludes the idea. Preternatural holiness necessarily implies natural un¬ holiness. There can be no such thing as regeneration, unless upon a subject totally depraved. A creature who has once sinned, will eternally after be a guilty creature. None but sinners can enter through the door of regeneration. The most pious Christian on earth, yea, the saints in glory, who are made perfect in holi¬ ness, are, and ever will be guilty creatures, and per¬ sonally deserving of eternal punishment. From all which, I think we must conclude, that our Saviour’s de¬ claration in Matthew xvii. 3 ; cannot be construed to imply the native moral purity of children. You proceed in your reasonings upon this subject, in opposition to the doctrine of human depravity as being native in its origin, and total in its degree, and in your next objection say, — Let it be conceded that we possess a sinful nature, and evil propensities ; but are there not likewise, good natural dispositions as early discoverable as evil ones? I am fully persuaded there are. 1 will not contend, however, that these are inherited by nature, but wrought by the influences of the Holy Spirit, through the Redeemer. You will indeed find children subject to wicked passions — but you also see them relenting for their indulgence. They are possessed of many amiable qualities— -are grateful to their parents- — just and kind to their companions-— sympathetic towards the afflicted— -strangers to envy and malice ; and, if suitably educated, will generally grow up religious. But what more especially convinces me of this, is that declaration of our Saviour, in which he says of little children— “ Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” What i3 commonly cal let! a good natural disposition, or good nature, or pleasant temper, or sympathetic spir¬ it, may, for aught [ know, be as early discoverable in children as the reverse — but then it is no more conclu¬ sive evidence of moral virtue, or any more the genu- 50 ine fruit of the Spirit of God than a good natural com¬ plexion, or symmetry of limbs and features. These are natural endowments and some of them merely in¬ stinctive. There are two men, one of a mild, placid natural temper — the other morose and sullen ; and yet neither of them have any reconciliation to God. The former, though he be naturally pleasant, sociable and kind to his fellow men, yet, at the same time, may dis¬ cover no regard to the glory of God, or any love to his character. He may live in known and allowed sins against God, and scruple not to break his commands in innumerable instances. I presume you may easily re¬ cognize such characters within the circle of your ac¬ quaintance. But do you mean (for I certainly wish to understand you correctly) that all children are sanctified by the Spirit of God in infancy, and regenerated as soon as they are born ? If so, I ask, on what evidence your faith is built? Both Scripture and experience are against it. Solomon, by inspiration says, that “ fool¬ ishness (by which he invariably means wickedness) is bound up in the heart of a child.” Prov. xxii. 15. And David, “ The wicked are estranged from the womb — they go astray as soon as they be born.” Psalm lviii.3. Estrangement and reconciliation are con¬ trasts ; and if they are estranged from the womb, they are not reconciled from the womb. Furthermore, if mankind are sanctified from the womb, or regenerated as soon as born, why are they not universally pious in adult years ? This would be the necessary consequence. Holiness through the merits of Christ, once given, is never afterwards lost — but is an abiding and everlasting principle in the heart — it is eternal life . “ The gifts and calling of God, are without repentance.” Rom. xi. 29. — Paul says — “ Being cofident of this very thing, that He which hath begun a good work in you, will perform it, until the day of Jesus Christ.” Phillpians i. 6. — The univer¬ sal sanctification of children is therefore fully disprov¬ ed, both by Scripture and facts. But if you mean only that God does actually regene¬ rate some children in infancy ; it is agreed. We have 51 Scripture examples. Timothy and Josiah were pious in childhood ; and Jeremiah and John Baptist were sanctified in the womb. But does all this disprove the doctrine of original sin, or establish the native moral purity of children ? Directly the reverse. And to as little purpose are those words of our Saviour adduced — “ Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” That little children may be the subjects of divine grace and that of such is the kingdom of heaven, who entertains a doubt ? But even allowing that all children dying in infancy are sanctified, does this prove that all other in¬ fants are ? Your text is no conclusive proof even of the former. If the Saviour had said, suffer adult sin¬ ners of mankind to come unto me, (and assuredly he does so invite them) for of such is the kingdom of hea¬ ven — This would be absolute proof of the salvation only of some adult sinners — it would be wholly inconclu¬ sive to prove the sanctification, or salvation of all. In your next objection, you have given a fuller de- velopement of your plan, and assumed the appearance of reasoning, with a laudable, had it been a well direct¬ ed zeal, for the honour of human nature. In your rea¬ sonings, however, opinion is substituted for argument, and assertion for proof. This I shall now attempt to show; and to meet your objection fairly, and give eve¬ ry part of it, its due weight, I shall first quote the whole of it at large. The following are your remarks. “The doctrine of total depravity represents man¬ kind as bad, and as wicked by nature as the infernal spirits. But this is surely incorrect. Men have conscience, and where that exists, the principle of moral virtue cannot be extinct. Conscience is posses¬ sed by all, and is derived to us through the mediation of Christ. In truth, I do not call conscience natural. It would sound oddly to talk of the devil’s conscience. “If by conscience be meant only a sense of guilt and baseness : — This I grant the devil possesses — but does not human nature, through the Mediator pos¬ sess something different from this? Is this all that we mean by conscience? Does not conscience prompt us to do the thing that is right, when known ? and upon the very principle, that the understanding is 52 sensible of a power to do it, and to avoid the contrary evil ? This is what I call freedom. Upon your princi¬ ple, I see not but that the devil is as free to act as men. i make no doubt that he freely chooses evil- — his will is thoroughly inclined to it, and he is incapable of will¬ ing any thing else — but I do not suppose this to be the case with men.” As this doctrine is rather miscellaneous and multi¬ form, I shall first make some remarks upon the subject of Conscience generally, and then recite and particu¬ larly answer the several parts of your objection in their order, in a sort of colloquy. Conscience, whatever it is, was not lost by the fall, and therefore is not what was restored to us by Christ, A good conscience was lost, and that is restored to the sanctified by Christ ; — but Conscience in the general sense of it, the thing of Which we are now treating, is no fruit of Christ’s atonement. That it should operate as a restraint upon wicked men is — but Conscience it¬ self is not. This may help us to a right understanding of the comparison between men and devils, at which you seem to take fright. The doctrine of total depravity in men, it is true, leaves no moral essential difference between them and the fallen angels. Men by nature have no more real holiness, than the devils have — nor does the possession of conscience in the least alter the case. Your assertion, that where conscience exists, moral virtue cannot be extinct—I do not believe. In this point we are entirely opposed, and for a decision must have some better proof than personal opinion. God has indeed distinguished man by his grace in pro¬ viding for his salvation, and imposing by means of na¬ tural conscience, and in many other ways, innumerable restraints upon his corrupt propensities. Without these, human society could not subsist ; or the ends of a probationary state be answered. These external cir¬ cumstances, and not real moral character, form the es¬ sential difference between fallen men and fallen angels. They may differ in their degrees of wickedness* but exactly symbolize in their destitution of holiness. If this be true, your sentiment must be incorrect, that 53 where conscience exists , the 'principle of moral virtue cannot be extinct. But to return to the subject pro¬ posed. Conscience is not a fruit of Christ’s atonement. It might and would have been possessed by mankind, had no redemption been provided. The damned in despair possess it in a high degree. It is the worm that never dies. What then is Conscience ? I answer, it is simply this — The judgment of the man comparing his conduct with an apprehended rule of duty (I say ap¬ prehended because that rule may be true or false, real or imaginary) and discerning the argument or disagreement of that conduct with the rule. And the office of consciene is twofold , either to accuse , or ex¬ cuse — either to justify or to condemn , according as that agreement or disagreement is discerned. When the rule duly is rightly apprehended, and the act is agreeable to that rule, and that agreement dis¬ cerned — the man then enjoys a good conscience. When the rule is rightly apprehended, and the man conducts contrary to it, he then does violence to his own sense of right ; he has an evil or wicked con¬ science. When the rule is misapprehended, and the man con¬ ducts either agreeably or disagreeably, to that misap¬ prehended rule; — he sins in either case ; even though his conscience acquit him for acting agreeably to his wrong rule. This is what the Apostle calls a polluted or defiled conscience. It is easy from this to see, that conscience is not a rule or standard of right. We have no other standard, but the word of God. Conscience must be duly regulated by that, for the man to be right in acting according to his own conscience. --Paul acted very conscientious¬ ly in persecuting the church of Christ. It was, as he thought, from a zeal for God. He says that he “ cer¬ tainly thought that he ought to do many things con¬ trary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Acts 26. 9. Yet he conducted very wickedly in so doing; and afterwards severely condemned himself for it. We indeed read of some, who have become callous 5 * 54 to a sense of right and wrong ; which the apostle des¬ cribes by a very bold and striking figure ; “ having their conscience seared as with a hot iron.” 1. Tim. iv. 2. This does not mean, that they know not the rule of duty— or discern not the disagreement of their own conduct with the rule— or that they have no conscience at all ; — but that they have been so long in the habit of doing violence to their conscience, that the moral sense becomes, at length, stupified, and conscience ceases to do its office, in accusing and condemning : not that consicence ceases to exist — for, conscience is inseparable from the nature of a rational being. I shall now more particularly advert to your reason¬ ings, and must requote your words in their order, to consider their force and application. Philemon. In truth I do not call conscience natural. Aristarchus. It is a truth that conscience is a na¬ tural faculty of the mind, as much so as reason or me¬ mory, and cannot be separated even in idea from a ra¬ tional being. A good conscience, I grant is supernatu¬ ral, or the effect of special grace. The apostle says, “ We trust that we have a good conscience.” Heb . xiii. 8. This surely admits the idea of an evil conscience. Here then is the foundation of your error upon this point, and it is a fruitful source of error — 1 mean your not making proper distinctions. By conscience, you mean only a good conscience. An evil conscience, how¬ ever, is no less conscience. But is an evil conscience, a defiled or polluted conscience — a hardened or seared conscience, supernatural to us ? Not if we are natural¬ ly wicked and wholly so as has been shown. This state requires no supernatural interposition to possess us of an evil conscience We do not need the media¬ tion of Christ to obtain it. Natural, or impenitent men, therefore, have conscience ; and therefore, con¬ science is natural — for, natural men have no endow¬ ment that is supernatural. Philemon. It would sound oddly to talk of the de¬ vil’s conscience. Aristarchus. This is because you invariably at¬ tach moral goodness to conscience, and admit not the idea of an evil conscience. The devil has a conscience 55 as really as Belteshazzar had, when he saw the hand¬ writing upon the wall and his knees smote together. “ The devils also believe and tremble .” which they would not do, were they not by conscience convicted of being guilty creatures, and justly exposed to divine wrath. Philem. If by conscience be meant a sense of guilt and baseness, this I grant that the devil possesses. Arxst. You then grant all that is asked ; and does not the knowledge of guilt, a sense of baseness and evil desert, imply a conscience in exercise ; it is an un¬ doubted office of that monitor in the human breast, to reprove and condemn for sin. “ Their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts, the mean while accusing , or else excusing one another.” Rom. ii. 15, Remorse is predicable only of conscience, and the de¬ gree of it is always in proportion as conscience does its office. Why then should it sound oddly to you to talk of the devil’s conscience? Philem. But does not human nature through the Mediator possess something different from this? Arist. Yes, in a limited sense. Through the Me¬ diator the saints possess a good conscience, and in con¬ sequence of his mediation, all men who have not a de¬ filed or seared conscience, are in a greater or less de¬ gree under the restraints of conscience. Philem. Is this all that we mean by conscience? Arist. I have already answered this question in the negative. Philem. Does not conscience prompt us to do the thing that is right when known ? Arise. It does in good men — but conscience nev¬ er prompted an impenitent sinner so as to cause him to do one virtuous action. The contrary supposition would imply a contradiction, for the impenitent heart is enmity against God. It therefore, constantly and wholly opposes the most enlightened conscience ; this dictates love to God, and without it there is no moral virtue in any action whatever. Philem. And upon the very principle that the un¬ derstanding is sensible of a power to do it and to avoid the contrary evil ? 56 Arist. Yes— but not that the understanding is sen-"* sible of a disposition to do it, and to avoid the contra¬ ry evil. This is never the case with the natural man. His mind is not subject to the law of God, nor can be. Philem. This is what I call freedom. Arist. Natural power is no more freedom, than the body is the soul. Freedom to moral action is pred¬ icable only of the will. A natural power to do right or wrong, I grant is the foundation of freedom, or volun¬ tary exercise ; and so too the body is a vehicle the soul, yet it is not the soul. But a natural power does not imply a disposition towards right. It is the dis¬ position that governs the man ; but that this should be equally inclined both to good and evil, at the same time, is inconsistent and absurd. Phil. Upon your principle, I see not but that the devil is as free to act as men. Arist. This ought to convince you that the prin¬ ciple is right — for, undoubtedly, the devil is as free to act as any other being in the universe, and is as much a moral agent. Phil. I make no doubt, but he freely chooses evil. Arist. But do not wicked men act as freely as the devil does in choosing evil ? Phil. His will is thoroughly inclined to it, and he is incapable of willing any tiling else. Arist. And just as much is the will of impenitent men. “ Every imagination of the thought of their heart is only evil continually.” Phil, But I do not suppose this to be the case with men. Arist. The supposition is unsupported by scrip¬ ture, reason or experience. Yours &lc. Aristarchus. LETTER V. Dear Sin, Your next objection is thus stated — “ The impo¬ tence of mankind for which you contend, will in fact excuse them from blame ; and it is idle to make any distinctions in the case. Impotence is impotence, and its effects are the same, let the kind of impotence be what it may.” Is this, my friend, a correct sentiment — one which in your cool, deliberate judgment you can adopt, and argue from as a true principle ; — that the dependence of the creature is opposed to his moral agency, and exempts him from blame ? — and is it indeed so that the want of natural power, and the want of a moral dispo¬ sition, are urnlistinguishable, either in their nature or effects? In this point we are far from seeing alike, — we are widely disagreed ; — but let us fairly examine it. Supposing a man at noon day, should close his eyes and exclaim, blindness is blindness, whether a man cannot see or will not see; — whether he have a cata¬ ract, or an artificial bandage over his sight, and there is no distinction to be made, the case is the same and the consequences are the same — the man is in the dark, and it is impossible for him to see ; — would you not think him to be in sport or deranged in his intellects ? Children see the distinction between natural and moral impotence, and practice upon it — indeed black and white are not more distinguishable. The difference is as great as this — that, the more we have of moral im¬ potence, the more we have of blame — and the more we have of natural impotence, the less we are to blame, and the less deserving of punishment. And surely it requires no uncommon discernment to see the differ¬ ence between cannot and will not. To be dead in trespasses and sins is the highest expression of guilt — bespeaks a heart wholly devoted 58 to the service of satan, and under the reigning power of sin. We are guilty in proportion as we are deprav¬ ed, unless some reasonable and sufficient excuse can be given, why we should not love God with all our heart. Our spiritual death is punishable. Its proper wages, and just demerit, is eternal death. The moral impotency of mankind consists in an utter disaffection and enmity of heart, towards the character and govern¬ ment of God, and a life of continued disobedience to his lawcl ; — and to argue that sin is less sinful because it is sin, would be a mode of reasoning as novel as it is irrational. Philemon. But it cannot be true as you have as¬ serted, that the regeneration of the sinner is immedi¬ ately, instantaneously and irresjstably effected by the operation of the Holy Spirit. As you advance no argument in support of your as¬ sertion, I ask, why not ? Where is the inconsistency ? We will take these ideas separately and examine them, and remember that we want proofs rather than opin¬ ions. And, 1. Whether the regeneration of the sinner be not effected by the immediate operation of the Spirit ? By regeneration understand me invariably to mean, change of heart , or what is called in scripture, being born of God. And here is an important distinction to be taken into view, which many do not make — and that is, between regeneration and conversion. The first I consider as purely the act of God in removing the veil of blindness, — or in making the evil tree good — or in changing the heart ; — in which, abstractly con¬ sidered, the creature is no more active, than in his ori¬ ginal creation. The latter is the act of the creature in turning to God. Conversion means turning. It is the exercise of the renewed mind. Now by immediate with respect to regeneration, I mean to exclude not only the efficacy but the instru¬ mentality of means. It is not denied that God uses many and various means in the awakening and convic¬ tion of the sinner, and preparing his mind for regene¬ rating grace. A^et these have efficacy only by the ac¬ companying power of God. But in the act of regen- 59 eration, immediate power is exerted. It is the work of God and peculiarly his own. It is an impartation of the divine nature to the soul, effected by an almigh¬ ty fiat — by an immediate touch of the finger of Jeho¬ vah, by which the soul is transformed into the divine image. It is compared by the apostle to that imme¬ diate display of the divine power in the creation of the natural world, when God said “ let there be light and there was light” — “ for God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.’7 Regeneration is frequent¬ ly described as a new creation, and as a spiritual res¬ urrection — these are works of God effected by the di¬ rect act of omnipotence, and necessarily exclude the efficacy of means and instruments. By what means did God create the world? “ He commanded and it stood fast” — he said, “ let there be light and there was light.” — By what instrumentality was Christ raised from the dead ? It is ascribed by the apostle to the mighty power of God ; and he tells the Ephesian Christians, that they were quickened to spiritual life, when they were dead in trespasses and sins by the same power. “And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead.” Ephe¬ sians i. 19, 20. By what cause, were the dead raised in Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones ? Was the effect produced by his prophesying or something else ? Means here, though appointed and used had no efficacy ; the power of God alone effected the end. Against this view of the immediate power of God in regeneration, that passage in James i. 18, is brought and by some much relied on as proof that regenera¬ tion is effected by means — “ Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth but this must be construed according to the analogy of faith, and in accordance with other passages, and not set in opposition to the whole stream of scripture instruction on the subject. It cannot respect the particular creative act of regene¬ ration, which is an act of physical, almighty power — 60 biit refers to the whole process of sanctification, which is ascribed to the instrumentality of the word, because that is appointed of God, as the grand means of salva¬ tion. The change of the heart is indeed a moral ef¬ fect, but it can be produced only by a physical cause. “ Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Psalms cx. 3. “ We have this treasure in earthen ves¬ sels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.’ 2 Cor. iv. 7. The scriptures in innu¬ merable instances, describe this change of heart in terms peculiarly expressive of the appropriate effects of divine power. If, therefore, it be an operation of divine power, communicating a participation of the divine nature, and without the efficacy of means, as I think, both scripture and reason teach, it must be an immediate effect. 2. This change is instantaneous. If the former be true, this will follow of course ; for whatever is effect¬ ed without means must be instantaneous. “ God said let there be light, and there was light.” It was an in¬ stantaneous effect. Furthermore, — it is impossible in the nature of things, that regeneration should not be instantaneous. Every one must be agreed in this, that there is no mid¬ dle character among- moral agents, or one that is nei- t he r sinful nor holy — and that moral exercises consti¬ tute moral character. Christ saith, u lie that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Of necessity a man is either holy or unholy — penitent or impenitent; and there must be a certain time when the penitent sinner ceas¬ ed to be impenitent ; — is it not then certain, that the moment he ceases to be impenitent he becomes a peni¬ tent ; and the last impenitent exercise is instantly fol¬ lowed by the first exercise of repentance ? Otherwise, there must be a space of time, longer or shorter, in which the man is neither holy nor unholy, penitent nor impenitent, dead nor alive ; — this is impossible unless he should cease to be a moral agent. There¬ fore the change of regeneration is and must be instan¬ taneous. 3. It is effected by a \\ irresistible operation of the 61 Spirit of God. If the change be immediate and instan¬ taneous, it must be by an irresistible energy — for until the sinner is conquered, he does nothing but resist. Said Stephen to the persecuting Jews, “ Yjs stiff-neck¬ ed and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, as your fathers did, so do ye.” Every exercise of the impenitent heart is in opposition to God, and the strivings of his Spirit; and he is fully bent upon resistance. “ The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law, nor indeed can be” — he is therefore as obstinately opposed to the strivings of the Spirit, and as long as he retains that temper, he can and will resist. Unless, therefore, a power is exerted sufficient to overcome that resistance, or, in other words, which is irresistible , the sinner never will submit. No self determining power of the will, no means, motives or persuasion, will effect a change of nature, or produce from the carnal heart, the fruits of righteousness : — the bramble will never yield grapes, nor the thistle, figs. This irresistible power, however, does not militate in the least with the freedom cff the will — for the sub¬ mission of the creature, is a free voluntary exercise of the will. A forced submission against his will, is an inconsistency — would be no submission. The power of God does not conquer the sinner against his will, but in the very article of making him willing ; — does not by force wrest the sword out of his hand, as in the case of a captured and disarmed enemy, but by chang¬ ing the temper of his heart, dispose him freely to sur¬ render it, and cheerfully submit. All this is taught in that memorable passage of scripture — “ Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Psalms cx. 3. From the foregoing it is further inferred, that the grace of regeneration is sovereign and unsought grace. The sinner when brought from the state of nature into the state of grace, will need but his own experience and feelings to convince him, that he has now found what he never before sought after or desired ; and that he never prayed for it, before he had it. “ I am found 6 62 of them, saith God, that sought me not.” Isaiah Ixv. 1. The contrary supposition would involve a contradic¬ tion ; for uivtil a man is born again, he is destitute of any love to'God, or desires after him. The constant language of his heart towards God is— depart from me for I desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” Job xxi. 14. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him.” 1 Cor . ii. 14* There is not one duty done by the un- reg’enerale. They do nothing with a view to God’s glory— but every thought of their heart is in opposi¬ tion to him. Tor this very reason, they that are in the flesh cannot please God ; — they do nothing but provoke him. This could not be, did they exercise any love, or render any obedience. God is not dis¬ pleased with his creatures, for doing what he com¬ mands them. Nothing but disobedience excites the divine anger. Now the question being put, whether the natural man, antecedent to regeneration, has any true desires after holiness, or a change of heart, — it comes simply to this — whether the same heart will not have the same kind of moral exercises? — Our Saviour has answered the question, — A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit.” Matthew vii. 18. It comes to this, I say, be¬ cause desires after grace, are exercises of grace — de¬ sires after holiness are holy exercises — therefore, it follows that regeneration is an unsought grace ; the natural man has no desires after it ; — it is the object of his aversion and not of his choice ; and what a man hath, he will not seek to obtain, and cannot be said to desire. There may indeed be an indirect desire after grace, which at the same time implies a direct aversion to it. As a sick man may take down the most nauseous por¬ tion for the restoration of health — or a man with a uangreened limb may desire to have it amputated, in order to save his life '.—this is the direct object of his desire-— the loss of his limb, he views with aversion. In this manner sinners may wish for holiness, when convinced that it is the only means of their escaping 63 eternal misery. And so might the devils. They as earnestly desire happiness, or exemption from punish¬ ment as impenitent men. From the whole subject then we may draw this im¬ portant general inference, that human dependence and free agency — the accountability of the sinner, and the renewing and efficacious power of the grace of God, are gospel truths and perfectly consistent with each other. They form the only consistent plan of gospel doctrine — the only true system of moral philosophy. By the instruction and authority of holy scripture these points are as clear to the understanding of the ration¬ al mind, and as certain to the spiritual discernment of the experienced Christian, as any of the visible objects of nature. All our darkness and doubts on this sub-, ject, arise from our own proud reasonings upon the deep things of God — an unwillingness to subject our faith to the wisdom and authority of God’s word. Man is a dependent and yet an accountable creature — a free agent, and yet God a holy Sovereign, who changes the heart of the sinner by his own immediate and almighty power. But how can these things be ! the unbelieving heart replies — diow can God work in us both to will and to do of his own good pleasure, and yet we be perfectly free ? How can we be accoun¬ table, if we are wholly dependent? I cannot see their consistency ? Aye truly — how can it be ? — how strange that the pitcher cannot contain all the waters of the ocean — or the creature of a day comprehend the in¬ habitant of eternity. Is it then a reasonable objection because the limited powers of a finite mind are unable to fathom, what is incomprehensible to all creatures, the mode of the divine operation, or how God works in us to will and to do, and changes the sinner’s heart by his own almighty power, and yet the sinner act his own free choice and voluntarily turns to God in con¬ version ? Thence shall we dare, in the pride of our own vain philosophy, to limit the Holy One, and say, that God cannot prevent or destroy sin without des¬ troying our moral agency ? Is this honorary to God — of whom, and through whom and to whom are all things ? Is it giving him those high prerogatives of 64 sovereignty and supreme dominion which he claims in his word ? Shall we effeet to be wiser than God, and bring his word to the bar of human reason ? The dec¬ laration of Christ to Nicodemilt, is a standing reproof to the cavilling pride of human wisdom — “ The wind bloweth where it listeth — thou hearest the sound there¬ of, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth — so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” It is evident that the heart must first be changed be¬ fore there can be any gracious exercises, and this change is wrought by the power of God. It is not in men or means to effect it. God claims it as his own prerogative to change the heart. Paul’s experience is in point — “ I was alive without the law once ; but when the commandment come, sin revived, and I died. He clearly saw the sinfulness of his heart — his desert of eternal death, and died to every selfish hope in his own strength. Reconciliation to God is not effected by conviction. It is not in the nature of terror and alarm to change the heart. There are many instan¬ ces of apostacy from the greatest awakenings and ter¬ rors. Corruptions for a time were restrained by fear, and the remonstrances of conscience — but when these restraints are broken, they will rage with the more vio¬ lence. A lion may be chained but he is a lion still — lose him and he will again act his ferocious nature. It is the special agency of the Holy Spirit that effects a gracious change of the heart, and lays a foundation for true humility in the soul. It is the common way of obtaining false hopes, to mistake conviction for con¬ version, and legal fears for evangelical repentance. Such will gradually return to their sins, and though they have lost their religion still keep their hopes and in this way become finished hypocrites. But the doctrine of the Spirit’s special influence in regeneration as the great and only and almighty agent, is beginning to be discarded and laid aside, and modifi¬ ed into the influence of mere persuasion. All idea of creative, supernatural, physical power is scouted and allowed no place ; while a self determining power of the human will is substituted, and the sinner is direct¬ ed and exhorted to change his own heart, and told that 65 he is as able to do it, as to perform any of the most common actions of life. I have been shocked, indeed, to hear, and that too from the pulpit, such language as the following addressed to awakened sinners. I now leave you , where God leaves you. He only uses 'persuasion with shiners , and resorts to no com¬ pulsion. God has done all that for you which he ev¬ er will do or can do ; — you are convicted of sin and you are now left to your own choice and, agency to convert yourself or not. Is this the true gospel doctrine — the faith once de¬ livered to the saints— the instruction proper to be giv¬ en to the awakened, and inquiring sinner ? How lar does it differ from the sentiment of Young? bleaven bat persuades — almighty man decrees This doctrine must tend either to sink the sinner in total despair — or in his imagined self sufficiency, to build him up in a self righteous hope ; — in either case alike fatal to the soul. For certain it is, if God does no more for the sinner than to convict him of sin, he will never be converted, never be born ot God. Il God leave the sinner in the bond of iniquity- — it is not his own strength that will break his fetters — he must forever remain in the gall of bitterness, and his perdi¬ tion is sealed. The awakened and convicted sinner while and as long as he attempts to convert himself, will continue under the power and condemnation of sin. He must be slain by the law — brought to feel and know that he is not only guilty and condemned, but ruined and help¬ less, before he will yield and consent to be helped by Christ. Self confidence, or a trust in his own strength, is the only bar in the way of his coming to Christ. Only let this be removed, and he looks to Christ and receives help and healing from him. The experienced Christian will never call in question the office work of the Holy Spirit — but will readily and thankfully as¬ cribe his change of heart wholly to him, and give God all the glory : — But show me the man who professes to have converted himself, and I will show you a self deceived hypocrite. The self converted sinner must 6 * 1 66 be converted again, or perish forever. “ Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” God will not sacrifice the glory of his grace to the proud aspiring pretensions of men — but in every genuine revival of religion, he will make it fully man¬ ifest that, the work is his and not man’s, and the ex¬ cellency of the power exclusively his own. This evi¬ dence will be exhibited in many ways. I will men¬ tion but one, and that where human agency could not possibly have had any concern. Who has not either known or heard of instances of unquestionable conver¬ sion, of the following description : An awakened sin¬ ner under the distress of conviction, and borne down and overcome by the agonies of a wounded spirit, sinks to sleep at night, and awakes in the morning a new creature — finds himself in the temper of submis¬ sion, and his heart going forth to Christ in the sweet exercises of faith and love. Now I ask who has effect¬ ed this alteration in him ? It is a change most surprising to himself, and to all around him. Is this a self wrought change? Was it accomplished by means used, or the influence of moral suasion applied ? Did he change his own heart while asleep — in a state of total inaction, and even unconscious of his own existence ? But enough — I will not any further protract the dis¬ cussion. I hear you, Sir, please to offer what you have further to object. “ Your doctrine is repugnant, as I think, to the di¬ rections of God’s word, particularly in Isaiah lv. 6, and Matthew vii. 7, 8. “ Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you — for every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.” But how is this consistent with the doctrine you have advanced ? H ere the Scriptures expressly direct us to seek the Lord, and annex a promise as expressly to the per¬ formance of the duty. “ Ask and it shall be given you — seek and ye shall find, &c.” Yet in the face of all this, you say, that regeneration is an unsought grace.” 67 This objection is plausible and popular ; but we will examine its force, by comparing scripture with scrip¬ ture, and applying necessary and just conclusions reg¬ ularly drawn from established first principles. In the first place, it will not be begging an argument, but as¬ serting a doctrine in which Christians of all denomina¬ tions are agreed, that the divine law enjoins a perfect, sinless obedience — requiring supreme love to God, and benevolent affection to ali moral beings ; — that, this is the rule of duty, and the test of moral character. The least deviation from this perfect law, involves the guilt of positive transgression. The law condemns for every offence. I infer therefore, that impenitent sinners, whose hearts are enmity, do no duty in the sight of God — render no obedience to any of his com¬ mands. This is expressly declared in his word. Furthermore, I infer, and hesitate not to assert, that there is not in all the book of God, a single duty enjoined upon impenitent sinners to do, while such. This truth, to the attentive mind must appear very clearly. Supreme love to God is the spirit of his law and of every part of it — but impenitent sinners are at enmity with God, and not subject to his law. “ "With¬ out faith it is impossible to please God — but impeni¬ tent sinners have no faith — for “faith worketh by love.” God, indeed, in every part of his word, commands sinners to repent, and to repent immediately — he does not therefore allow them to live longer impenitent, and not only so, but directs them to perform certain duties in that state, before they proceed to the dutyr of repentance. If he does, I beg to be informed, what is the essential difference of moral character, or mark of distinction between the regenerate and the unregene¬ rate sinner ? If obedience to God be not the distin¬ guishing mark of his children, I see no difference of moral character between them and the impenitent, or any propriety in calling the saints a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Titus ii. 14. But, Sir, you bring two memorable passages of scrip¬ ture to prove and establish the point, that impenitent sinners may and do, while such, render obedience to 6£ the command of God, and seek after holiness or regen¬ erating- grace. We will attend to them distinctly. Seek ye the Lord while he may be found — call upon him while he is near.” Compare this with another passage, Psal?7is x. 4, and we can better determine the propriety and force of its application. “ The wicked, through the pride of his countenance will not seek after God.” By the term wicked, the impenitent sinner is undoubtedly meant : — Comparing these passages together, must convince us, that the seeking commanded in the for¬ mer, is something which the impenitent sinner never performs — and that it is no other than true repent¬ ance ; the cry of a humble broken heart. This there¬ fore, my friend, goes to establish the point, which you brought it to disprove, viz. that regeneration is an un¬ sought grace. W e will now look at the passage in Matthew , and see if it be not parallel. Here is an express promise an¬ nexed to obedience ; and if the duty enjoined be con¬ sistent with a state of impenitence, then it will estab¬ lish the point, that impenitent sinners are required to do duty while such , and do in fact seek after regenera- ting grace. “ Ask and it shall be given you — seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” Here is a duty enjoined, with a promise annexed, and obedience ensures the blessing. If then impeni¬ tent sinners do ask according to this direction, they will certainly receive, for the divine truth is pledged. But we read, James 4. 3, “Ye ask and receive not.” How- can this be, if the asking of the unregenerate be certainly connected with their receiving ? How is it consistent with the other passage, “ ask and ye shall receive .” The apostle solves the difficulty in the same verse, — assigns the reason, and shows the consistency sought — “ because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” They asked with selfish desire •, and this is the asking of regenerate sinners invariably, and therefore cannot be the asking which the Saviour enjoins. That asking and seeking which by the di¬ vine promise is connected with receiving and finding, 69 I thence conclude must be a gracious asking, a peni¬ tent seeking — flowing from supreme love to God and regard to his glory : — but the impenitent heart is alto¬ gether selfish. If he ask any thing of God, it is inva¬ riably, that he may consume it upon his lusts. Does not this view of the subject, my friend, remove your difficulty, and lead you to see that regeneration is an unsought grace — that the sinner never in reality sought for it before he found it — never desired it, nor prayed for it before he received it ? — I regret, howev¬ er to find by your next objection, that you are not yet convinced. You thus rejoin : “ What propriety, then, can there be in the com¬ mand — that the sinner should be required to seek for what he has already found, and that too as the con¬ dition and necessary means of his finding ? This is in¬ verting the natural order of things ; — for, instead of seeking and finding, it is finding and seeking — first en¬ tering, and then knocking for admittance.” This difficulty is only in appearance. It arises from a mistaken view o,f the subject, and from the want of proper distinctions. It is arguing from right to fact— - irom actual duty to actual performance ; and that be¬ cause God does command the sinner to seek, that there¬ fore he can and may seek with an impenitent heart, and comply with the command in an act of disobedi¬ ence to it. But this is begging the point in controver¬ sy, and begging what no man in his reason can grant. It lies upon you, Sir, to establish this point, by prop¬ er proof, or else agree to relinquish it. There is a clear distinction between repentance and pardon ; and it is only from confounding this distinc¬ tion that your difficulty arises. I acknowledge there is an inseparable connexion between them ; yet they are perfectly distinct. Repentance is the act of the creature — pardon, the act of God. Repentance is the seeking — pardon, the thing sought, and the thing found. Repentance is the necessary means of obtain¬ ing pardon — but pardon is not the necessary conse¬ quence of repentance. It is indeed a certain conse¬ quence, because God has promised pardon to the peni¬ tent ; but repentance does not render the creature less guilty, or less deserving of punishment ; and therefore aside from the divine promise, God would be under no obligation to pardon the penitent, but might consist¬ ently with justice, punish him. Repentance, in the order of nature, and according to the divine establish¬ ment, precedes pardon. The sinner first repents, and then is pardoned.- “ Me that confesseth and forsak- eth his sins (which is repenting) shall find mercy.’’ This shows that repentance and pardon are distinct things — that the former precedes the latter — that re¬ pentance is seeking, and pardon the thing found. Now if you should still insist, that repentance is the thing sought, I might turn your own objection upon you in its full force — Why do you seek what you have already found , and that as a necessary means of your finding ? for seeking repentance is an exercise of re¬ pentance — it is repentance itself. You are already in - — why then continue knocking for admittance ? The objection will be found in reality to lie against the objector. But if repentance be the thing signified and enjoined by the word seekings then there is the utmost propriety and consistency in the command, and the encouragement annexed is most gracious — the blessing promised worthy of a God of infinite mercy to bestow. Seek and ye shall find — repent and be par¬ doned — believe and be saved. And this we shall find most clearly the instruction of God’s word, by only taking that passage in Isaiah which has been quoted,, and reading it in connection with the verse immedi- ately following. “ Seek ye the Lord while he may be found — call upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God for he will abundantly pardon.” Here the latter verse explains the duty of seeking enjoined in the former, to signify repentance — this is forsaking sin, and turning unto the Lord ; and the promised blessing connected with such seeking is God’s mercy, and abundant pardon. And the passage in Matthew 7th, is exactly parallel. They both speak the same thing, direct to the same duty, and promise the same blessing. Yours, &c, Aristarchus, LETTER VI. Dear Sir, Let us be candid, impartial and persevering in ottr search arter truth. It is a treasure which, when found, Will abundantly reward our pains. Your next ob¬ jection to the Calvinistic doctrine of divine sovereign¬ ty, is one that has long been made, and as often been answered — and yet the objection continues to be made, and the answer must be repeated. “ This doctrine destroys the free agency of the crea¬ ture and makes us mere machines.” Directly the contrary, I trust can be made to appear, if language be used with propriety, and words be taken in the sense which the common consent and usage of mankind have annexed to them. — A misunderstand¬ ing of words is often the occasion of dispute about things. In order therefore to examine the merits of the present objection, we will begin by defining terms ; — and first inquire, what is meant b y free agency and a machine. These are contrasts, and whatever essential property is to be ascribed to the one, must be denied of the other. The ground of your objection is, that free agency is destroyed by the doctrine of absolute dependence, and as a necessary consequence, the man is left but a mere machine. If then we can precisely determine the true distinction between a free agent and a machine, it will be easy to determine the merits of the question. The idea of free agency is so plain that it can be de¬ fined only by synonimous terms. The word itself ex¬ presses its essential property. It is the same as spon¬ taneous volition, or voluntary motion, or capacity of choice. The opposite of this, is the essential proper¬ ty ofja machine — that is involuntary motion , or incapa¬ city of choice. Now I ask whether absolute depend¬ ence, or unsonght grace destroys the free agency of n the creature, or even militates against its essential property ? Whether the immediate, instantaneous, and irresistable energy of the Holy Ghost in regeneration makes the subject a machine , or implies any thing like involuntary motion, or incapacity of choice. The contrary of this, I think, has been proved. It is the very thing designed and effected by regeneration. Conversion is an act of the will, in which the creature puts forth his free, spontaneous choice. It is his vol¬ untary turning from sin to holiness, from Satan to God. And certainly it is not inconsistent with free agency, for a mutable creature to change his affec¬ tions, and to love and choose what he before hated and refused. So far from it, that this is the very ex¬ ercise of his free agency : otherwise it would be im¬ possible for an impenitent sinner ever to exercise re¬ pentance and become a saint ; — this implies an entire change of the moral affections. Such is the etymolo¬ gical sense of the word repentance. The literal sig¬ nification of the Greek word mctanoia , which we trans¬ late repentance , is change of mind, or affection. The consistency between divine agency and human liberty we must believe, whether we discern it or not, for it is the instruction of the Bible. — “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power .” Here the power of God is declared to be the effecting cause — and the thing effected, the willingness of his people, their voluntary conversion or turning to God. This is according to the given definition of free agency, the very thing constituting its essential property. There¬ fore the power of God exercised upon the sinner in regeneration, does not make him a machine — He does not act by an involuntary motion — or contrary to his choice — or without any choice — but by his free choice. The passage does not imply that God’s people should be willing contrary to their will, or whether they were willing or not. This would be a nonsensical contradiction in terms. From what is now proved it is clear, that absolute dependence is perfectly consistent with human liberty, and may as well belong to a free agent, as to a mere machine — this is not the point in which they differ. 73 And it is as absurd to believe that a creature origin¬ ates his own volitions and desires, as that he is the author of his own existence — he is equally dependent on God for all his exercises, as for his powers, or his very being. Every effect must have a cause, and God is the great first cause of all things caused. If we have any powers, or exercises, or volitions, for which we are not dependent on God — whence are they derived ? Are they self-caused ? No more than we are self- made ; — for our being is but an effect equally requiring a cause : and our preservation is but a continued creation, and both being and thought are equally but links in the great extended chain of effects, alike depending on some preceding,® independent, first cause. Now disconnect all the links of a suspended chain from the first link, and they all fall to the ground. They all depend upon the first link. So disconnect second causes, as they are called, from the first cause, and what are they? Nothing. They cease to be causes, and have no effect. All their efficacy is from God. They have but the medium of his operation. In God we live and move (or are moved) and have our being. God is the great and universal agent, who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. We look but a little way, and to very little purpose, if we stop short of the first cause, and ascribe any independent agency to creatures, or second causes. It does not and cannot, belong to them. Absolute dependence is inse¬ parable from the character of a creature. Independent volitions flowing from dependent being and powers, is an absurdity, as great, as that of a dependent God. The same absurdity attends the idea of a selfdeterm¬ ining power in the human will. This is inconsistent with the character of a creature, and can be built on no other foundation, but that of his independence. A power in the will of choosing or refusing, loving or hat¬ ing, independent of motives, and from no other cause, but its own power of willing, or forbearing to will, I cannot conceive of as belonging to any creature. Not to be influenced by motives in choosing the greatest ap¬ parent good, would argue us void of natural reason, as well as moral goodness. It would be a freedom worse 7 74 than bondage, and make us machines in tho most de¬ grading sense. What better would it be than idiocy ? Should we see a man, with his eyes open, as willing to run into the fire and burn, or into the water and drown, as he is to feed and protect himself, — we should, at at once, call him a fool or a lunatic. But such a power as this, must be implied in the ob¬ jection. It is contended for by many, and fully ex¬ pressed in that Arminian sentiment, that, the mind has a native power to direct the choice of the will. Eve¬ ry rational mind as I conceive, is actuated by some mo¬ tive, and in no other way can act rationally in choos¬ ing. This position appears almost too evident to need argument. It cannot be true, that the will is self-di¬ rected by any native, internal power of the mind it¬ self. It is the motive which directs — it is the power of something without the mind which guides and influ¬ ences the choice of the will. The choice is ever ac¬ cording to the present greatest apparent good. This is the motive and ground of choosing. If it be asked what gives efficacy to external objects to operate as motives in directing the choice of the will ? I answer at once that power that gives being, life and motion to universal nature. It can be resolv¬ ed into no other cause. Furthermore, there is a moral necessity upon the will of making a choice, whenever an object, or two or more objects are presented, and it is impossible that it should not choose. Its freedom does not con¬ sist in forbearing to choose, but actually choosing. Otherwise, the will might will not to choose, and as well might will to will not to choose; and so you might trace it back, ad infinitum . — But then this absudrity would follow, that the will wills, before it does will, and choses before it actually makes a choice. — But is not here an act of the will, and a real choice made ? Take for an example, the doctrine I am now advo¬ cating, that is, the absolute dependence of creatues. Here is an object presented you, and I ask, is it possi¬ ble for you not to make a choice ? — If convinced of its truth, you will embrace rather than reject it, because 75 that is the greatest apparent good. Here you make a choice. if, on the contrary, you disbelieve it, and are uncon¬ vinced of its truth; you will then reject, rather than embrace ; because that is the greatest apparent good. Here again you make a choice. If you are in doubt of its truth, and cannot at once determine whether the arguments brought to support it, be substantial or sophistical, you will conclude to suspend your judgment for further examination — then, to suspend your judgment is the greatest apparent good — to suspend, therefore, is the object of your choice ; and here a choice is actually made. If you should care nothing at all about it, and feel perfectly indifferent, whether it be true or false ; and you hence determine to pay no farther attention to it ; then to neglect it, would be the greatest apparent good. Here again is a motive and a choice. And so in whatever form the case may be put, the same moral necessity of choosing would follow. And the same illustration would flow from examples where two or more objects of choice are presented — but the cause or actuating motive, which directs the choice of the will, in every supposeable case is something without the mind — some external power : it could not be any self determing power of the will — or a native power in the mind itself, which directed the choice of the will. Thus, I think that moral necessity is perfectly con¬ sistent with the freedom of the will. It is in fact that very freedom which consists in always acting choice. When a man sees himself in imminent danger, and withal but one, and that an easy and delightful method of safety ; — can he counteract the influence of this powerful motive? Can he avoid choosing it ? And at the same time, will he not act most freely in making the choice ? Indubitably. The greater that necessity, the greater will be his freedom. But if men have such a native, internal, self-deter¬ mining power, why do they not convert themselves ? It all consists but in an exercise of the will. Conver¬ sion is only an act of choosing. And sinners have every reason to choose holiness in preference to sin — 76 and choose the friendship and enjoyment of God rath¬ er than the friendship of the world, and the enjoyment of carnal pleasures. In continuing enemies to God, they continue every moment in extreme danger, and incur the most aggravated guilt. They will acknowl¬ edge themselves unconverted — that they must be con¬ verted, or fail of salvation ; and will even say that they wish they were converted. But they are not yet ready, and like Felix are waiting for a more conven¬ ient time. They are indisposed *to attend upon it at present. To enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season is to them, the greatest apparent good. These, there¬ fore, are the objects of their choice. And thus earyh is preferred to heaven, and sensual enjoyments to the pleasures of religion, and the holy delight of commun¬ ion with God. And thus they are characterized by the apostle, “ Lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.” 2. Tim. iii. 14. This is the whole of human depravity, or moral impotence. This is the great, and only difficulty in the way of the sinner’s conversion. “ Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life.” And this is a greater difficulty in the sinner’s way, than most are aware ; especially they who hold to a self-determining power in the will, or that a man can will to change his will, before he does change it. The want of a disposition, though the very thing in which consists our blame, is as fatal a bar, as the want of natural power : for to will what we do not will, needs only to be named to be disproved. Unless, therefore, a sovereign God interpose by the power of his Spirit to change the disposition, and make us willing to em¬ brace the truth, we shall never change our perverse wills — we shall never repent. If God do not arrest us in our sinful career, it is as certain as we exist, that we shall pursue the broad downward road, till we ar¬ rive at the frontiers of eternal darkness. These doctrines confound the distinction between virtue and vice, and moral good and evil. If the mind in its native state, be not eqully free to choose holiness as sin — if by a fixed and established law of his nature the creature be bound down to evil only wihout an al¬ ternative — it is in vain to establish his free-agency—- he is free to no purpose, or rather to a purpose worse than none. Such a freedom which leaves the creature under the necessity of sinning, destroys his character as a moral agent and effectually removes all ground of accountably. The creature is incapable of incur¬ ring blame.” The sum and substance of this objection amounts to this and no more, viz. that the absolute dependence of the creature is irreconcilable with his accountability ; and it is evidently built on this ground that a self de¬ termining power in the will is essential to moral agen- cy. The question is now a little changed, but it stands or falls with the merits of the former. It springs from the same root, and bears the same fruit. That rested upon the distinction between a man and a clock — this upon the difference between a man and a brute. In the former it has been shown, that a man may be a free agent, consistently with his being wholly depend¬ ent — or without possessing any such thing as a self- determining power in the will. This is presumptive evidence against the validity of the present objection. It induces a belief in the mind of the candid inquirer that a mutual consistency between a state of absolute dependence and moral agency, or accountableness is equally capable of proof. If there be no weight in the former objection, there is just as little in this. Strip it of its specious covering, and its naked absurdity will appear. In order to this we must in the first place, as we did before, guard against any dispute about words, by clearly ascertaining what is the ground of accounta¬ bility — or what is moral agency. Now a brute is a free agent— he has voluntary motion, or a capacity of choice, as well as a man — but yet he is not a moral agent — he is not an accountable creature. Therefore only let this simple question be answered ; what men¬ tal property constitutes the essential distinction be¬ tween a man and the horse he rides ? and the point of difference on the part of the man, will be the very and the only thing, in which moral agency essentially con- 78 sists. This too will serve as a key by which we may unlock the merits of the present objection. The question is as easily answered as asked. It is Reason which distinguishes the man and gives him a superiority to the grazing brute. This is the ground and foundation of his accountability. By this he pos¬ sesses a consciousness of right and wrong — is capable of moral exercises, and is a qualified subject of moral rule and government. But it has been shown that the exercise of a self de¬ termining power, in the will a power of acting or sus¬ pending choice independent of motives, is inconsistent with the exercise of reason, and denominates the man a fool or a maniac. If therefore the exercising of such a power be inconsistent with the exercise of reason, the want of it cannot destroy the man’s moral agency, and make him a brute. On the other hand it has been evinced with equal clearness, that when the will is influenced by an exter¬ nal object, and the choice directed according to the greatest apparent good, then reason performs its office — then only man acts in character as a rational being. If reason, then, constitute moral agency, the exercise of reason cannot destroy it. It is true, men often act unreasonably ; — impenitent sinners invariably so act. They do nothing but sin, and every sin is contrary to the dictates of right rea¬ son. But their misimprovement of reason, does not remove their moral agency ; — they possesed reason, but perverted it to a wrong and wicked end. This is the ground of their guilt. It is the fruit of a depraved taste, that an evil object should bechosen, as the great¬ est apparent good. But how this destroys the nature of right and wrong, or confounds the essential distinc¬ tion between virtue and vice, or moral good and evil, is for the objector to show, and that too under the dis¬ advantage of having it already disproved. These points are established, that mankind are naturally and totally depraved — are consequently absolutely depend¬ ent — that voluntary motion is the freedom of the will, and reason the distinguishing criterion of a moral 70 agent, and a property remaining unimpaired by the fall. What ground then remains for the objection ? But should you now still urge that the dependence of the creature destroys his criminality, I would turn your objection upon you, and ask, why the creature’s dependence does not equally destroy the praise-wor- thiness of virtue ? That good men are absolutely de¬ pendent for their goodness — that, their virtues are not self originated but derived from God, and their holy exercises the fruits of his Spirit, influencing their hearts to that which is good, working in them both to will and to do, of his own good pleasure ; is an ac¬ knowledged doctrine of the Bible — professed and em¬ braced by Christians of all sects. Now, I ask, why the same consequences do not follow in this case as in the other? Why the dependence of the saints for their holy exercises does not equally operate against their moral agency, and destroy the praise worthiness of their virtues ? It certainly must have this effect in both cases — if it destroys moral agency in either. — Until this difficulty is fairly removed, I must conclude, that the reverse of the objection is true ; — that a self deter¬ mining power is inconsistent with freedom and moral agency ; and if made the foundation of accountability, tends to confound the distinction between moral good and evil. But stress, I find, is laid on the terms “ native state,” as a circumstance rendering the inconsistency between dependence and accountability the more glaring. “ If the mind in its native state , be not equally free to choose holiness as sin,” &c. You must have argued thus in your own mind, and set it down for proof — If sin be natural to us , it is necessary — and if it be neces¬ sary, 'it is no sin. This is truly a short, but a danger¬ ous mode of reasoning. If it proves any thing, it proves every thing. It is a sword with two edges and wounds both ways. By the same arrangement, it is equally easy to prove that the angels in heaven are destitute of holiness and are not moral agents. Thus — If holiness be natural to them, it is necessary ; and if necessary , it is no holiness. You surely, my friend, must have been unapprized of the immeasurable lengths to which this reasoning would carry you — for if to be equally free to choose good as evil, be a neces¬ sary foundation of the sinner’s guilt — then on the oth¬ er hand, it would be just as necessary as a foundation of moral virtue in a perfectly holy being, that he should be naturally and equally free to choose evil as good. But this hypothesis cannot bear its own weight. It is too gross to be received by any reflecting and dis¬ cerning mind, it will be sufficient to apply it in a sin¬ gle instance. The holiness of God is natural to him — is essential to his nature — therefore it is necessary — and therefore it is no holiness. Again. God is free to choose only good — it is infi¬ nitely and forever impossible that he should make an evil choice — therefore he cannot be a free agent, or a holy being — he is “ bound down to the choice of good only, without an alternative.” Such consequences inevitably follow the idea of a self determining power being the foundation of moral agency, are destructive of all virtue or vice, praise or blame. Only set moral necessity and natural liber¬ ty at variance, and you strike all holiness out of the universe, and land in the darkness and horrors of athe¬ ism. Yours &c. Aristarchus. sn LETTER VIE Dear Sir, “ He that is first in his own cause seemeth just ; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.” Your next objection to the exclusive agency of divine grace in Si regeneration, it seems to me you could not have brought forward, had you duly weighed the arguments offered in my two former letters. But as it embraces some cardinal points in your system, I will give it a candid and thorough examination : and in compliance with your request, make an honest and faithful effort to set you right. You say, “ I must object to your utterly excluding the agen¬ cy of the creature in regeneration, as irrational, un- scriptural and dangerous. Irrational, because it does not accord with the character of a free moral agent, or with the nature of conversion, which consists as you have justly stated, in the act of the creature — his voluntary turning to God. It is unscriptural, because, uncotnformable to the terms of the gospel — the free of¬ fers of salvation — backed as they are with the posi¬ tive command of God, enjoining the immediate and ef¬ fective act of the sinner, “ Make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die O house of Israel.” And now shall we reply against God, and say that the sinner cannot change his own heart — that in regeneration he is merely an inactive recipient of di¬ vine grace ? It is a dangerous sentiment, because it is directly calculated to cut off every motive to exertion and fortify the sinner in his stupidity and neglect of salvation. He will at once reply, “You tell me I can repent and I cannot — I must be converted, and i can¬ not convert myself — that I am so wholly dependent ; that I can do nothing: 1 will not, therefore attempt any thing ; for, there is nothing for me to do. I will wait, till God is pleased to change my heart.” Is it not the natural, necessary and known effect of this predestinarian doctrine, to harden the heart, and stupi- fy the conscience ? I believe, that God deals with mankind, not as inert matter, susceptible only of physical power ; but as be¬ ing what they are, rational creatures — free moral agents — susceptible of motives, and capable of choos¬ ing for themselves ; — and that the sinner’s conversion is effected by motives addressed to his reason and his love of happiness — by the moral means of persuasion, without any physical power. To elucidate and en» 82 force this sentiment, look at the case of king Aggrip- pa, (, Acts xxvi. 28,) and the effects of Paul’s preaching upon his mind : — almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Now what physical power was exerted in his case ? Were not his feelings affected, and his con¬ science convicted by persuasion — by the moral power of truth, enforced by a divine influence? And who has any reason or right to say, that this same influence, if continued, and suflicienily increased, would not have issued in Agrippa’s complete conversion — his being altogether persuaded to be a Christian ? A change of heart is no other than a change of pur¬ pose. Whenever a sinner becomes persuaded, that religion is preferable to sin — that the Christian hope will be more conducive to his happiness, than the ob¬ jects of this world, and thence resolves to be a Chris¬ tian — he is converted, lie is a Christian. And if I have persuaded him to become a Christian, it is correct to say that I have changed his heart, and it is certain that he has changed his own heart. This no man can deny. And what matter is it, what were the operating mo¬ tive ; whether it were love or hatred, fear or hope, or whether accompanied with divine influence or not, if the important change be accomplished ? If I am wrong in my views upon this subject, be so kind as to set me right.” The scheme of regeneration which you have here presented is plausible to the superficial thinker, and too congenial to the natural feelings of men, not to be imposing and popular. It is gratifying to the pride and self sufficiency of fallen creatures, to believe, that they are not utterly lost and helpless — that they can and do change their own hearts ; or at least so coope¬ rate with the Holy Spirit, as to lend much necessary assistance to the divine agency, in order to accomplish this object. And this seems rational and right to them, because they are free agents, capable of choice, and conversion is the sinner’s own free act. But, Sir, the foundation on which you build, is radically defective and unsound ; and upon examination it will be found, that the criminating terms, irrational , unscriptural and dangerous, which, with so much assurance, you j 83 apply to the sentiment you oppose, do, in sober reali¬ ty belong to that which you defend. Your reason¬ ings are a departure from established first principles — opposed to the analogy of scriptural instruction, the consistency of moral character, and the true philoso¬ phy of the human mind. Reason is indeed of important use in our research¬ es for divine truth ; but unless subjected to the wisdom of God’s word, it is a dangerous guide, which “ leads to bewilder and dazzles to blind.” Give Scripture its rightful authority as the only standard of truth ; — let it be permitted to interpret itself — and to occupy the whole ground of discussion ; and we shall be led to a safe result ; and enabled correctly to determine, what is rational to believe or reject. You object to the intire exclusion of the sinner’s agency in his regeneration, and call it irrational, un- scriptural and dangerous. I will credit your sinceri¬ ty in the objection, though I cannot your correctness. The objection is unfounded, and all your reasonings, professedly drawn from Scripture and reason, are so¬ phistical and absurd. It really amounts to a denial of total depravity ; and to be consistent you must re¬ nounce this cardinal doctrine of Christianity ; and when you have done this, there is no occasion of talk¬ ing at all about regeneration ; — for there would be no need or possibility of a change of heart. In producing regeneration according to your views, there appears to be a continuation of moral influence, all cooperating to the same end, — viz. the force of truth — the agency of the sinner, and the persuasive energy of the Holy Spirit. Now, look at it intelli¬ gently, with a candid and unprejudiced mind, and fair¬ ly tell me how all this can be ? — Let me know what part or degree of this agency is performed by the fallen and totally depraved creature ? What is the act of the sinner dead in trespasses and sins, to effect his own resurrection to spiritual life, and possess himself of the image of God ? His heart is totally alienated — his mind is enmity against God : — Is he then a fit or capable agent to cooperate with the divine Spirit in changing his own heart ? Will the carnal mind per- 64 form a holy exercise ? Will enmity against God, per¬ form acts of friendship to him ? Is there no difference between hatred and love ; — or so little that the sinner can as easily exercise love as enmity towards an ob¬ ject which he perfectly hates ? Can he even will to love? Is not the willing to love an exercise of love? Can friendship be the fruit of enmity, and causes per¬ fectly dissimilar, produce similar and the same effects ? No. The idea is absurd — an outrage upon common sense. As long as the pride of the heart is unsubdu¬ ed, and the will unrenewed ; every exercise is an act of opposition, and, in the very nature of things, there can be no submission ; — still less any cooperation. The creature has indeed an agency in this concern — he acts, and with all the powers of his soul, but it is in direct opposition to the strivings of the Spirit. He will not come to Christ that he might have life, and obstinately refuses to give him his heart. The light shines brightly in his understanding. His conscience is convinced, but his heart is dark and unreconciled. “ Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears ; ye do always resist the Holy Ghost” — is the language of God’s word. And where there is this determined opposition, and there is in all cases, until the heart is changed, what is the influence of the sinner, and what his cooperation with the Spirit of God in changing his own heart ? Does he exercise reconciliation to God before he has any reconciliation? — No : — but directly the reverse. His attention to religion — his awaken¬ ing and conviction — and his use of means, are all en¬ forced upon him, and against the whole wind and tide of his natural inclination and desire — it is an upstream course. We know full well, it is proved by facts, and demonstrated by the constant and uniform course of human conduct, that a total inattention to religion and all the means of grace, is the sinner’s choice. He loves and chooses darkness rather than light, and will not come to the light. His feelings are truly expressed by the language of the murmuring Israelites — “ Let us alone that we may serve the Egyptians.” — He had lived years, and all his life long, under the faithful preaching of the gospel. He had the same instruc- 85 tion, the same truths, means and motives used : all the threatnings of the law — all the invitations of the gospel — all the horrors of hell and the joys of heaven set before him, and urged upon him and yet continu¬ ed through the whole, perfectly deaf and regardless. The same truths which had long been heard with an unfeeling indifference, and without producing any other than a hardening effect, are now seen to ope¬ rate with an irresistable energy, and to carry alarm and conviction and terror to the most stupid. An effect is produced at once, which ministers of the gos¬ pel, and Christian friends had long laboured to pro¬ duce, but laboured in vain. Unquestionably, there¬ fore, it is wrought by a secret, special, and powerful divine influence. But though he is now awakened and alarmed with a view of his dangerous state — his con¬ science convicted of sin, and guilt, and horror and hell stare him in the face; yet he is still no more disposed to comply with the call of God, than he was, while stupid and secure. He does not now indeed, view the warnings of heaven to be idle tales, as he formerly did — but he is as much in love with sin ; as much attach¬ ed to his natural state ; and he feels his attachment to if now, stronger than ever. His whole heart is oppos¬ ed to the call of God, and the strivings of his Spirit, and he will not go a step further or faster than he is compelled. Yet, perhaps, he may think, that he is seeking the grace of God — preparing himself to come to Christ, and to cooperate with the Spirit of God in changing his heart. Will it now be the duty of his spiritual guide to strengthen him in this awful delu¬ sion ? yea to go further, to encourage him to trust wholly in his own strength, and tell him that God will do no more for him — and that he can do no more; he must now do the whole work himself? In this view bf the awakened sinner, I ask, what will, or can be the effect of persuasion to produce a saving change in his heart? That he is a rational crea¬ ture — capable of moral rule and government, and has a natural power or capacity to love God and obey his commands — are points in which we are agreed, as forming the prerequisites of moral agency : but what 8 s 86 is all this to the purpose ? It decides nothing. This instruction, accompanied by divine influence, which alone gives truth any effect, goes only to the convic¬ tion of his conscience, and has no tendency to change his heart. He still lacks a disposition to love and obey God ; and it is this which completes and seals his ruin — renders him helpless and hopeless in his own strength, and wholly dependent on the power and grace of God to change his heart. Means have no ef¬ ficacy to do this. Light, as we have already seen, has no power to change the sinner’s heart. It affects only the conscience, previous to regeneration. The light of Heaven would but enrage the carnal heart ; and were his conviction as great as that of the damned, his opposition would rise in the same proportion. In vain are the offers and invitations of the gospel ad¬ dressed to him, for he will despise and reject them. The clearest light will not open his e3res, for they are linded by satan the god of this world. Knowledge will not convince him. Conviction will not reclaim him. ’ Means will harden him. Perishing necessity will not alarm him. Motives of hope and fear, of love and terror, are lost upon him. Neither the glories of heaven, nor the horrors of hell, can arrest him in his mad career of iniquity, or direct his course a moment from the broad and downward road. Dead in tres¬ passes and sins, the life giving Spirit of God alone can restore him to holiness, to happiness, and to God. It is certain that he must be born again — must become a new creature, or perish. Where then shall we place the doctrine of persua¬ sion ; — and what efficacy may we safely ascribe to its influence 1 Is it in safe keeping with the sovereign agency of the Spirit, in changing the sinner’s heart ? You rely much upon it as the proximate cause of this effect ; and for proof cite the example of Agrippa, who under the preaching of Saul was so much excited as to exclaim — “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” And then ask, with more confidence than discernment — Who has right or reason to say that this same influence if continued and sufficiently increased , would not have issued in Agrippa' s complete conver- 87 sionr his being altogether persuaded to be a Christian ? I answer, every one has reason to say it. The Bible gives him the highest and best right to do it. Your reasoning is calculated to dupe the judgment of the superficial thinker, who acts regardless of distinctions, and to enlist the selfish feelings of the natural man, to whom, the things of the Spirit are foolishness. Your theory, with the arguments you bring to support it, and the consequences you derive from it, are built on these erroneous principles, that, Regeneration is a pro¬ gressive work commencing with conviction — that the awakened sinner, is gradually advancing in his moral temper towards a state of reconciliation to God : — that conviction has a direct and genuine tendency to conversion — and that the same kind of divine influence by which the sinner is convicted of sin will, if increas¬ ed in degree, produce repentance and submission making no essential distinction, between conviction and conversion ; between the conscience and the heart. The incorrectness and danger of these principles have already been considered and exposed : and I would only ask you to review in application to this subject, the reasonings addressed to you in my former letters, which will supersede the necessity of repetition. — Agrippa appears to have been excited, by the masterly reasoning of Paul, Doubtless he felt a curiosity to know something about the new religion which Paul taught, and which though attested by miracles, met with clamorous opposition both from Jews and Gen¬ tiles. He therefore listened to the eloquence of Paul, who in concise and simple terms, related the manner and circumstances of his conversion — the nature of the Christian faith ; together with the reason and grounds of his hope, and that course of conduct, which had brought upon him the fierce and unrelenting persecu¬ tion of the Jews. — Paul’s address was a feast to the rational mind. Agrippa felt its influence : and though at first the apostle was charged with madness, — yet fi¬ nally Agrippa was so overcome with his reasoning — his mind so enlightened, and his prejudices for the time so disarmed — that he was constrained to bear an unwilling publick testimony to the excellence of Chris- 88 tianity, which this madman had so nobly defended, so incontestibly proved ; and exclaimed, “ Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” And why was he not altogether persuaded ? not for the want of more powerful means of persuasion — these already were as great as an inspired apostle, and the greatest of human reasoners could supply : and these. must confessedly have been powerful, to produce the effect — and to have brought the. mind of an ignorant heathen, involved in all the darkness and superstition of Pagan idolatry, in which he had been educated — to make such a confes¬ sion in honour of the despised Jesus of Nazareth, — Let the feelings and words of Agrippa, have all the weight which can be justly claimed — but I am not pre¬ pared to adopt them as oracular ; or to set up the ex¬ perience of an ignorant heathen in the first dawn of gospel light upon his mind — as the test of truth — the standard of Christian character and experience. Agrip¬ pa itris true, was much excited — but as it was, we have no certain evidence that he had even any conviction of sin. If he had, his conscience only was persuaded : the opposition of his heart rose in the same proportion, and with sufficient strength effectually to resist convic¬ tion. And had this persuasion been continued ever so long, and increased to ever so high a degree — the result would have been the same. It would not have reached the heart; — that citadel remains unconquered, unassailed. Agrippa would finally have been no more than almost persuaded — It would not have raised him from the death of sin, to spiritual and divine life : it would not have brought him into the kingdom of heav¬ en, and made him a real Christian. It might indeed have ranked him in that class of converts, who from some selfish motive, change their purpose, and resolve to be Christians : but he would still fall immeasurably short of being a real Christian — a subject of saving grace. The poor wretch was miserably deceived in himself, in supposing that he was almost or at all per¬ suaded to be a real Christian. Indeed, my friend, the carnal heart is not a possible subject of persuasion. It is a non-receiver of its influence, and as well might you prescribe the melody of musick to remove blind- 89 ness, as the influence of persuasion to change the sin¬ ner’s heart, and restore him to holiness. There is no motive to holiness which can be brought to bear upon it, or have any influence to change its character. It is a moral insanity which God only can remove. “ Mad¬ ness is in their heart while they live.” Eccl. ix. 3. It is enmity, and can be nothing different from itself. It is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. When the heart is changed and sanctified, it then has new motives and desires. It is then made good ground, and fitted to receive, and give nourishment, growth and fruitfulness to the good seed of divine truth. It is then susceptible of the persuasion of di¬ vine influence, and not before. One source of your error on this point is, that you make no distinction between regeneration and conver¬ sion ; but blend them, and the divine and human agen¬ cy in promiscuous confusion. I have already stated and defined this distinction. It is important, and must again be brought into view, and made to bear upon the question. Regeneration is the act of God, in the new spiritual creation of the soul : Conversion is an exer¬ cise of the new heart, by which the sinner turns from a wrong to a right course. These though viewed as cause and effect, and as such have an order in nature, are notwithstanding, simultaneous. God changes the heart, and the new heart at the same instant turns to God in holy love : — as God said, let there be light, and there was light — it instantly shone. God breathed in¬ to Adam the breath of life, and he became a living soul ; — he instantly put forth the appropriate exercises of that life. God claims the prerogative of changing the heart, and in it challenges a high and incommuni¬ cable glory. It is a work peculiarly his own, in which no creature shares the agency. Not by might nor by powrer, but by Spirit saith the Lord. Zach. iv. 6. — “ A new heart also will I give you and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away a stony heart out of your flesh ; and I will give you an heart of flesh.” Ezekiel xxxvi. 26. God here acknowledg¬ es no agency but his own ; and this with a solemn emphasis, he asserts four times in one verse — the 8* 90 more effectually to bar the claim from the unhallowed touch, or pretension of sinful creatures. Now by making the heart to consist in exercises, which with you is a favourite and distinguishing tenet— -you lose sight of regeneration, as the act of God in changing the heart, previous and preparatory to creature holi¬ ness ; and make the whole, no other than conversion ; and this truly is an act of the creature, as well as a fruit of divine influence. But if exercises constitute the heart, and there be no principle farther back, how shall we understand it in the analogy of reason or scripture? “ With the heart man believeth unto right¬ eousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Now what is it here that believes ? What is meant by the heart? Faith is the predicate of the heart — it is with or by the heart that man believes but is faith the same as the heart; and at once the ac¬ tion and the agent ? But you will say that you cannot conceive of, nor can I explain to you what is princi¬ ple abstract from exercise. Let it be so — and we will go on, from this data, to axplain the overt act in the other part of the verse — “ with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Now supposing there is as much mystery to me in this part of the verse, as there is to you in the other — admit that 1 am as ignorant of the mouth as you are of the heart — and tell you that abstract from the confession the mouth is not to be conceived of — and therefore that the confession and the mouth are one and the same thing — or that the man has no mouth : — would this be reasoning or rant¬ ing ? An action necessarily presupposes an agent — and an exercise a power, or principle, or a something which puts forth the exercise. If then there be no heart but moral exercises, of what are they predicabie ? If you say of the soul — 1 then ask of what faculty of the soul ? Moral exercises are not predicabie of the natural fac¬ ulties — perception — or understanding — or judgment ; or memory, or conscience : — What then is it in the soul of man that loves or hates God, and performs ei¬ ther holy or sinful exercises; — if there be no principle abstract from exercise ; — if there be not a heart or i 91 moral disposition, from which moral exercises flow, as streams from their fountain, or fruit from the tree ? This theory appears to me confounding to reason, and rendering the instruction of Scripture upon the subject, unintelligible. As specimens, I will refer you only to two passages, and those in the words of the Saviour. “ Either make the tree good, and its fruit good — or else make the tree corrupt and its fruit cor¬ rupt — for the tree is known by its fruit. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit — neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Matth. xii. 33. Luke vi. 43. What doth the Saviour here mean by, “ the tree ?” Is it the same as the fruit ? or abstract the fruit, and is there no tree remaining? Another parallel passage, and still more explicitly in point, is in Matthew xv. 19. “ Out of the heart pro¬ ceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnesses, blasphemies. Now, are these evil thoughts, and wicked actions, the heart itself? Do they proceed out of themselves ? Can we force our¬ selves to believe that this was the Saviour’s meaning ? He here evidently teaches that ail our actions flow from an internal moral principle or disposition, which he calls the heart. If then there be such a thing as a heart in man, as the fountain of moral action ; and this fountain be corrupt — there is occasion and scope for a change of heart in regeneration, by the power of God, to purify this corrupt fountain ; and the instant this is done, its streams will be pure. The entire dependence of the sinner on the power and grace of God to change his heart, has no legiti¬ mate or rational tendency as you assert, to cut off eve¬ ry motive to exertion, and fortify the sinner in his stu¬ pidity and neglect of salvation. It is therefore no disproof of the doctrine. It is not because he believes, but because he disbelieves his dependence, that he ever makes this perverse use of the doctrine. Let hirn believe and realize his absolute dependence on God for salvation, and his constant exposure to bis eternal wrath ; and it will be a most effectual means to awak¬ en and alarm him, and excite him to exertion. It is a confidence in his own sufficiency to convert himself at 02 any future and more convenient season, which lulls him to sleep in present security and cherishes his na¬ tural sloth and stupidity. I am so happy as to agree with you in the following articles of your creed, which you were so good as to state — but it makes nothing in support of yourf ob¬ jection. * • I believe that God deals with mankind, not as with inert matter susceptible only of physical power — but as being what they are, rational creatures, free moral agents, susceptible of motives, and capable of choice. — But I cannot subscribe to what immediately follows ; and that for reasons which I have already shown at large, and need not repeat : — and that the sinner's conversion [regeneration] is effected by motives addres¬ sed to his reason, and his love of happiness, by the mor¬ al means of persuasion, without any physical power . And now Sir I must say that the evidence or defini¬ tion of conversion which you have asserted and that too in unqualified terms — that a change of purpose is a change of heart, is fallacious, and by no means safe as a general rule. It is deceptive, and in fact untrue, as can be easily shown. A change of heart will induce a change of purpose — but a change of purpose is not a change of heart, nor any certain evidence of it — and a convert who is manufactured in this way, and tested by this rule — one who lias resolved to be a Christian, and to pursue a religious life, is in my view a very suspicious character. How many sad examples of apostacy are found among those whose consciences have been greatly awakened, either in health or sick¬ ness, but especially in a time of general revival, or the near and appalling prospect of approaching death ? They are persuaded that religion is preferable to sin — that, the Christian hope will be more conducive to their happiness than the objects of this world, and thence, suddenly and in the full confidence of their own sufficiency, resolve to be Christians; and to live a new life of piety — who in a short issue have proved themselves to be but stony ground hearers. They have no root, and soon wither. Their goodness is as the morning cloud, and as the early dew it pas- * 93 seth away. Yet these are the characters, whom, in the first instance of their good resolutions, you do not hesitate to pronounce converted — real Christians. I cannot but remark that good old Joshua, upon a similar occasion held a very different language to the Israel¬ ites ; and was far from making the work of conversion so easy and cheap. In reply to their zealous and con¬ fident engagements to love and obey God. He told them, “ Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is a holy God” — Joshua xxiv. 19. At the foot of mount Sinai, we must, according to your rule, pronounce the whole congregation of Israel to be converted — for they resolved, and professed their resolutions to love and obey God. “ And they said unto Moses, Go thou near and hear all that the Lord our God shall say ; and speak thou unto us all that the Lord our God shall speak unto thee, and we will hear it and do it.” Deut. v. 27. Well, here is a good purpose — a good resolution and promise : But was this profession conclusive evidence of vital piety ? Let God decide the question — for his judgment is ac¬ cording to truth — and lie hath done it in the same con¬ nection. He told them by Moses — “ I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee — they have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such an heart in them — Here their hypocrisy comes out to view ; and it was soon demonstrated by a memorable fact — for in less than forty days from that time, this zealous peo¬ ple, so resolved in their purpose, and so ready to promise a strict and persevering obedience to the true God — fell back to idolatry, and made and worshipped a golden calf. Your appeal to the command of God in Ezekiel xviii. 34. “ Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die, O house of Israel” — is irrelevant in support of your objection to the divine sovereignty. It is no proof of the agency or co-operation of the sin¬ ner in changing his own heart. The passage is a me- tonomy, where the cause is put for the effect — or re¬ generation for conversion and the progress of sanctifi¬ cation. Passages of parallel instruction are those in 94 Ezekiel xxxiii. 11. Phillip . ii. 12. “ Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways — for why will ye die O house of Israel” — Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” The passage ex¬ presses nothing beyond that summary of the divine law, “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. This is the new heart, and this the bounden duty of all rational creatures, in failure of which, they are inexcus¬ ably guilty and justly condemned. It is the duty of eve¬ ry one to have a holy heart. But this is no proof that the sinner lias any disposition to obey the divine com¬ mand — or that he ever will do it. It is not replying against God, but echoing the language of his word, to say that the sinner will not come unto Christ that he might have life ; and therefore has no agency, but that of opposition in the renewal of his own heart. The analogy of Scripture fully confirms this truth. It is the uniform testimony of the word of God, and the experience of ail who are savingly taught by his Spirit. Compare this passage in Ezekiel, on which you rely as proof of human agency in regeneration, with the few following passages, and we need not set Scripture at war with itself, i shall recite them without com¬ ment. They need no explanation. “ Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Psalm li. IL “Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them and said unto them with men this is impossible — but with God and all things are possible ? Matt. xix. 25. 26. “ Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God .” John i. 13. “ For by grace ye are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them.” JEp/iesians ii. 8. — 10. “ I have planted, Apllos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planted any thing , neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the in¬ crease.” 1 Cor. iii. 6. 7. We never hear Paul as- 95 sert that he had changed any sinner’s heart, or that the sinner had changed his own heart. He uniformly ascribed the excellency of the power to God. On this very principle was grounded that declara¬ tion of Christ. “ No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father.” John vi. 65. This trait of moral character, however, is the very ac¬ cent of his guilt, and seals his ruin. It is unbelief, the grand condemning sin of the world. All the rea¬ sons or causes, why men cannot come to Christ, are the things in which they are sinful. It is not an excusing, self-justifying, natural inability. We say of a generous, public spirited man, he cannot be guilty of a mean, low action. The greatness of his soul, and the nobleness of his diposition null not admit of it. — Reverse the character, and we may see the propriety and force, of the Saviour’s expression. “ No man can come unto me except it were given unto him of my Father.” It is by reason of a proud, carnal heart, contrary to God and the gospel plan, that men cannot come to Christ. Such an exalted act of virtue is above moral character — for it is a self-emptying — soul hum¬ bling act. They therefore cannot perform it, except God give them such a heart — a humble and holy tem¬ per of mind. The last paragraph of your remarks, seems to need particular attention, and to my feelings is peculiarly painful. After confidently asserting that the sinner, whom you had persuaded to become a Christian, had changed his own heart, you go on to say — And what matter is it, what were the operating motive — whether it were love or hatred , hope or fear , or whether accom¬ panied with divine influence or not, if the important change he hut accomplished ? That a man of intelli¬ gence and reflection should adopt and explicitly avow a sentiment so dangerous, and which, were it upon a subject less important than the salvation of the soul, would appear too ludicrous for sober argument ; is to me a matter of surprise and regret. But my dear Philemon, I am too deeply penetrated with grief, to be sportive or sarcastic. My desire is not to reproach but to convince. For this purpose, then, I ask you 96 to review the subject candidly, and in the light of di¬ vine truth. Look at the man whom you have persua¬ ded to become a Christian, and whose heart, by the influence of selfish motives, you so confidently affirm that you have changed ; and tell me what sort of a Christian he is. Is he a New Testament Christian — a self-denied disciple — one whom Paul would have embraced as a beloved brother in Christ? What is it to be a Christian ? Is it not to possess the benevolent spirit of Christ — to deny self — to love God, and to be actuated by a supreme regard to his glory ? This is the new man produced by the sinner’s change of heart in regeneration. Who is the author of this change, we need not stop to inquire, any longer than to open the Bible. — “ It is the gift of God. We are his workman¬ ship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” I charitably presume, Sir, that you was not aware of the irreligious nature of the sentiment, that it is imma¬ terial by whose agency the work of regeneration is wrought, or whether accompanied by divine influence or not, provided the important change be accomplish¬ ed. Is this Scriptural ? Is it a doctrine according to Godliness? — the faith once delivered to the saints, and embraced by the church of Christ, from the time of the apostles to the present day ? Does it not con¬ tradict all Christian experience, and the feelings of everv humble believer in Jesus? Your Theorem, is built on this selfish principle, that the creature is his own last end — that the sinner’s salvation has no high¬ er ultimate end, than his own happiness ; and there¬ fore if this end be but accomplished, or ensured, it is indifferent by what means or by whose agency. This doctrine is in safe keeping with such a principle, as a natural and necessary consequence, and it can How from none other. But, my dear friend, does this sen¬ timent' manifest a due regard to the rights of Deity ? Does it humble the sinful creature, and give God the throne ? Has the glory of God, no claim in this great¬ est of his works, the restoration of the poor, miserable, ruined sinner to holiness, to happiness, and to heav¬ en ? Has he resigned this claim, or consented to divide it with his creatures since he solemnly announced — 97 “ For my own sake , even for my own sake , will I do it, and I will not give my glory to another?” Isaiah xlviii. 11. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the Beloved.” Ephesians i. 6. Now how does it appear in the light of these Scriptures, to attach no importance or necessity to God’s agency in regeneration — to leave his glory wholly out of the account, and say, what matter is it whether it he accompanied with divine influence or not , if the important change he hut accomplished ? — It is the most solemn trifling — invading the divine preroga¬ tive, and treating the office of the Holy Spirit with great and awful disrespect. Furthermore, you view it of no importance, what be the operating motive, whether love or hatred, fear or hope. In this you are speaking of regeneration, and not of conviction or awakening. And now without, recurring to the fact, which may be abundantly shown, that means have no effect in changing the heart — I ask you to look at the inconsistency which you have pre¬ sented for truth — a selfish motive as the means of changing the heart, and producing holy affections : — how preposterous the idea ! How pointedly condemn¬ ed by the Saviour’s instruction— “ Neither can a cor¬ rupt tree bring forth good fruit — for of thorns men do not gather figs — nor of a bramble-bush gather they grapes.” No comment is necessary. Make the ap¬ plication for yourself, and beware that you build not your house upon the sand. I close this long letter, with a short reply to that hacknied cavil of the ungodly — you can and you cant — you will and you wont,&cc. “Wo unto him that striveth with his Maker. Let the potsherd strive with the pot¬ sherds of the earth. Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him ? He that reproveth God, let him answer it.” Your affectionate friend, Aristarchus. 9 LETTER VIII. Dear Sir, The next objection which you have brought, and which I am now to consider you express in the follow¬ ing terms. — “ These doctrines of our absolute dependence, and of the universal divine agency, must be false, wicked and dangerous, because they represent God as the author of sin. This is repugnant to every right notion of Deity which we can gather from Scripture or rea¬ son. We read in our Bibles, James i. 13, 14, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man ; but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away with his own lust and enticed.” Therefore God cannot be the author of sin, nor his agency concerned in effecting it.” 1 If by God’s being the author of sin be meant, the actor or committer of it, I equally reject the doctrine as absurd and blasphemous : but if the word be design¬ ed to signify nothing more than the universal agency of God, or that sin is an effect of which the divine agency is the cause ; — this would set the objection in a materially different point of light. This doctrine is a consequence fairly and regularly drawn from es¬ tablished premises. It is in strict and inseparable con¬ nexion with the doctrine of absolute dependence : es¬ tablished upon the firmest basis, and capable of abun¬ dant proof. It stands supported by the united tes¬ timony of reasonf and- scripture. If this can be ful¬ ly shown to the eye of the candid inquirer, the heavy charge brought against it, of being a wicked and dan¬ gerous doctrine, is unfounded and misapplied. The only point now in question is the universal di¬ vine agency. If this be a true doctrine it is consistent 99 with the holiness of God — and instead of being wicked and dangerous, is scriptural, sound, and salutary. The testimony of Scripture is the authority on which I rely ; and whether the doctrine of universal divine agency, as the effecting cause of all events be not therein taught, the following passages out of the many in point, are adduced to determine, and cheer¬ fully submitted to candid and critical investigation. See first, the divine commission to Moses, when he is charged with the command to Pharaoh to liberate the people of Israel. Exodus vii. 2— -5. “ Thou shall speak all that I command thee, and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh, that he send the children of Israel out of his land. And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; by great judgments ; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.” This clearly shows that it was the design of God that Pharaoh should not obey his command ; and not only so, but that the divine agency was the effecting cause of his disobedience — “ I will harden Pharaoh’s heart — and that the great and ultimate end designed to be effected by the means of Pharaoh’s disobedience and the consequent plagues sent upon him, was a visi¬ ble and distinguished display of the greatness, power and glory of Israel’s God, as the only true God. “And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.” We iind it thus declared (Exod. ix. 12.) “ And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken unto Moses.” And the same thing is repeatedly affirmed in the his¬ tory of Pharaoh. In the 16th verse of this chapter, God declares to Pharaoh, “ For this cause have I raised thee up, for to show in thee my power, and that my name may be declared throughout the earth.” And the apostle Paul, (Rom. ix.) quotes this passage, and from God’s design respecting Pharaoh, argues and asserts his sovereign and universal agency. “ Therefore hath he 100 mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. In 1. Samuel ii. 25. After Eli had reproved his sons for their wickedness, it is said of them, “Notwith¬ standing they harkened not unto the voice of their fa¬ ther, because the Lord would slay them.” This repre¬ sents the divine purpose as the cause of their incorri¬ gibleness. The relation between cause and effect ne- cessarily implies efficiency. It was the purpose of God to cut them off, and therefore he continued their impenitency. Rehoboam’s wicked rejection of the old men’s coun¬ sel, by means of which the ten tribes revolted from the house of David, is represented in the same point of light. For when Rehoboam had raised an army, and was proceeding to reduce the rebellious tribes by force of arms, he wras forbidden by the prophet, saying “ thus saitli the Lord, ye shall not go up nor fight against your brethren, the children of Israel. Return every man to his house, for this thing is from me.” Thus we see that God designed, and therefore effected this wickedness of Rehoboam and all its consequences. In the case of David’s grievous sin in numbering Israel, we find another passage directly in point. 2. Sam. xxiv. 1. “And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, to say, Go number Israel and Judah.” In the 141st Psalm, wre find David uttering the fol¬ lowing words, and that too in a solemn address to the Most High — Incline not my heart, to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men that work iniqui¬ ty.” Is not this a full acknowledgement, that God does incline the heart to evil ? Isaiah xlv. 7. I form the light, and I create dark¬ ness — I make peace, and I create evil — I the Lord do all these things.” Ezekiel xiv. 9. “ And if the prophet be deceived, when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet , and I will stretch out my hand and des¬ troy him from the midst of my people Israel.” What do we mean when we pray, “ Lead us not into temptation?” — unless we acknowledge that it is 101 / God who leads us into temptation? If it be replied that this respects only the outward circumstances of the man, and is simply a petition that God would so order things in his providence, that he might not be brought into a situation of exposedness to temptation; — still the divine agency is acknowledged, and that God does and may consistently lead the creature into such a situation, as to outward circumstances, as will effect wickedness, as its necessary result. But how this con¬ struction furnishes any salvo to the divine character is for the objector to show. Should I knowingly lead a man into such circumstances, that his losing his life by the hand of robbers would certainly follow — my skirts would be stained with his blood. David, we know, incurred the guilt of murder, by his orders to Joab, to expose Uriah in the forefront of the battle to the sword of the enemy. The fact is, if any salvo be needed, it will be impossible to find one. This may, perhaps, be the most proper place, in im¬ mediate connection with the last mentioned text, to ex¬ amine the application of that passage in James i. 13, 14. which you bring to disprove the doctrine in ques¬ tion. “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God — for God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man — but every man is tempt¬ ed, when he is drawn away of his own lust and en¬ ticed.” The right understanding and application of this pas¬ sage, materially depends upon the knowledge of the true sense of the word, — tempt . If to tempt, be the same as to create — or the latter in any instance imply the same moral character in the agent, and this can be made to appear, then the objection must be acknowl¬ edged as supported. To ascertain this matter, I will venture to lay down a definition of the word tempt , agreeably to its com¬ monly received, and legitimate sense ; and you will kindly correct if I err. — To tempt is to hold up objects in false colours , to ans¬ wer a wicked end — or, to seek by means of moral sua¬ sion falsely applied , to allure the mind of another to the commission of evil. — 9* If this be a just definition, it affords us three distin¬ guishing marks of temptation, as it respects the tempt¬ er — viz, the manner — the means, and the end — or, a false view of objects — by the means of moral suasion — to effect a wicked end. All these are ascribable to the tempter, and consti¬ tute the nature of a temptation. In support of this definition, take, as an example for illustration, the temptation of the grand adversary which issued in the fall of our first parents. The Most High had made this express declaration to Adam — “of every tree in the garden, thou mayest freely eat — but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou snail surely die.” Now look at the temptation which led to the breach of this high and positive command of God. The outward object of allurement, which the tempter used, as the means of persuasion, was the forbidden fruit. This was calculated to entice." “The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise.” — This object wras held up in a false light by the tempt¬ er, and a known falsehood uttered in his denying the divine command, and the threatened consequences of disobedience. These too the woman well knew and declared to the serpent, after he had proposed the temptation — but he told her in reply— “ Ye shall not surely die , — for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil.” — that is, God has but deceived you in this matter — there are no such conse¬ quences connected with your eating this fruit. Lastly, with respect to the design of the tempter, none can doubt, that the end which he had in view was to dishonor God by the disobedience of our first parents. By this example of temptation, which was introduc¬ tory to, and a just specimen of all others, the proposed definition of tempting appears fully established — viz. to hold up objects in false colours, to answer a wicked end — or, to seek by means of moral suasion, falsely 103 applied, to allure the mind of another to the commis¬ sion of sin. This will lead us to a right understanding of the cit- ed passage of the apostle Jamss. Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, &c.” That is to say, let no man charge the guilt of his sin upon his Maker — for it is morally and infinitely impossible, that God should be tempted to evil himself, or tempt his creatures to it. He can neither suffer nor offer an imposition. On the contrary he has exhibited his char¬ acter in its true light, and made the rule of duty known, and so plain and intelligible, as to render the sinner perfectly inexcusable. It was so in his dealings with the first human sinner, and it is equally true of all his posterity. God did not tempt Adam to sin. He clear¬ ly revealed to him the rule of duty, and never contra¬ dicted or disguised his own command. And his gov- eminent has been uniform in every age of the world. God never persuades any creature to sin — but every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed. When any man sins in complying with a temptation — the action is the genuine fruit of his own corrupt and evil heart, and the guilt is his own. But does it thence follow, that because God does not tempt men, nor act the part of Satan, that, therefore his agency cannot be concerned in the pro¬ duction of moral evil, as the originating cause, and he have a holy and good end in view ? That God does move the heart to sin, and yet Satan tempt to the same sin, we have, in the history of Da¬ vid, a striking example in proof. We read that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say go number Israel and Judah. 2 Samuel xxiv. 1. And in 1 Chron. xxi. 1, we read, And satan stood up against Israel, and provoked (that is tempted ,) David to number Israel.” Now both these were true, both consistent. God mov¬ ed David to this sin, and satan tempted him to it ; and yet in neither \yas God tempted, nor did he tempt Da¬ vid to sin. The fall of man with all its circumstances and con¬ sequences was the fulfilment of God’s eternal plan. Satan meant it for evil, and designed to defeat the di¬ vine purpose — but God meant it for good. He acted with the most benevolent view. It was designed to effect the greatest possible good, and make the fullest display of his transcendency excellent character. The infinite glory of redeeming mercy and love, was the ultimate end of God in the fall of man. — But I now return from this digression and resume the thread of my former argument, in the line of scripture proof. Saith, the apostle Paul “ Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves — our sufficiency is of God.” This is not consistent with the idea, that we are deoendent on God only for our being and powers, and independent in our exercises ; but is a direct denial of it. He furthermore says that God “ worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.” How this is consistent with his being, in re¬ spect to the impenitent sinner, only an almighty spec¬ tator, I am unable to conceive — or how any of the passages which I have cited, or any others in sacred writ, give any countenance to the idea that sin takes place by the divine permission merely, is equally diffi¬ cult to be apprehended. In all, his positive agency is either clearly expressed, or necessarily implied. You must, my dear friend in a minute’s reflection feel your¬ self involved, by your own principles, in the very dif¬ ficulty, of which you complain, equally irreconcilable with the divine purity. Upon your hypothesis, the very existence of sin would be an argument to disprove the holiness of God, as much as his agency in effect¬ ing it. For he certainly foreknew that sin would take place — he was fully able to have prevented it, had he seen fit — but he did not. From his permitting it therefore, it is clear, that all things considered, he was willing it should take place. But how does this solve the difficulty in relation to the divine character, which you complain of, and charge upon the doctrine in con¬ troversy ? If it be inconsistent with the character of God to cause sin by his own positive agency — why is it not equally so for him to will or permit the exist¬ ence of it? If the former does not consist with the di¬ vine holiness, how can the latter — for they are both in 105 reality the same ? If it be right for me to be willing that a certain thing should be done ; it will be right for me to be active in the doing of it. And on the other hand it argues an equal degree of moral turpitude, to be willing that another should do a criminal action, as though, I should myself actually cause it to be done. But this distinction between willing and effecting in relation to the Divine Being, is idle and unfounded — there is no distinction to be made between them. — God’s willing a thing is his effecting it — for “ he doeth according to his will.” His will and his agency are undistinguishable. It is impossible to form any other idea of God’s power, but as the exercise of his will : “He doth according to his will in the armies of heav¬ en, and among the inhabitants of the earth.” Daniel iv. 35. But the merits of this and of your former objection, answrered in my 6th letter, rest on the same ground, and both must stand or fall together. Intrinsically they are the same — the object only is changed, or the order transversed. That was, whether man can be ab¬ solutely dependent, and yet be a sinner — this is wheth¬ er he can be thus dependent, and yet God be holy ? And the difference beteen them them is merely circum¬ stantial. If the former question be established in the affirmative, the latter is equally. The connection is as close as between these two ideas — If man be a creature of God — then God is the Creator of man ; — for the absolute dependence of the one, and the univer¬ sal agency of the other stand in the same mutual and inseperable relation. That absolute dependence is consistent with the highest perfection of moral agency has been argued from reason. It becomes us however to notice the concurring authority of scripture ; — .and sufficient to our purpose is presented in the passages already cited. The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, yet Pharaoh was most criminal in his disbedience to the divine com¬ mand. By his incorrigibleness under the repeated and awful strokes of God’s correcting hand, he wras made a subject of the most signal displays of the divine ven- 10G gence, and held up to all after ages as a monument of God’s holy displeasure. By the sword of the Philistines God slew the wick¬ ed sons of Eli, for their sacriligious impieties. Rehoboam for his despotic measures, was punished with the revolt and loss of ten twelfth’s of his king¬ dom. The Lord moved David to number Israel, and for that very offence was so displeased, that he sent the pestilence, and swept off seventy thousands of his sub¬ jects in three days. And for the guilt of the deceived prophet, God saith, “ I will stretch out my hand and destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.” We must therefore believe that the agency of God in effecting the sins of the creature is consistent with the infinite holiness of his character. Still, however, the conviction may not be complete — or the consistency may be believed, and yet not ap¬ prehended. Still the question, how can these things be, may remain a serious difficulty in the mind of the conscientious inquirer. I am therefore induced to pur¬ sue the sublime and awful subject, and offer the fruits of my painful researches to the consideration of the honest and candid examiner. The object sought is worthy of our attention, time and toil. Clear satisfac¬ tion and rational establishment in the truth of the im¬ portant inquiry before us, will outweigh the possession of the world. The mode of the divine operation, or how “God workcth all things” — we pretend not to determine. H is ways are above to us. This is one of the deep things of God, unsearchable perhaps to all creatures. But, that he thus does, is abundantly declared in his word — and how the universal agency of God, as it respects the production of evil can be consistent with the holi¬ ness of his character is now the object of inquiry. All the difficulties which darken our path of inquiry on this subject, arise, as I humbly conceive, from the three following sources, 1. Our not properly distinguishing between the di¬ vine agency, and our own exercises. \ 107 2. By adopting and arguing from this erroneous prin¬ ciple — that the nature of the effect is always and ne¬ cessarily, of the same kind with that of its cause. 3. By forming a judgmentupon a narrow and partial view of things. Were we set right in these several respects, I think the difficulty might be easily removed, and the desired consistency appear. Let us then carefully examine the subject, in the application of these principles. 1. That our not properly distinguishing between the agency of God, and the act of the creature is a source of difficulty in understanding this doctrine. Here is a just and important distinction, absolutely necessary to the right investigation of truth — for the act of the creature is not the act of God, nor the reverse. Though the creature be wholly dependent upon the divine agen¬ cy for all his exercises, yet they are his own actions, as really and fully as if he were perfectly indepen¬ dant. His dependence, as has been shown, consists with the freedom of his will and his moral agency. He acts choice in every thing he does. Therefore his actions are his own, and distinct from the agency of God by which they are produced. So that with re¬ spect to the same effect, God is perfectly holy, and the creature altogether criminal and inexcusably guilty. This too is the instruction of Scripture. The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and yet it is repeatedly de¬ clared that Paraoh hardened his own heart. This was his guilt — but it argued no unholiness in God. There¬ fore their actions in hardening were distinct. The Lord moved David to number Israel — and yet David moved himself. He acted the free choice of his own proud heart. But the severity of his punishment proves that God was holy in moving David to number Israel. The same truth also appears in the case of the deceived prophet, by the awful threatening which God denounced against him. It is the motive which stamps the moral character of an action. In both, the act of God and the act of the creature are not only distinct, but in the case of the sinner, perfectly opposed, in the production of the same effect. God’s motive is the greatest general 108 good, and lie has his own glory ultimately in view. Self gratification is the sinner’s motive, and his own private interest exclusively in opposition to the glory of God, and the good of his system, is his last end. This truth is beautifully and strikingly illustrated by the example of the Assyrian monarch Sennacherib, and what is recorded of him — “ O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indig¬ nation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. How* beit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few &c. Wherefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.” Isaiah x. 5 — vii. 12. H ere we see that the design of God for which he sent Sennacherib against Israel, was to punish his peo¬ ple for their hypocrisy and wickedness ; — but the mo¬ tive of Sennacherib was intirely diverse, and opposed to the end of God — he aimed at nothing but his own power and aggrandizement, by the ravages and spoils of conquest. He meant not so. Therefore, after God had used the rod, he burnt it. He declares his deter¬ mination to punish Sennacherib for this murderous and bloody conduct, after he had effected by him the designs of»his providence in correcting and humbling his covenant people. The reproof given to Senna¬ cherib in the 15th verse, for his vain confidence in his own sufficiency, expresses his absolute dependence in bold and striking figures. “Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith ? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? As if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself as if it were no wood.” But this truth will stand out in a still clearer light, when explained by a consideration of the next source of false reasoning — viz, 2. That, the nature of the effect is always the same as the nature of its catise. 109 Is this a true principle, and a safe rule of judging t I do not hesitate to answer no. It is a mistaken prin¬ ciple, and leads to error in every step we pursue it. Every scripture example I have adduced is fully in point to disprove it; and a minute’s attention may convince us, that it is no less opposed to reason, to the wisdom of experience, and the knowledge of common sense. In the things of the natural world, the analo¬ gy of which with the moral world is certain, invaria¬ ble and uniform ; we recognize no such principle or general rule as a transferrence of nature from cause to effect ; but sensible facts of constant occurrence, give full demonstration to the contrary. For instance, the sight of a misshapen, ill proportioned picture, or image, is no evidence of bodily deformity in the painter or statuary. The same sun, by the same influence, ex¬ hales the effluvia of the dung hill, and the fragrance of the rose. It softens the wax and hardens the clay. It gives light to some animals, and blinds the eyes of others ; — yet who argues from this, that there is dark¬ ness in the sun — or any of those properties which be¬ long to the effects produced by the influence of its rays ? Fire applied to the human body produces pain — but is pain therefore, a property of Are ?— differently modified it gives us pleasure — but neither the one nor the other are the attributes of fire. — Again, The Most High God is the Creator of all things that exist — even of the ferocious beast of the forest, and the most venemous reptile, that crawls upon the earth — “ his hand hath formed the crooked serpent”— but are we hence warranted to argue the nature of the cause from the nature of these effects, and ascribe the properties of a ravenous beast, or of a poisonous rep¬ tile, to the glorious Creator? — The question shocks us. But just as absurd is the application of this principle, as a rule of judging from effect to cause in the things of the moral world — for moral beings are as much de¬ pendent on God as irrational and inanimate creatures ; and the divine agency is equally concerned in the pro¬ duction of their evil exercises, as in the production and growth of an animal or a tree ; and the nature of the effect, no more discovers the nature of the cause, in 10 110 the one instance than in the other. It is as consist" ent for God to create sin, as to form the crooked ser¬ pent — nor does it any more argue unholiness in his nature. It is not a necessary fruit of divine agency upon moral beings to create holy exercises. It is but in a special instance, and that too by an operation contrary to the established law of apostatized human nature, that God does effect a moral conformity to him¬ self, and communicate a participation of the divine na¬ ture to mankind, in their restoration to holiness. But it does not thence follow that he is bound by his holi¬ ness to operate thus upon all. He may proceed ac¬ cording to the established order of things, in the con¬ stitution of fallen nature. The apostle says, “ He hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth .” Furthermore. The existence of sin as an effect of divine agency, is not only consistent with the moral purity of the divine character, and gives us no warrant to argue the unholiness of the cause from the nature of the effect — but it is utterly and forever impossible, in the very nature of things, that the originating cause of evil, should be an evil or unholy cause. This posi¬ tion is demonstrable, and must be embraced, unless we adopt as an alternative, the doctrine of Zoroaster, — that of two self-existing opposite, independent first causes — a good and an evil deity — a doctrine equally opposed to revelation, reason, and common sense. But only admitting these self-evident propositions, viz. that sin is an effect, and every effect must have a pre¬ existing cause, and the doctrine advanced is establish¬ ed. For, if the cause of evil be an evil cause ; then evil has existed eternally. This however we must re¬ ject, if we admit the authority of the Bible — “ 1 make peace and I create evil — I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah xlv. 7. Now if sin be an effect, then it must have had a beginning — there was a period, till when, from all antecedent eternity, sin had no actual existence in the universe. And if we exclude the di¬ vine agency in its introduction, how was moral evil in¬ troduced ? In what possible way could sin have gained existence ? It would be absurd here to talk of a crea» Ill ted evil cause of evil — unless it be consistent to call the same thing both cause and effect — for while we look no further, than to an evil cause, we do not come to the cause of evil. If the cause must precede the ef¬ fect which is self-evident, we must look back beyond the existence of evil, to find its originating cause. — And if an holy cause effected the first sin, (and certain¬ ly a sinful cause could not exist, previous to the exist¬ ence of any sin) then a holy cause may effect every other sin ; and so the doctrine of the universal agen¬ cy of God cast no imputation of unholiness upon his character. 3. The third source of false reasoning and errone¬ ous conclusions upon this subject, is a ?iarroiv and partial view of God’s works . It is impossible for us to judge aright of the con¬ duct of Him, who is wonderful in counsel, and excel¬ lent in working, unless we extend our views to the great and stupendous plan of his Providence, which every act of his government is in some way or other accomplishing, and viewing every part as connected with and subserving the great whole— r-the ultimate end of all. It is true, we are utterly inadequate to a com¬ prehensive view, but we are able, according to our ca¬ pacities, to judge upon the universal scale. And God has, for that purpose, given us many smaller repre¬ sentations proportioned to our limited powers, — re¬ semblances in miniature of the infinite original, to as¬ sist us in extending our views. And where reason fails, and nature faints — faith may flourish, and devo¬ tion say, “ O the depth of the riches both of the wis¬ dom and the knowledge of God — how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out.” Rom. xi. 33. The mysteries of divine Providence in the prosecu¬ tion of the great eternal plan of God, in which every creature of every character, angels and saints, wicked men and devils have all some part to act, and as in¬ struments in the hands of God are accomplishing his purposes — of these, we have, it is true, but a very imperfect view. It is as it were, a wheel within a wheel— infinite regularity, order and design, in the lit- 112 most apparent confusion. We see but a small part of the great whole. But we see sufficient to believe the rest. We see wisdom, order and design in the works of creation, and the connection of things in the natu¬ ral world ; and what reason have we to conclude that God’s agency is less concerned, or these beauties lest displayed in the moral world ? Shall we suppose that he acts in every particular with the most perfect de¬ sign in the one, and without ;any at all in the other. We may doubtless have observed some particular providence, or chain of providences, appearing in a short issue of things, most wisely and graciously de¬ signed, which at first appeared mysteriously confused and inexplicably dark. And why may not this lead us to believe the same of those parts of the moral system which are not unfolded ? Why have we not equally good ground to believe that the whole is the operation of one uniform plan, and that the same divine wisdom is exercised throughout the whole and every part? The design both of God’s word and providence is to display his character, and hold up a glass, in which we may see little images, or reflections of himself. — And these may be seen in every occurrence of divine providence, did we but pay that attention which we ought. God gives us no misrepresentations of his character. “lie is not tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” Let any ignorant man view the disjointed materials of a large building, while under the framing hand ol the carpenter — and it will all appear to him like labour to no purpose. He sees not, perhaps, the design of one piece of timber. He discerns no form, or beauty in it — all is one confused, jumbled mass. But the ar¬ tificer knows his plan ; — every part is wisely framed and fitted ; and when they are joined, and the build¬ ing erected and completed, design will appear through the whole, and the wisdom and beauty of architecture be displayed. And is not God declared to be the uni¬ versal architect? “ He that built all things is God.” Heb. iii. 4. And thus too it is with mankind in judging of the wisdom and beauty of God’s moral government. — They see not the connexion and design of its several 113 parts, and thence censure its wisdom. They look at the shades in the picture and call them blemishes ; — they think that God did not make them because they are black. But take away the shades, and both the beauty, and the picture itself is destroyed. Men are ready to think that moral evil was introduced into the system by some cause independent of God, and con¬ trary to his will, and that the existence of sin is a blot in his government. They cannot think that he willed it, and that he effects it too, because that, as they think would be acting out of character as a holy being and a hater of wickedness. But he submitted to the exist¬ ence of sin, because he could not prevent it, and save harmless the moral agency of his creatures ; and now his wisdom is exercised, in turning this necessary evil to the best account in his power. But is this a correct view of the divine government? Does this exhibit the true character of that God who “hath made all things for himself, and the wicked for the day of evil” — of whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things? There is a wide difference between willing a thing for its own sake, and willing it only as a means to something else, still further in view as the ultimate object of choice. I may cheerfully will what I am greatly averse from in itself considered, when some great good will be acquired that will vastly counter¬ balance the evil sustained :■ — So we may rationally conceive that the introduction and existence of moral evil in God’s system, and his willing, decreeing and effecting it, does not, in the least, militate with the ho¬ liness of his character,. but is the very exercise of his holiness. It is for the most wise and holy end — the purpose of effecting the greatest possible good. And if God be infinitely wise, it is as certain, that the plan which he hath adopted, is of all possible plans the wi¬ sest, and best calculated to effect this end. A complete illustration of the truth and consistency of the doctrine may be found in the history of Joseph. This is at once the most entertaining and instructive. What consummate wisdom is discovered in bringing good out of evil, and light out of darkness ! in direct¬ ing the wicked actions of men to accomplish his pur- 10* 114 poses, and advance his glory ! The whole and every part of this affair was predetermined by God, and the operation of his eternal purpose. — For the effecting of this, it was necessary that Joseph’s brethren should hate and persecute him, and send him into Egypt : — that he should be sold to Potiphar — tempted by his wife ; and by her means cast into prison. These cir¬ cumstances, together with those relating to the Butler and Baker — his introduction to Pharaoh — the inter¬ pretation of his dreams, and his consequent advance¬ ment to the government of Egypt, are all but so many links in the chain — so many successive steps in the conduct of divine providence, towards effecting the end in view. They were all planned and directed by infinite wisdom, and issued exactly according to God’s eternal design. Here, as in a glass, we may see the wisdom of God’s moral government ; — the order and connexion of its several parts, and how, in various ways, they all con¬ spire to one great end. Wicked men are but instru¬ ments in God’s hands. He directs their actions ac¬ cording to his purposes. Their “ wrath shall praise him, and the remainder he will restrain.” They are called in Scripture, “ God’s sword.” They cannot defeat his designs — so far from it, they can do nothing but what is exactly accomplishing the divine purpose. In all their acts of opposition to God, they are but ful¬ filling his counsels, and executing his will. This was strikingly shown in the conduct of Jo¬ seph’s brethren. They acted, as to their views and intentions in direct opposition to the government of God. But wherein they dealt proudly, he was infi¬ nitely above them. They little thought how the mat¬ ter would terminate : But it was all under the direc¬ tion of an invisible hand, and carried into effect by the powerful agency of God. And such were the re¬ flections which Joseph made to his brethren. “As for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” No thanks were due to them. All the glory he ascribes to God. “ God did send me before you” — said he, “ to preserve life — so that it 115 was not you that sent me hither, but God.” And this he repeats and repeats to them, to impress it the more deeply on their minds ; — that they might feel their own nothingness, and duly acknowledge the agency of God’s hand. And why may we not safely conclude from this ex¬ hibition of the divine character, had we no other, that his agency is equally concerned in every thing through¬ out the system, in all the actions of his creatures, that ever have taken, or will take place ? If he be an un- changable being, must it not follow ? If he does accor¬ ding to his will, in one instance, why not in all ? Is this too hard for omnipotence, or too repugnant to infi¬ nite wisdom and goodness ? If the wickedness of Jo¬ seph’s brethren in sending him into Egypt was design¬ ed by God, and his agency concerned in effecting it, as Joseph declares to them — 6e so now it was not you that sent me me hither but God” — why is not the same true respecting the conduct of all men in every age ? God’s power is still the same. He upholds all crea¬ tures, and pervades all space. He acts by an uniform rule. With him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” He is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. Joseph’s brethren meant it for evil. Sinners inva¬ riably do. They act freely and with design. Their actions are their own, though God worketh all things. They meant it for evil — but God meant it unto good . He willed it,- and his will is efficacious, for he doth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.” If Joseph’s brethren, therefore, were wicked in acting with an evil design, God was holy in his conduct, for he acted with a most benevolent design — “ he meant it unto good.” We see by the accomplishment that the divine end was good. God had a holy and wise end — and he had an undobt- ed right to his choice of the means, and it was holiness in him to use the means which he did. From this small specimen of the divine conduct, we have the highest reason to conclude, that God’s agency is universal — that all events are planned by his infi¬ nite wisdom — that all creatures are in the most abso- 116 lute sense dependent on God, for all their exercises and actions ; and that he has one great and glorious end in view, to which he makes the character and ac¬ tions of every creature, in some way conduce. How is the greatness, the sovereignty, and glorious supremacy of God exaltered in this point of view ! How absolutely independent ! What wisdom shines, in all the conduct of his moral government ! How infi¬ nitely exalted above all creatures ! He makes his ene¬ mies fulfil his purposes, and execute the counsels of his will, even in their acts of rebellion against him ; and all to conduce, in the final issue to the greatest possible good of his system. What a happiness it is to be under the government of such a great and good being ! We but quarrel with our own happiness, in not choosing to be 'wholly dependent on him. We act the part of proud, short-sighted creatures, in arrogating to ourselves that independence which be¬ longs only to God ; or in censuring the wisdom and rectitude of his government, because we cannot com¬ prehend it. His judgments are a great-deep, past finding out. W e see but in part, but we see infinite wisdom and goodness in that. Could we but look through the great plan, and examine the connection and subserviency of its several parts ; — or did we but suitably attend to those epitomes, which God has given us, and adapted to our limited capacities ; — a sense of our folly and arrogance in opposing his government, or murmuring under any of his dealings, would, at once overwhelm us with shame and remorse. Yours, &c. Aristarchus. i LETTER IX, My Dear Friend, Let us subject our reason to the wisdom of Cfod, and we shall more clearly see the beauty, propriety and justice of his government. This I humbly con¬ ceive, would have prevented your next objection. But I will quote and examine it — for whatever is not defensible against every objection, is not truth ; and truth can lose nothing by fair examination. The more closely it is investigated, the brighter it will shine, and the more firmly establish its belief in the mind. “it is a doctrine taught in the Scriptures, proved by experience, and embraced by Christians of almost all denominations, that, God strives with sinners by the influences of his Spirit, in opposition to their evil exercises and wicked practices — the natural tendency of which is to reclaim the sinner from a spirit of re¬ bellion to a temper of conformity and obedience. But how does this consist with the idea that God does at the same time create in the heart of the sinner those same evil exercises, which by his Spirit, he is stri¬ ving against ? Does not this wholly disprove his agency in the production of moral evil ? which represents the divine conduct inconsistent with itself ; as building and destroying at the same time. It represents God as hav¬ ing two wills, and those in direct opposition to each other. He hath made knnown to us his will in his written law — “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” He has taught us to pray, “ thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” He commands all men every where to repent and belive the gos¬ pel” — and expressly declares, “ Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1. Timothy ii. 4. And yet God is represent¬ ed as having another will, by which he creates all the 118 sinner’s enmity and opposition of heart to his law and all the sin that was ever committed. This is the greatest absurdity — the most palpable jargon.” I would first ask you, my dear friend, not to form your judgment too hastily, or condemn without a fair trial. To talk without standard, and argue without distinctions, is talking at random and aguing to no end. The surest method of determining the specific gravity of any substance, is by the intervention of scales and just weights ; — and to know with certainty that a conclusion is just, we must first know that the premises are. Perhaps, when the objection is fairly weighed, the absurdity and jargon of the doctrine in controversy, will be less palpable, than was appre¬ hended. There are two parts to your objection, as it is stat¬ ed, though both are essentially the same. They dif¬ fer but in mode of expression, implying a distinction, where there is no difference. This is as fruitful a source of wrong reasoning, as that of making no dis¬ tinctions where there is real difference. These are commonly in close connection. They embrace as kindred principles, and by action and reaction, mutu¬ ally operate both as cause and effect to each other. Your first complaint is that the doctrine of universal divine agency involves an inconsistency in the divine conduct ; or contrary operations upon the same sub¬ ject at the same time. That the Spirit of God does strive with impenitent sinners in opposition to their evil exercises and wicked practices, is readily enbraced as a doctrine both of Scripture and experience ; but that this implies any self-opposition or inconsistency in the divine conduct, upon the hypothesis of universal agency, is as readily denied, The objection is evidently built upon the ground of that erroneous principle, that the nature of the effect must necessarily be the same in kind with the nature of its cause. The absurdity of which I have already endeavored to expose. Take away this, and your argument will fall to the ground. This conse¬ quence will by no means follow, that, because God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, 119 therefore lie acts inconsistently with himself in produ¬ cing both sin and holiness. Diversity in the mode of operation affords no argument of self opposition, or contrary ends in the agent. A striking example of this has been given in the course and sequel of Joseph’s history. The whole plan in all its parts was laid by divine wisdom ; but the means by which it was brought about, were various, and in their natures opposed. Both righteous and wicked men were instrumental in the business — both holy and sinful actions in the vari¬ ous concatenation of effects, were improved by the same agent, and rendered subservient to the same end. God was the originating cause of the wickedness of Israel’s sons, and of Potiphar’s wife; and at the same time of the meekness, patience, piety, wisdom and for¬ titude of Joseph. The issue abundantly justified the declaration of Joseph, that though his brethren meant it for evil, yet God meant it for good. Where the end is uniform and is invariably pursued, no self opposition is implied in the diversity, or contrariety of the means used to effect it. A good end effected by means which are evil in their nature, and contrary in their proper tendency, discovers the wisdom, not'the inconsistency of the agent. Now if sameness of character consist with different operations upon different subjects at the same time — which is evident from the example just adduced — • why may it not equally consist with different opera¬ tions upon the same subject, at the same time ? If the end be uniform in both, where is the counteraction or self opposition? If the design of infinite wisdom in both, be the eventual accomplishment of the same ultimate purpose, how does it appear that God acts in¬ consistently with himself — as “building and destroy¬ ing at the same time?” Directly the opposite senti¬ ment is the necessary consequence. — But this truth will appear in a still clearer light when we consider in the Second place, — In what the strivings of God’s Spi¬ rit consist ; or what we are to understand by them, as actually done on the part of God? This rightly as¬ certained, and fairly applied, will I think, be another 120 ♦ step towards disproving the validity of the objection. There is an important distinction here to be brought in¬ to view — absolutely necessary to a right understanding of the subject — but which you have entirely overlook¬ ed. Otherwise you would not now need to be turned back to first principles, to see that this false argument is the whole support of your objection — that the uni¬ versal agency of God is incompatible with the moral agency or blame of the creature. If you still contin¬ ue to embrace this sentiment, I can refer you to no higher authority than the word of God. By this au¬ thority I consider, the sentiment, as already fully dis¬ proved, and the contrary as fully established ; — that, the absolute dependence of the creature is perfectly consistent with his moral agency- — that his evil actions are his own — that he is guilty and punishable for them. Sufficient has been offered on this subject for the con¬ viction of the candid, and for the sake of any others, it will be to no purpose to go over the same ground again. By the light of this truth, I now propose to examine the merits of the present objection. And let me speak the question in the ear of reason — does God act inconsistently with himself, and counteract his own operations by convincing the impenitent sinner of these truths — that he is holy and righteous — his law just and good; and his government wise and perfect? — that, he (the sinner) is bound by infinite obligation to love him supremely and obey him perfectly — that he is abominably guilty for every act of transgression, and justly deserving of eternal destruction ? I need not wait for a reply. The question answers itself to the weakest mind. The only inquiry then, is this — whether, if God be holy in hardening the sinners heart, does he counteract his holiness by showing the crea¬ ture that he is a sinner for hardening his own heart? — does he oppose with one hand, the agency of the other ? This question is as plain as the other — a child may answer it. But a conviction of sin is all that is ever effected in the mind of the impenitent sinner by the strivings and common illuminations of God’s Spirit. God arrests the attention of the sinner, and causes him 121 to read with self application the language of his word and providence, by which he learns his true character. And is this counteracting his own operations, when God tells the sinner in his word, that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hard « cneth ? ' God may consistently do this, at the same time that he creates in the heart of the sinner those very exercises, which by his Spirit, he is striving, or bear¬ ing testimony against. He acts as a holy being in both, and holiness is not opposed to itself. The fact is, these operations of Deity are diverse but not opposed. God’s hardening the sinner effects the exercises of his heart. He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Whereas the strivings of his Spirit, effect merely the sinners understanding' and natural con¬ science. The understanding and the affections are as distinct as the head and the heart, or as the soul and the body, and in the case of the impenitent sinner, they are altogether opposed. The impenitent heart never follows the dictate of the enlightened under¬ standing; but whenever the clear conviction of truth is impressed upon the mind, they are at open war, and the opposition most sensibly experienced. The com¬ mon illumination of the divine Spirit is an objective, and not a subjective light. It is an operation by the means of moral suasion — but it does not reach the heart — it affects only the understanding and conscience This is the important distinction to which I alluded — viz, between the understanding and the heart — the neglect of which forms one principal ground of your difficulty. The one may be enlightened while the other is hardened ; — and thence, the operations of Dei¬ ty producing these effects are not opposed to each other. — Therefore, ■ 3. This may tend to correct another mistaken view which you have expressed in the shape of an argu¬ ment — viz , that the strivings of God’s Spirit have a natural tendency to reclaim the sinner from a spirit of rebellion, to a temper of conformity and obedience to the rule of duty. Directly the reverse of this is truth, — It is acknowledged, that where there is any holiness previously in the heart, these same operations of the 1 1 122 Spirit, impressing the rule of duty upon the con¬ science, would, and do have a natural tendency to in¬ crease and strengthen the temper of conformity and obedience already implanted ; — for here is a coinci¬ dence of moral feeling — a cooperation of the heart of the creature with the influences of the Spirit of God. There is however, nothing of this kind, but every thing directly contrary, in the heart of. the impenitent sin¬ ner. Striving implies opposition, and there is nothing but opposition in his heart. It is not a mistaken, but the true character of God, at which his enmity is poin¬ ted. It is not because he does not see this character, that he does not love it — but because he does see it — and the more clearly he sees it, the more sensibly he hates it, and the higher his enmity arises. The stri¬ vings of God’s Spirit, therefore, instead of reclaiming and softening the heart of the sinner, and gradually effecting a temper of conformity and obedience, have a real tendency to harden his heart, and blow up the spir¬ it of rebellion to the highest pitch of opposition. This we find was the case in the example of Pharaoh, and it is so with all impenitent sinners. God strove with him both by his Spirit, and the most remarkable providences — yet the more God strove, with him, the more he opposed, and the more he hardened his heart. It is true, that an outward reformation of manners, generally, if not always accompanies legal convictions of sin — but restraining grace differs widely from, sanc¬ tifying grace, and bodily exercises from* those of the heart : — the latter only are interesting to this question — the tempter of the heart is the object of inquiry- — a spirit of conformity or not, to the rule of duty. And it is plain to common sense, that the sight of an object hated , has a very different tendency from that of exci¬ ting love. This is the thing effected by the strivings of God’s Spirit upon impenitent sinners. God and his law are brought to their view ; and if the carnal mind be enmity against God, and cannot be subject to his law ; it is as certain, that all the strivings of God’s Spirit, antecedent to actual regeneration, have a real and powerful tendency to increase and strengthen this enmity. The proper and only language of the carnal * 123 heart towards God, is “depart from me, fori desire not the knowledge of thy ways.” It is therefore a very mistaken notion which many have, that an impenitent sinner under conviction is gradually becoming better ; and that the strivings of the divine Spirit have a tendency to soften and reclaim hisheart ; — and are accompanied with this effect. The truth is, he is growing worse, with an accelerated ra¬ pidity, and incurs a more aggravated guilt, than the perfectly stupid and secure sinner ; — as he sins against greater light — does greater violence to his conscience, and exercises higher enmity against God. The example of Felix is in point. The strivings of God’s Spirit accompanied the preaching of Paul, and impressed truth upon his conscience, in so powerful a manner, that he trembled upon his judgment seat. Why then, did he not, under these alarming and awful impressions of truth, yield to its force, and submit himself to God, if this were a necessary consequence of such a conviction, or the natural tendency of the strivings of God’s Spirit? But such was the strength of his opposition, that he bribed his conscience with a feigned promise of future attention; and all his con¬ viction issued in this— “ go thy way for this time — when I have a convenient season, I will call for the.” Acts xxiv, 2d. What our Saviour said of the Jews is full evidence of this truth, that the greatest degree of speculative light and knowledge is not only consistent with the highest degree of heart enmity, but naturally followed by it. “ They have both seen and hated, both me and my Father.” John xv, 24. This they confirmed by a particular and very awful example. After they had at a certain time, witnessed Christ’s casting out a devil — being convinced in their consciences, that it was a good work, and wrought by the finger of God ; — and unable to express their opposition in any other way, vented their rage in a torrent of blasphemy, — paying — “ He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils.” Luke xi. 15. Therefore, if the clearest light and knowledge in the understanding, and the deepest conviction of truth 124 * in the conscience, consist with the highest enmity and opposition of heart; and not only so, but the latter is found to increase with the former; — the operation of the divine Spirit, in effecting conviction of sin, has no tendency to a temper of conformity and obedience to the rule of duty — but the contrary. — Therefore, there is no dashing of parts in the divine conduct. The strivings of God’s Spirit effecting this conviction is per¬ fectly consistent with his universal agency. in the greatest diversity of operations, there is not one discor¬ dant stroke. Unity of design pervades and directs the whole. “ The Lord is ever of one mind.” But the objection is continued in a varied form. Two opposite wills in God, is asserted to.be a necessary con¬ sequence of the doctrine contended for. This arises solely from misconstruction. It is a consequence with¬ out any premises. If the first part of the objection be removed, as, I think it is, this is left without any foundation. If universal divine agency be not self in¬ consistent, — but in all his diverse operations, God acts steadily and uniformly to one great and holy end, there is not the least room for the idea of his having two op¬ posite wills. But scripture is adduced in support of the objection. Let us examine the justness of its ap¬ plication. You first remark, that, “ God hath made known to us his will in his written law; Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart 6lc.” This is applying the term in its restricted, and not in its most usual and scriptural sense — but blending to¬ gether the divine will and the rule of duty indiscrimin¬ ately. These however, are as distinguishable as any two objects whatever. In the proper sense of the word, it is not true, that the written law of God is a releva- tion of his will. The will of God is not to be taken in that limited and partial sense, as having respect only to what in its own nature is pleasing to him. The will of God, as has been observed is undistinguishable from his agency, and we can have no other idea of God’s power, but the exercise of his will. And we are ex¬ pressly told that “he worketh all things after the coun- sil of his own will .” If therefore, you should insist on a distinction between the divine will and agency. A 125 yet you must allow them both to be alike cooperative and coextensive; and the latter is here declared to be universal — “ who worketh all things .” But how does this comport with the idea that God’s written law is the revelation of his will ? Upon your hypothesis, uni¬ versal holiness must take place throughout the intelli¬ gent system, or it would not be true, that God worketh all things arter the counsel of his own will. The last transgression of the divine law affords an invincible argument in disproof of your doctrine : — and is not the law of God transgressed ? And shall we say that the transgression of his law, in this sense contrary to Gns will, when he declares to us that he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will ? If creatures can, in this sense counteract the will of God, they may defeat all his purposes, and overthrow his govern¬ ment. But enough upon this point. I proceed to the next passage, which is a petition in the Lord’s prayer — “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” — But does this imply that God’s will is not done by creatures on earth? Compare it with Daniel iv. 35. And he doth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth” The petition therefore speaks nothing more than that God’s will might be done in the same manner on earth as it is in heaven — that is, by the agency of holy creatures. Again, God commandeth all men every where, to repent and believe the gospel.” This is their duty none can dispute. But do all men repent and believe the gos¬ pel ? Does the command effect the thing commanded ? If not, it is not an expression of the divine will. It only points out the duty of sinners, with the obliga¬ tion of infinite authority, and declares what kind of moral actions are in their own nature pleasing to God. The next and last passage which you bring forward is that in 1. Timothy ii. 4. “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” The form of this expression strongly favours the ob¬ jection, and if entirely disconnected, it were the whole Bible upon the subject, might perhaps be conclusive. But if compared with other parts of sacred writ and ir examined in its near connexion with what immediately precedes it, your construction will be found to set scrip¬ ture at war with itself, and involve your own scheme, in that absurdity, inconsistency and jargon of which you complain; that of two opposite wills in Deity. Compare this passage with that in Romans ix. 15. and it will show that the words, all men , are not here to be taken in the universal sense — for otherwise, a di¬ rect contradiction wrould ensue. “ Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardenethd'1 Now, doth God will to save all men and yet will to hardens, parti This would be to ascribe two opposite wills to him, in reality. But the difficul¬ ty is easily solved, and the consistency between the two passages shown, — by which it will appear that both are directly in point against you. Only attend to the connection of that in Timothy, and we need not mistake the divine counsel. The apostle begins the chapter thus — “ I exhort therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions and giving of thanks be made for all men : for kings and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty, for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour.” The passage in question immediately follows, evident¬ ly designed to enforce the exhortation given, by adding a still further motive of encouragement to the duty of praying for all men, viz, that it was not only in itself pleasing to God, but it was his actual will and deter¬ mination to save sinners of all the various descriptions of mankind, high and low, great and small. If it were certainly revealed to us, that God would save none of a particular class of men, we should have no encour¬ agement to pray for their salvation — nor would it be our duty, any more than to pray for the salvation of the fallen angels, But if we are assured that it is the divine purpose to save some of all classes of mankind, it becomes our duty and is our ecouraging motive to pray for all men. This, I conceive is the natural con¬ struction of the text, and it must be understood in this sense, in order to be consistent with other parts of scripture, that God will save sinners of all descriptions 12? of men. No class are shut out from the infinite bles¬ sing of salvation. The insertion of the particle, of, next to the word have, which is very reasonably under¬ stood, and seems necessarily implied, will give the true sense of the passage — “ Who will have of all men, (or descriptions of men) to be saved.” But does God’s determination to save some of all mankind, and his hardening and destroying the rest, imply that he hath two opposite w ills ? * Your next objection in reply to the foregoing re¬ marks very naturally arises and is not unjrequently made. Are the strivings of God’s Spirit designed to harden the sinner ? What then is the blessing of a Revival ? In this view of things they are to be dreaded and not desired — for the carnally stupid and secure sinner is a fairer candidate for salvation , than one whose attention is awakened , and whose conscience convicted. We know not the designs of God, but by what actu¬ ally takes place. This however we have evidence to believe from examples in his word, that many have been the subjects of the strivings of his Spirit, whom he had no design to save. Your monsequence from the doctrine nevertheless, does not follow. It is not because one sinner is less guilty than another, that he is a fairer canidate for heaven, (the unpardonable sin only excepted.) The mercy of God is as sufficient for the greatest, as for the smallest sinner. And because sinners oppose and pervert divine influences, which is evil and undesirable, is no argument that the strivings of God’s Spirit are not beneficial and desirable. Ail their tendency to harden the sinner, springs from the pride and enmity of his own evil and wicked heart. But if the question be what benefit will the sinner derive from the strivings of the Spirit, if he continue to the last to oppose and resist them? The answer is plain. None at all. They will serve to aggravate his condemnation. But does it thence follow, that they were in themselves undesirable for him to be the subject of, while he was in the way of mercy, and a candidate for heaven ; and when nothing but his own pride and perverseness prevented his reaping from 128 them the infinite blessing of salvation, freely offered him? It is true that all the designs of God in his conduct with the sinner will be answered. His word shall not return unto him void, nor fail of accomplish¬ ing his pleasure — yet the ultimate design of the divine conduct, can be learnt only by the issue. But if truth be important, and the knowledge of it necessary to his embracing it — if it be a circumstance, or means, with¬ out which he cannot be in the road to happiness, or attain to a saving knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ — which is most certain, — then it will follow, as a necessary consequence, that the strivings of God’s Spirit, by which a conviction of truth is wrought in his mind, are desirable and of the utmost importance ; and a revival of religion to be hailed as the richest blessing which God bestows on sinful men. The awakened and convicted sinner is, to human view, a much fairer candidate for salvation, than the stupid and secure, the openly immoral and profane. Why? Not because he is less guilty ; for, as the case may be he is more ; — not because he is more disposed to submission — for he is more strongly and obstinate¬ ly opposed : — not because conviction of sin and re¬ morse of conscience have any tendency to change his heart — for he still grows the more obdurate : — not be¬ cause he is gradually growing better under convic¬ tions ; the reverse of this has been shown : — and not because there is any certain, necessary or promised connexion between conviction and conversion — for many have stilled the strongest convictions, grieved away the Spirit of God, and returned again to carnal security : — but simply and solely because this is God’s method of bringing in his elect, and no adult sinner is converted in any other way. God doth not take the sinner to heaven immediately from a state of carnal se¬ curity and stupidity. When, therefore, we see a sin¬ ner under a deep conviction of sin, and an alarming apprehension of the wrath of God, crying out in the anguish and bitterness of his spirit, — what shall I do to be saved ? we have, for the reason just mentioned, more visible ground to hope that God designs mercy for him, and will convert and save him, than for one i 129 who is openly immoral and profane, and living as thoughtless of death and eternity as the brutes. Many important ends are answered by this mode of God’s dealing with his rebellious creatures. Convic¬ tion of sin is a proper and necessary preparative for the sinner to become a recipient of regenerating grace. By it he is convinced of the pride and enmity of his heart — his utter opposition to every thing morally good — his impotency, guilt and wretchedness, and hence of his perishing need of a divine righteousness, and his absolute dependence on sovereign mercy. — - When the sinner has tried every effort in vain — is driv¬ en from the last plank of his own righteousness, and finds himself sinking and perishing without hope, un¬ less tlie arm of sovereign mercy be extended for his salvation — then is the time for God to display his in¬ finite mercy, and make bare his holy arm in plucking the sinner as a brand from the burning, and new moulding the carnal heart of enmity into the temper and the transports of heaven. Thus God will be the more highly exalted ; the sinner the more deeply hum¬ bled, and prepared to unite in the song of Moses and the Lamb — “ Not unto us, but unto thy name give glo¬ ry, for thy mercy and thy truth’s sake.” Yours, with much respect, Aristarchus, LETTER X. Dear Sir, Your next objection to the doctrine of divine sove¬ reignty, and your reasonings in support of it, I am sorry to say are as uncandid as they are misconceived. I will first state the objection, in your own words, and then endeavour to analyze and examine it. “ The Calvinistic creed represents mankind as ob¬ jects of the divine hatred only — not even through the Redeemer as a race of beings, the subjects of his com¬ passion and mercy. This is inadmissible. I cannot conceive of the Most High as oossessed of this vindic- tive spirit towards the natural state of men, and at the same time that he so far loved them as to send his only begotten Son to redeem them. “God so loved the world.” Is not this spoken of the world in its natu¬ ral state? If not, here is a text full to the purpose: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and gave his Son to be a propitiation for our sins,” This speaks plainly, that he compassionated our natural state, and made provision for escaping its consequences. That, one of its consequences, sepa¬ rate from his interposition is a continual opposition to him is readily granted. This state of ours is held up in scripture, as the very cause of his sending his Son into the world. And I am fully persuaded that the re¬ demption of Christ is universal. From many scrip¬ ture passages in proof of this, I shall refer you to two onlv — “ That Jesus by the grace of God might taste death for every man — Who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” Now how do these declarations con¬ sist with the idea, that Christ died only for a part of mankind, and that he is a propitiation only for tne sins of an elect number? That all do not receive the bene¬ fits of his redemption is no argument against it, upon the principles of scripture. “ And through thy knowl¬ edge, says St. Paul, shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died ?” If Christ be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, why are not the sins of the whole remittable? What impediment is therein the way, but only a voluntary abuse of the advantages which God hath put into our hands ? In the first place, Sir, I must observe, that you have utterly mistaken the Calvinistic creed, and set down your own misconstruction of it as the object of contro¬ versy. This method, however unfair, is yet but too 131 common in sectarian disputes. It is an enemy to the candid investigation of truth, and therefore ought to be carefully guarded against. Is it just or candid for you to assert that the Calvinistic creed represents God as an enemy to the works of his hands ; and that even as a race of beings, they are not the subjects of his compassion and mercy through the Redeemer ? What is the Calvinistic Creed on this subject — for you need to be informed ? Simply this, that God views sin with perfect disapprobation and abhorrence — that man, since the apostacy is naturally a sinner, — entirely des¬ titute of holiness ; and that, therefore, God has no complacency in his moral character, but views it with the utmost abhorrence. And what can you oppose to this ? Does it imply that God is an enemy to the works of his hands ? Because he abhors the moral characters of men, doth he therefore hate their persons, and is so opposed to their happiness, that they as a race of be¬ ings, are not the objects of his compassion and mercy through the Redeemer? This is a very wanton as¬ sumption. Does it argue the Most High void of com¬ passion, and possessed of a revengeful spirit because he infinitely abhors all moral evil ? In proving your God a being of compassion and mercy, would you be understood to mean that he is not a being of justice and purity, but loves the moral character of the sinner, and is pleased with the nature of sin ? Certainly not. We are commanded to be Godlike in forgiving our en¬ emies, and doing them good. “If thine enemy hun¬ ger, feed him — if he thirst, give him drink, &c. If a vile ruffian should abuse your person, and murder your only son, you would not, in the exercise of a Godlike temper, have the smallest feeling of revenge towards him — but would forgive him Mo r Christ’s sake, wish him well, — pity him and pray for his pardon and sal¬ vation. The Saviour set the example when hanging upon the cross. But would this imply that you loved the character of the ruffian, and approved of his abom¬ inable wickedness ? No : — but directly the contrary. The higher the degree of your pitty and benevolence towards the poor vile wretch, the greater would be your abhorrence of his atrocities. 132 In the same light are we to view the affections of the divine mind. God’s hatred of moral evil is per¬ fectly consistent with his love of moral being. They are clearly distinguishable and yet inseparably con¬ nected. They are jointly exercised, and in an equal degree. Man as a sinner God views with just abhor¬ rence ; — as his creature and capable of enjoying hap¬ piness, God loves him ; — as a wretched ruined crea¬ ture, the God of mercy pities him, gives his Son to die for his salvation, and through him offers pardon and eternal life to all and every one who will believe. It was therefore, quite unnecessary for you to prove that God is not a malevolent or revengeful being; or waste arguments to disprove, what no one believes^ that God is an enemy to the happiness of his creatures. This must have been because you do not properly dis¬ tinguish between the holy anger of God, which has no other object but sin, and is an exercise of love to the happiness of moral beings ; — and the passionate re¬ vengeful anger of men, which is pointed at the very being of its object, and can be satisfied with nothing but its misery. Neither do you make any distinction between the love of benevolence, and the love of complacence — or you could not have brought scriptural declarations of the divine compassion towards sinners, in proof of the divine complacency ill the natural character of men, which you acknowledge to be opposed to God. “ This now,” you say “ speaks plainly that he com¬ passionated our natural state, and made provision for escaping its consequences. That one of its conse¬ quences separate from his interposition is a continual opposition to him, is readily granted. This state of ours is held up in scripture, as the very cause of his sending his Son into the world.” All the ambiguity in this sentence, which leaves room for any difference between us, is in the use of the word, interposition. By this you mean only God’s giving his Son, and the common influences of his Spir¬ it, in exclusion of the idea of special and distinguish¬ ing grace towards any — but that God doth as much, and equally the same in every point of view, by the 133 influences of his Spirit,. for the salvation of all mankind, as for that of any part of the race. This undoubted¬ ly is what you mean by universal Redemption. Here you are betrayed, my friend, into a sad inacuracy by not distinguishing between redemption and atonement. If by universal Redemption, you mean an all sufficient atonement, or an universal offer of mercy — we are agreed in the thing. But the word is mischosen to express this idea. — Redemption is atonement actually applied : and if by universal redemption, be meant an universal application of Christ’s atonement, (and the term is misapplied to express any other idea) it is then, but another word for universal salvation. For if the design of Christ’s death was equally to benefit all mankind without distinction ; all mankind would certainly be saved, as an infallible consequence ; or the design of Christ’s death would be frustrated. But I can readily see, that in solving this difficulty, you may again object to irresistable grace as repug¬ nant to free agency : — if so I would only refer you to my arguments upon that subject, and then to your own concession, that one of the consequences of our natu¬ ral state , separate from God's interposition , is a con¬ tinual opposition to him. Does not this sentiment necessarily imply irresistable grace, in the sinner’s change of heart from opposition to conformity. — Whether this change be effected by power or by light — with means, or without — by all or by none of these, but by something else, is perfectly immaterial to the present question, — The only point is, whether any interposition short of irresistable could be sufficient to destroy the sinner’s opposition? If the divine inter¬ position be resistable, the sinner can resist it — and if he can resist it, he certainly wants not the will to re¬ sist — for to resist is his natural disposition, and a con¬ tinual opposition, unless, or until overcome by divine interposition, is one of the allowed consequences of our natural state. The doctrine of irresistable grace thus conceded, effectually oversets your w'hole scheme. For if this divine interposition be sufficient to destroy the opposition of one sinner, it is equally sufficient to destroy the opposition of any other ; and if extended 12 134 to all equally as to any (which is an essential doctrine in the Arminian scheme) it will be equally effectual in destroying the opposition of all , and inevitably issue in the universal salvation of the human race. This must be the consequence, unless the same interposi¬ tion which is irresistable to one sinner, is not so to an¬ other. If we admit this, it will follow that the mercy of God in the redemption of Christ is not sufficient for the salvation of great or very hardened sinners, be¬ cause they are capable of resisting his interpositions — but only of small sinners who can make but a feeble resistance, and are therefore liable to be overcome by the power of divine grace. If therefore you would be consistent, you must either embrace the doctrine of universal salvation or relinquish that of universal re¬ demption — for they are inseparably connected, and must stand or fall together. But how do you avoid this consequence ? In a way which tends directly to establish it. To prove your favourite doctrine of universal redemption, two mem¬ orable passages of scripture are adduced ; — “ That Je¬ sus by the grace of God might taste death for every man : — who is a propitiation for the sins of the whole world — and then you ask with the assurance of af¬ firmation — why are not the sins of the whole world re - mutable ? what impediment is there in the way , but on¬ ly a voluntary abuse of the advantages which God hath put into our hands ? — Aye, truly — upon this plan there would not be even that impediment — or if that abuse existed, it would not be such an impediment as to prevent an universal remission : for that interposition which is adequate to the repentance and pardon of one sinner — if extended alike to all, would as certainly produce the repentance and pardon of all ; and re¬ move that impediment in the way of mercy, by effect¬ ually correcting in all mankind that voluntary abuse of the advantages which God hath put into their hands. So that upon your plan, the sins of the whole world are not only remittable , but they must, and actually would be remitted, and universal salvation be the con¬ sequence — for, God does not pardon and punish the 135 same subject. Whom he pardons, he exempts from punishment, and receives into his eternal favour. The argument from 1 Cor. viii. 11, has no force or application in this place. “And through thy knowl¬ edge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died ?” That is to say, will you be so indifferent to the happiness of your weak brother, for whose salva¬ tion Christ died, as to neglect and counteract the means of his salvation ; and by eating in his presence meat offered to an idol, (which by your superior knowledge you might have done innocently as having no regard to the idol) embolden his weak conscience to sin, by eat¬ ing it as offered to an idol ? This would betray a crim¬ inal want of benevolence. It would be an unchristian act, and not calculated to save the weak brother from perishing. Paul, therefore, immediately upon it, says, “Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh whilst the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” This passage, therefore, is no proof that any sinner will perish, whom Christ died with a design to save. It by no means clears your plan from the fellowship of uiiiversalism — unless it prove th$t the purpose of God may be defeated by the act of a creature : a prin¬ ciple which surely no man in his reason can understand¬ ing^' embrace. Can any be so absurd as to suppose that a soul will finally perish, whom Christ died with an actual and eternal design to save? Let him read John x. 26 — 28. “But ye® believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me ; and I give unto them eternal life , and they shall never per- ish , neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.” Now are all men Christ’s sheep? Do all believe ? Do all follow Christ ? Is it possible for Christ’s sheep to perish ? Is eternal life already given, of but a tempora¬ ry endurance, and liable to be lost tomorrow ? The text in Corinthians , therefore, proves nothing more than, that means and ends are inseperably con¬ nected — are equally objects of the divine decree — the former is necessary to the latter ; and therefore, that we ought to be as careful, and as engaged to promote 136 the happiness of our fellow men, and our Christian brethren, as if their eternal salvation rested ultimately and solely upon our exertions. The unknown pur¬ poses ot God, though the foundation and first cause of every event, cannot, and never were designed to be the rule of our conduct. Let scripture speak for itself, and this subject will be better explained and better understood. Take the two following passages and compare them. They will explain the passages which you have cited, show the nature and extent of Christ’s redemption, and its con¬ sistency and connexion with the doctrine of election. John iii. 14 — 16, and Acts xiii. 48. We will attend to the first seperately, and then compare them. “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder¬ ness, so must the son of Man be lifted up ; that who¬ soever believe th in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that lie gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” In this passage the mediation of Christ is clearly illustrated by the brazen serpent of Moses, which was a designed type of his crucifixion. “ As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” The former explains the latter. What, then, was the design and effect of Moses’ raising up the brazen serpent? The whole history of it is given in, Nitmbers xxi. and it is worthy of our partic¬ ular attention in the present .inquiry. The camp of Israel were.now in the wilderness, and for their murmurings against God and agaist Moses, they were bitten by fiery serpents. The bite was venom¬ ous and mortal, and much people ofisrael, we are told, died. After Moses had prayed for the people, the Lord gave him this direction — “Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten, w7hen he looketh upon it shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole; and it came to pass that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent ofbrass, helived. “The design of it therefore, expressed in the analogy 137 of the Saviour’s words, was that whosoever looketh at the brazen serpent should not die, but live, that all that would, might in tins way receive healing, With this, the atonement of Christ exactly compares. Such wras the nature and design of his being lifted up on the cross, as expressly declared and repeated by himself in the passage before us ; “ even so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever beiieveth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. God so loved the world &c — that whosoever beiieveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. This explains the nature, design and extent of Christ’s atonement ; and what we are to understandby universal redemption ; though the term is misapplied, and in strict propriety, there is no such thing. It can¬ not, agreeably to the word of God, be made to signify any thing moye or less than this, that, in consequence of Christ’s death, all mankind are placed in a state of probation — have the offer of pardon and salvation ; and all who will accept of it, upon the terms of the gospel, shall receive the infinite benefit of his death, the salvation of their souls. This is all that is taught us in those texts — “ that Jesus by the grace of God might taste death for every man — Who is the propi¬ tiation four our sins, and not for ou'rs only, but for the sins of the whole world.” And now let me ask, is the subject thus explained in¬ consistent with the doctrine of particular election ? Does it necessarily follow from the universality of the offer of salvation, that God hath not ordained who, and how many shall by believing, accept the offer and reap its benefits ? If all do not accept the offer and believe in Christ, what is the cause, why any do ? These questions are explicitly answered in the other propo¬ sed passage. Acts xiii. 48. “ And when the gentiles had heard this (the offers of the gospel by the preach¬ ing of Paul and Barnabas,) they were glad and glori¬ fied the word of the Lord, and as many as were ordain¬ ed to eternal life, believed What can be placed against this ? Is any thing wanting to confirm an express declaration of God’s word ? Here the offers of the gospel had been freely 12* 13S made to all — for there is an infinite fulness in Christ— an all sufficiency in his atonement and expiatory sa¬ crifice for sin : — in this respect it was universal. But the Jews, to whom the offers of the gospel were first made, rejected them ; and the apostles by divine direc¬ tion turned to the gentiles — yet they did not all be¬ lieve. But what made the distinction ? God ans¬ wers the question — “ As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” Can any one read this, and yet believe or say, that there is such an universality in the redemption of Christ, as is inconsistent with particu¬ lar election ? Parallel with the above passage, is the style of Pe¬ ter’s address in his first epistle general — He directs it to the saints and distinguishes them by this descrip¬ tion, — “ j Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” And also those words of Paul, “ Who is the Saviour of all men, sjiecially of them that believe.” Timothy iv. 10. “ Who gave himself for us that he might re¬ deem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Titus ii. 14. And also our Saviour’s own declaration — “ All that the Father hath given me shall come to me — and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” — John vi. 37. The instruction of the Bible on this subject is clear, and need not be misunderstood. Allow me then, my dear friend, to say, for it is the fruit of a perfect conviction — that if you will bring your system to the Bible, and not the Bible to that — if you will compare scripture with scripture — view the general scope of the whole, and the particular connex¬ ion and uniform tendency of its several parts — the ex¬ ercise would issue in a conviction of your mistake, and you would view the doctrine in debate in a different point of light. These three questions, with scriptural answers an¬ nexed comprise the whole, and place the subject in too clear a light to be misunderstood. J 139 1. Question. How extensive is the redemption of Christ ? Answer . u God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 16. 2. Question. How or in what way is faith obtain¬ ed — or from what cause is it, that any believe ? Answer. u By grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” Eph. ii. 8. Who fnlfilleth in us the whole good pleasure of his goodness and the work of faith with power.” 2. Thess. i. 11. 3. Question. “ Who and how many will believe in Christ ? Answer. “ All that the Father hath given me shall come to me — As many as were ordained to eternal life, believed. — Can we want any thing further to explain Redemption ? Any thing more to convince us, that the design of Christ’s death was that the offer of mercy might be made to all, and the benefit of salvation applied only to the elect — to those ordained to eternal life ? — that the grace of God to them is special and distinguish¬ ing ? Though the external calls of the gospel are to all, and the internal strivings of the spirit are in a greater or less degree common with impenitent sin¬ ners ; yet the effectual calling of the saints is peculiar to them, and distinct in its kind from that of which any others are the subjects. To them only is that di¬ vine interposition extended, which is effectual to des¬ troy the opposition of our natural state. Whether the consistency which you have denied, be not sufficiently proved by the highest authority, the testimony of scripture, 5 now cheerfully submit to your candid judgment. I would fain hope that you are now disposed to take back your next remark in which you are pleased to say — “ But after all your nice distinctions, and subtle ar¬ guments about means and motives, and divine and hu¬ man agency, &c. I cannot believe that the Father of 140 mercies will eternally punish any of his creatures for having accomplished his purposes by their agency.” This objection is an ancient one. It was stated by the apostle Paul, tho’ in different words ; and by him fully obviated — to him, I will therefore refer you for an answer. — “ Why then doth he yet find fault, for who hath re¬ sisted his will l — 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 ? Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel unto honour and another unto dis¬ honour ? What if God willing to shew his wrath and make his power known, endureth with much long suf¬ fering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction : and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory ?” — Who has a right to object, or any reason to complain? shall man presume to enter the cabinet of his Maker, censure the propriety of his government, and dare to say “ what dost thou?” Shall he who is but of yesterday, and knows nothing, teach infinite wisdom how to rule ? Shall he that is nothing, lend assistance to almighty power ; and shall he that de¬ serves nothing but destruction, feel himself injured and aggrieved by the conduct of infinite goodnes ? Know vain man that sin lyeth at thine own door. Let us then be humble and be wise. Let us “be still and know that he is God.” Your affectionate friend, Aristarchus. LETTER XI. Dear Sir, 1 find you pursuing your remarks in tlie following strain of reasoning. Without the divine grace to destroy the power of sin, it is true, that neither scripture nor reason know of any reconciliation to God. If redemption be uni¬ versal, or if the atonement of Christ be all sufficient, and the offers of mercy made to all; — Upon either hy¬ pothesis a sufficiency of this grace, universally impart¬ ed, must be a necessary consequence ; and it would be absurd to talk of either universal redemption, or uni¬ versal invitation without it. And such is the instruc¬ tion of Scripture. St. John, speaking of Christ, says, That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” John , i. 9. Now what is this light? Unless it bean universal sufficiency of grace ? To forgive sin God only requires us to detest it. The Holy Spirit, as far as is consistent with our free agency is universally working for its destruction. Otherwise, why is he ever grieved, or quenched ? Those who comply with his suggestions, neither grieve, nor quench him. And how can we be so irrational as to suppose, that he singles out a person, here and there to influence, when this influence is of no further use to him, than we can suppose it to be, by considering it universal. I suppose that all that we can do with re¬ spect to our salvation, is not to thwart and obstruct what God is doing for us. “ It is he that worketh in us both to will and to do.” — What impropriety is there then in supposing, that this same principle, which is nothing different from conscience, operates to the de¬ struction of sin, from the first moment we breathe ?” This objection is a branch shooting out from the doctrine of universal redemption, and with that must wither when the stock is hewn down. There is no 142 universal redemption to be found in the Bible ; and the doctrine of an universal sufficiency of grace to destroy the power of sin is no consequence from the all suffi¬ ciency of Christ’s atonement, or the unlimited offer of his salvation. Our Saviour himself who best knew the design of his own death has explicitly told us to the con¬ trary. “1 am the good Shepherd and know my sheep and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, so also know I the Father, and I lay down my life, for the sheep. John x. 14, 15. — and in the 28th verse, he says “ I give unto them eternal life.” Now are all men Christ’s sheep? — doth he alike give unto them all eter¬ nal life ? Is there no difference between Christ’s sheep and the goats? between the children of God and the children of the devil ? Do they all form one undistin- guishable mass ? Christ dintinguishes them in the clear¬ est manner. The sheep lie will place upon his right hand, and the goats upon his left. To the one he will say, “ Come ye blessed of my Father inherit the king¬ dom prepared for you, from the foundation of the world.” And to the other, “Go ye cursed into ever¬ lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” — Christ says that he knows his sheep, and that he lays down his life for them. And if so, he as certainly knows who are not his sheep. And did he lay down his life with a view to save them, whom he will finally ad¬ judge to everlasting fire ? This would be a contradic¬ tion in terms. If Christ laid down his life for his sheep, he as certainly had no designs to save any oth¬ ers by his death. And this he farther signifies in his intercessory prayer to the Father. “ I pray for them — I pray not for the world — but for them which thou hast given me.” John xvii. 9. A sufficiency of grace to destroy the power of sin must be that which ensures the sinner’s salvation, and is effectual to that end. This grace is given in exact correspondence to the design and extent of the effica¬ cy of Christ’s death, and no otherwise. One design of Christ’s death was that all men might be placed in a state of probation — have the offer of mercy, and the strivings of his Spirit. This grace is ac¬ cordingly given. The great and special design of Christ’s death, was for his sheep, that they might have 143 eternal life; and accordingly a sufficiency of grace is given them, by the regenerating and sanctifying influ¬ ences of his Spirit to insure this end. No other grace is necessary or to be expected in any instance, than, what is sufficient for effecting the actu¬ al design of Christ’s death. The grace of God is not given in vain. He doth not give regenerating and sanctifying grace to those whom he doth not design to save — nor on the other hand doth he withold that suffi¬ ciency of grace, from those he designs to save, but fulfils in them the whole good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power. He will certainly insure the accomplishment of all his purposes. It is absurd, you say, to talk of redemption without this sufficiency of grace ; I admit it is a necessary con¬ sequence, but, on your plan it is absurd to talk of that redemption even with it ; unless you admit what is impossible to shut out — I mean universal salvation ; which is as inseperably connected with it, as the shad¬ ow upon the dial with the motion of the sun. But what is this sufficiency of grace, for which you contend ? I cannot satisfy myself that you use the word with any determinate idea. The antecedent to which this expression relates, is divine grace to destroy the the power of sin — -without which, you justly observe, neither Scripture nor reason know of any reconcilia¬ tion to God : — And with which, I as justly reply, nei¬ ther Scripture nor reason know of any remaining op¬ position to God: — for that grace is not a sufficient grace to destroy the power of sin, unless it actually does destroy it, It is otherwise absurd to call it suffi¬ cient grace, if it be inadequate to that purpose. As far, therefore, as the power of sin is destroyed, so far the sinner’s opposition is destroyed, and his actual reconciliation to God effected — for his opposition, or unreconciledness is what constitutes the power of sin. If then, this sufficiency of grace to destroy the pow¬ er of sin be as extensively given as the offer of mercy, for which you strenuously contend, the power of sin will necessarily be destroyed in all and every one, who hears and has the gospel offer ; and an actual reconcil¬ iation to God be effected as extensively as this sufficient grace is given. 144 Furthermore — If this sufficient grace be as extensive as redemption, in your view of redemption, which you contend is universal, and say that it would be absurd to talk of redemption without it — then the power of sin will as certainly be destroyed in all mnnkind, and all will become reconciled to God. So that every path you can take from the doctrine of universal redemp¬ tion, leads directly to universal salvation, and can ter¬ minate in nothing else. It will be in vain, here to reply, that this grace does not universally destroy the power of sin, and effect a reconciliation to God, because some voluntarily abuse the advantages which God hath put into their hands. This will not solve but increase the difficulty. It is a self contradiction — for unless this grace effectually pre¬ vent the voluntary abuse of those advantages, to the sinner’s destruction — it is not a sufficient grace — for it does not destroy the power of sin — and a voluntary abuse of advantages is a fruit only of the power of sin. If by this sufficiency of grace to destroy the power of sin, you mean only the full atonement of Christ — the free and universal offers of the gospel — and the natural powers of the sinner to accept, and believe, if he will — then you mean one thing and say another — or rather you mean nothing at all to your purpose, but directly against it. For all these things, which 'are readily granted to be true, do not in themselves imply any sufficient grace to destroy the power of sin in one of the human race. They will not effect a reconcilia¬ tion to God. Yea, the common strivings of God’s Spirit, given to all capable subjects under the light of the gospel (and you hold to no other) do not have any real tendency to destroy the power of sin, but, on the contrary, to increase the natural enmity and opposi¬ tion of the sinner’s heart — as has been shown, and abundantly proved from Scripture authority. A natural ability to repent and believe, we undoubt¬ edly possess, or these duties would not be required of us. But this ability implies no disposition to repent and believe, and therefore no sufficient grace to destroy the power of sin — for the power of sin consists in an indisposition to the duties of repentance and faith. 145 And the greatest natural ability in the impenitent sin¬ ner, consists with the greatest moral inability. It may be and often is found united with the highest degree of opposition and enmity. When God not only invites the sinner in his word, but actually gives him a disposition to repent by the power and irresistable influence of his spirit — the thing is effected — the opposition ceases, and he is then re¬ conciled to God : for a disposition to repent and be¬ lieve, is the very exercise of repentance and faith. And this only can be sufficient grace to destroy the power of sin. But that God actually gives a disposi¬ tion to repent and believe whenever he makes offers of mercy, wants proof both from Scripture and experi¬ ence. Our Saviour’s parable of the marriage supper, as well as the evidence of daily sensible facts, abundantly disproves this idea. In that parable Christ gives us a complete illustration of the subject, and his instruction is enforced by the constant and universal conduct of mankind. It shews that neither the light, nor the ex¬ ternal calls of the gospel, nor even the common stri¬ vings of God’s spirit, have any real tendency to de¬ stroy the power of sin. “The king- sent forth his ser¬ vants to call them that were bidden to the wedding, and they would not come. Again he sent forth other servants, saying, tell them which are bidden, Behold I have prepared my dinner — my oxen and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready, come unto the mar¬ riage. But they all made light of it, and went their way, one to his farm and another to his merchandize.” The most trivial excuses were given for declining the invitation ; and none would come until they were com¬ pelled and made willing by power. This is descrip¬ tive of the universal natural disposition of mankind : and therefore, the supposition is most absurd, that a sufficiency of grace to all mankind to destroy the pow¬ er of sin, is one necessary consequence of the redemp¬ tion of Christ, and that this grace is given as exten¬ sively as the offers of mercy. But you prove it by Scripture — “ That was the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the 13 146 world.” John i. 9. And then ask with the assurance of demonstration — what is this light ? My opinion de¬ cides nothing — but I am clear in this general negative answer — It is nothing which you suppose it to be. The passage is perverted to answer a particular purpose. It is wholly misapplied. For let it mean what it may, this single point is plain whatever else is doubtful, that it means no such thing as a sufficiency of grace to de^ stroy the power of sin — the point which it was brought to prove. Take the passage in its connection, and it cannot be thus perverted. To correct the mistake, it is only necessary to read on to the next verse. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” "What does this mean ? I ask in my turn. What could be the reason of their not receiving him ? Christ light- ed the Jews as well as others — for he lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He surely then gave them a sufficiency of grace. Why then did they not believe on him? Why was not the power of sin de¬ stroyed in them? If your conviction be still imper¬ fect, read a little further — “ But to as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man but of God. Where now is your suffi¬ ciency of grace to all, in that light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world ? “The light shineth in darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.” O, you will readily reply, they resisted that light, and voluntarily abused the advantages which God had put into their hands. They truly did — and this fully and forever disproves your theory — and universal suffi¬ ciency of grace to destroy the power of sin. They indeed resisted that light, and abused their advantages in an aggravated manner. Christ tells them, “ Ye have both seen and hated both me and my Father :” and it was by the light which Christ gives to every man that cometh into the world, that they thus saw him and his Father. But did this effect their recon¬ ciliation to God ? No. What they saw by this light, they hated, and the more clearly they saw, the higher their hatred arose. This universal light, therefore, 147 which Christ gives, whatever it may be, is not a suffi¬ cient grace to destroy the power of sin : for where that is destroyed, Christ is no longer rejected — light is no longer resisted — advantages are no longer abused. It would be but an evasion here to say, that the Jews could have believed in Christ had they been dis¬ posed, as they had a natural power so to do. Though this be granted, yet this natural power, and a sufficien¬ cy of grace, are far from being the same. The Jews would not believe, notwithstanding all the light which Christ gave them ; and therefore, that light was not a sufficiency of grace to destroy the power of sin : — for the power of sin, and an unwillingness to believe are the same. Now let me entreat you to read again the last verse recited which will explicitly tell you, what that suffi¬ ciency of grace, to destroy the powers of sin is — and to whom alone that grace is given. “But to as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them which believe on his name. Which were born &c.” — Not to the Jews who would not receive him — nor to the world universally, but to his elect, — to as many as were born of God, and or¬ dained to eternal life. How can any resist the conviction of this, and per¬ sist in so manifest an error, as to believe that, that light which Christ gives to every man that cometh into the world, is a sufficient grace to destroy the power of sin l How is it possible to make such an unreasonable and preposterous application of this passage, so carefully guarded as it is by the evangelist against any such mis¬ apprehension ? But your whole scheme, my dear friend, is built upon no other foundation than a per¬ version of Scripture ; — for a God who cannot will the destruction of the wicked is not the God of the Bible. The cause and the effect in this case mutually operate to strengthen each other ; and a false scheme once em¬ braced is one of the strongest temptations to a contin¬ ued perseverance in error. Here then, is the foundation of your false reason¬ ings — the evil root of all the bitter fruit of your sys¬ tem. You tenaciously embrace this sentiment, that 148 light is the cause by which the power of sin is destroy¬ ed, and the sinner’s reconciliation to God effected, by the natural ability and agency of the creature; They are born therefore, not of God, but by the will of man. Here you entirely mistake the point ; and to secure the free and efficient agency of the creature, rob God of his prerogative, in the most glorious of his works. It is not light, but power, 'physical ■power, which is the cause, or the sufficient grace, that destroys the power of sin, and causes the impenitent to repent and believe. Light is the effect and not the cause. When the veil of blindness is removed from the heart by divine pow¬ er, then the light of truth shines into the heart, “ to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” This is the uniform instruc¬ tion of Scripture, Paul says, “that your faith may stand, not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God — who fulfilleth in you the whole good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power." Thy people shall be willing in the day of th y power ” As it was in the natural so it was in the spiritual creation. The exertion of power precedes light, as the cause does the effect. God said, “Let there be light and there was light.” The spiritual creation no less than the natural, is the work of divine power, and is celebrated as a more wonderful and glorious display of omnipotence, and as preeminently demanding the admiration, gratitude and praise of God’s people. — “Behold I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create, for behold I create Jerusalem a rejoic¬ ing and her people a joy.” Isaiah Ixv. 17, 18. — Here the glorious effect of redeeming and sanctifying sin¬ ners, and building up the church of Christ, is ascribed solely to divine power in its most wonderful display. But there is no power simply in light, either natural or moral light. The man who is naturally blind, or who wilfully shuts his eyes, will receive no light, or see any object in the clearest sun shine. The light alone does not compel him to see. So that moral light which Christ gives to all mankind, is only in the un- 149 derstanding, while the natural heart is blind : — not one ray of truth ever enters the dark heart of the impeni¬ tent sinner, let the understanding be ever so highly il¬ luminated. This is expressly declared, in the 5th verse of the chapter. “And the light shineth in dark¬ ness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” The dark heart of the impenitent does not comprehend that light, and receives no impression or saving benefit from that sufficient grace, for which you contend. This chapter, and this part of it which introduces the gospel dispensation begins where the Mosaic dis¬ pensation ends ; and of the last prophecy recorded in the Old Testament, viz. in the last chapter of Malachi, the events in fulfilment, are the first recorded in the New. That prophecy related to the coming of Christ, and his forerunner John. The gospel begins with the account of their having actually come. The prophecy, therefore, may be called in as an aid to explain the na¬ ture and design of the event. And it is expressed thus — “ But unto you that fear my name, shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings.” That light, therefore, of the Sun of Righteousness, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world, has no healing effect upon impenitent sinners — for of them we read, “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Rom. iii. 18. We are therefore compelled to look to some other cause than light , as a sufficient grace to destroy the power of sin. We will now gather up the remaining fragments of your objection, and collate them in the form of a short dialogue. Philemon. To forgive sin God only requires us to detest it. Aristarchus. Well — and what do you thence in¬ fer ? Phil. The Holy Spirit as far as is consistent with our free agency is universally working for its destruc¬ tion. Arist. This sentiment cannot be correct. It is already disproved by the arguments against an univer¬ sal sufficiency of grace. That our absolute depend¬ ence, and God’s universal efficiency are perfectly con- 13* 150 sistent with our free agency, I think has been demon¬ strated. That God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and that he hardens whom he will, are the express dec¬ larations of his word : therefore, it cannot bo true, that he is by his Spirit, working for the destruction of sin, at the same time, and in the same subject, whom he is hardening ; — or that God is universally working for the destruction of sin, as far as is consistent with our free agency, for then sin would actually be des¬ troyed in all. Where do we find any such expression or intimation in his word ? Many are to be found di¬ rectly to the contrary — “ For this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. ii. 11, 12. It is not inconsistent with the free agency of any rational creature, for God, by his al¬ mighty power, to destroy sin in him. Yea, this is the only cause, by which sin is ever destroyed. “ Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” — Take away this truth, and we have no hope of salva¬ tion. Phil. - - otherwise why is he grieved or quench¬ ed ? Arist. By the opposition and wickedness of the sinner, whom he had no design to sanctify by his ope¬ rations ; — for the same reason that God is angry with the wicked. That the Spirit of God is grieved or quenched is spoken after the manner of men, and we must be stupid indeed, to apply these terms literally to God— any more than where he is said to repent, or to have his fury come up into his face ; or, where lie says, “ Behold I am pressed under you, as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves.” Amos ii. 13. It therefore means no more than that God in his holy displeasure with the wickedness and obstinacy of the creature, withdraws from him the influences of his Spirit ; — but this disproves the idea that he is univer¬ sally workingfor the destruction of sin. Phil. Those who comply with his suggestions do neither grieve nor quench him. 151 Arist. Truly — and that is because they are made the subjects of special and distinguishing grace — made willing in the day of his power : — not because they never resisted ; but because he actually destroyed their resistance by his irresistable grace — which he did not in those by whose opposition he was grieved and quenched. Phil. And how can we be so irrational as to sup¬ pose that he singles out a person, here and there, to influence, when this influence is of no farther use to him, than we can suppose it to be by considering it universal ? Arist . Suppositions, my friend, are not arguments, and afford no conclusive evidence of divine truth, I ask in reply to your suppositions, how we can be so irrational as to beg the very point in controversy, and that without the least shadow of proof? And how we can be so daring as to dispute the express declarations of God’s word, both in the Old Testament and the New ? “ I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and bring you to Zion.” Jer. iii. 14. “Ma¬ ny are called but few are chosen.” Matthew xx. 10. “ Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy.” Rom . ix. 18. The election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded.” Rom. xi. 7. Is here no distinguishing grace ? Is it not true, therefore, that in bringing men to Zion, or into his true church, God sin¬ gles out here and there a person to influence ? Phil. I suppose that ail we can do with respect to our salvation, is not to thwart and obstruct what God is doing for us. It is he that workelh in us both to will and to do. Arist. Indeed ! many, no doubt will view this an ea¬ sy way of gettingto heaven, who think that they have no opposition to God and the grace of the gospel. But unless God doth work in us to will, we shall forever continue to oppose ; — and while we continue to op¬ pose, we cannot know that God wills our salvation, or that he is woring that benefit for us, even by the com¬ mon strivings of his Spirit; for they have no tendency to destroy our opposition ; and the will of God re¬ spects only actual events ; both of which have been shewn. 152 Of this, however, we may be sure, that God is sin¬ cere in the offer of mercy ; and that the strivings of his Spirit are to convince us of truth. If we accept the offer and comply with the call of the gospel, we are sure of receiving the benefit of salvation : — and this will leave us forever inexcusable if we reject his offer, and resist the strivings of his Spirit; although our salvation were never the design of God. Phil. What impropriety is there then in supposing that this same principle, which is nothing different from conscience operates to the destruction of sin from the first moment we breathe ? Arist. There is this evident impropriety, because conscience never does operate in us the first moment we breathe — nor does conscience, or the common stri¬ vings of God’s Spirit, in any moment of our whole lives, operate in destroying our natural opposition to God. If the principle of conscience by operating up¬ on is gradually improving our moral state, and we are growing better, and better from the first moment we breathe ; — at what age, or at what point of moral good¬ ness, must we arrive, before the work will be effected, and our regeneration actually accomplished ? Where would you draw the line of distinction between our impeni¬ tent and penitent state ? The fact is, we continue to grow worse instead of better until we are actually re¬ generated ; and regeneration is an immediate and in¬ stantaneous effect, wrought by the power of God ; and cannot be a progressive change, as the sanctification following it is. This I claim has already been fully shown. The child, I admit, may be regenerated, or have his heart changed by the immediate power of God as well in infancy as in adult age ; but then it was not the prin¬ ciple of conscience, nor the ordinary strivings of the Spirit, nor any supposed universal sufficiency of grace, which effected this change in either case, or operated to the destruction of sin, until the change of regenera¬ tion is actually wrought. Commending you to the teaching of God’s Holy Spirit, I am your affectionate friend and well wisher. Aristarchus. LETTER XII. Dear Sir, Your next objection I shall now state, and then briefly examine. It may be easily obviated, and the difficulty removed if you will patiently attend to fair reasoning, with a candid and unprejudiced mind. You say, “To represent God as a sovereign , is to represent him as an almighty tyrant, sporting with the happiness of his creatures without reason or rule, but merely be¬ cause he has power to do it. This constitutes the most hateful character among men ; and therefore, must be infinitely more unamiable and dreadful when clothed with omnipotence, and swaying the sceptre of univer^ sal dominion. This character cannot be ascribed to that God who is infinite in goodness, and spreads his tender mercies over all the works of his hands.” Your difficulty, my friend, arises, principally from misunderstanding, and annexing a wrong idea to the word, Sovereign, as applied to the character of the Most High. Because earthly sovereigns arte capri¬ cious and cruel — abuse their power — oppress their subjects, and act without reason or right — it does not follow that sovereignty and tyranny are inseparably connected, or that they are convertible terms, when we ascribe the former to the King Eternal. The three great and essential requisites in a perfect government, are wisdom, goodness and power. Good¬ ness to be actuated with a benevolent regard to the happiness of his subjects — Wisdom to devise the best plans for effecting the best ends — and Power sufficient to put in execution the plans thus devised. It is only through the deficiency of some, or one, or all of these, that any government fails of answering the highest and best ends, the promotion and security of the gen¬ eral good, and happiness of its subjects. 154 If wisdom be wanting, the measures of government, however well intended, and however faithfully execu¬ ted, yet being founded in ignorance and folly, must prove abortive, and fail of their end— perhaps issue in the ruin of those that they were designed to protect. If goodness were wanting, wisdom would be but craft and cunning, intrigue and cabsl, and power de¬ generate into arbitrary and furious might. If wisdom and goodness both were wanting, govern¬ ment would be dreadful in proportion to its power. It would become the most brutish despotism, and be di¬ rected to no other end, but the misery and ruin of its subjects. It power were wanting, government would be but a name. The best laws could not be executed : — wisdom and goodness would be exercised in vain and operate to no end. But these three united constitute the perfection and happiness of government, and preclude the possibility of tyranny and oppression. And who can doubt of these requisites of supreme majesty belonging to that great and good Being who is infinite in every perfec¬ tion ? The sovereignty of God, therefore, is not op¬ pression and despotism. It does not represent the Most High as an almighty tyrant , sporting with the happiness of his subjects , without any reason or rule hut merely because he has power to do it. Earthly sove¬ reigns may and often do, want wisdom, or goodness, or both ; — but yet sovereignty does not imply folly and malevolence ; and imputes no such imperfections to the character and government of the Most High God. We h ave now considered the idea of sovereignty in a negative view, and find that it is not tyranny as was objected, and implies no defect of wisdom or good¬ ness ; and therefore, may belong to that God who is infinite in wisdom and spreads his tender mercies over all the works of his hands. As we have seen in what the sovereignty of God does not consist, let us next inquire in what it does consist, and what we are to un¬ derstand by it. The generally received idea of the divine sovereign- 155 ty, appears to be vague and indefinite. It is com¬ monly used to express generally God’s decreeing and effecting his purposes. But this is blending sovereign¬ ty with independence, and using them both as expres¬ sing the same thing and to the same extent. This per¬ haps has tended to darken the subject and cherish pop¬ ular prejudices against it. Whereas these ideas are as distinguishable, and seem to bear the same relation to each other, as germs and species. The independence of God respects his being, his purposes, and the whole of his government. His Sovereignty, in my view, is not applicable in this extent. It is only a branch of his Independence, and respects but a certain part, or modality of his administration. The former respects the execution of his whole will — the latter, or his Sovereignty, that part of it only, where his power is exerted in overcorning resistance , and overruling and directing an action, in its nature and tendency evil to the accomplishment of a holy and good end. We will further illustrate this distinction, by de¬ scriptions and examples from the sacred oracles. The following passages of Scripture are general expres¬ sions of his Independence. “ He doth according to his will in the army of Heaven and among the inhabit¬ ants of the earth. Dan. iv. 35. “ Who hath. known the mind of the Lord or who hath been his counsellor ; or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompen¬ sed unto him again — for of him, and through him and to him are all things,” Rom. xi. 34 — 36. These ex¬ pressions are general and respect the whole of the di¬ vine purposes and government. But the following passages are particularly expres¬ sive of the divine sovereignty. “ Thine arrows are sharp in the hearts of the king’s enemies, whereby the people fall under thee. Psalms x lv. 5. “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Psalms cx. 3. “ Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee, and the remainder of wrath thou wilt restrain.” Psalms Lxxvi. 10. “ Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy.” Rom. ix. 18. “ Casting down imagina¬ tions, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity 156 every thought to the obedience of Christ.” 2 Cor. x: 5. tkFor he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” 1. Cor. xv. 25. These passages, I conceive, are peculiarly expressive of the divine sove¬ reignty, and point out its distinguishing properties ac¬ cording to the deffinition given. If this view be just, God did not act as a sovereign simply in hardening the heart of Pharaoh. This was an exercise of his independence ; of his supreme right of universal disposal. There was no resistance to this on the part of Pharaoh — he hardened his own heart. But in sending plagues upon Pharaoh — in restraining him from the accomplishment of his purposes — in op¬ posing and overcoming his resistance, and in overru¬ ling his wickedness to the accomplishment of his own end, the glory of his great name : — in all these respects, God acted as a Sovereign. But d oes it thence follow, that, in all these, the glo¬ rious Majesty of Heaven sported with the happiness of his subjects? — that he acted in an arbitrary and ca¬ pricious manner, without any reason or rule, and mere¬ ly because he had power to do it? Is such a being to be abhorred and dreaded in proportion to his power, and the extent of his dominion, who acts invariably with the most benevolent views, directed by infinite wisdom, to the highest and best end, the greatest pos¬ sible general happiness of his kingdom ? Nothing can be more absurd, not to say impious, than such a con¬ clusion. I cannot, therefore but hope that your mind will be satisfied on this subject : and I pass to your next objection. “ Hath God any where in his word, represented that the good of the general system, requires the destruc¬ tion of a part of the human race ? I can discover noth¬ ing of this kind, and I conceive it to be false deductions that have led any one to believe it. But if there be such a necessity as you contend for, I cannot recon¬ cile it to this declaration of Scripture, the “ Lord is long suffering to usward not willing that any such per- ish, but that all should comeho repentance.” 2. Pet.iii. 9. My d ear Sir, art thou a believer in divine revela¬ tion, with such an understanding of the Bible? Dost 157 thou profess such a sentiment as this, and yet not em- brace the faith of universal salvation. If so, I must tell thee, thou art not vet initiated into a thorough un¬ derstanding of thine own scheme. Universalists are even more self consistent. This is a foundation stone upon which they build — that, God is a being of mere mercy ; — that it is a necessary fruit of his infinite goodness, to make all men happy, as the only means of effecting the greatest genera] good of his system. — They pursue the sentiment through, in its natural and necessary consequences — Arminians stop short and an¬ nex the doctrine of a partial salvation, a consequence which has no premises in their plan, but is directly op¬ posed to the spirit and tendency of their first princi¬ ples. For if the good of the general system does not require the punishment of any part of the human race — then that good requires the salvation of all ; and must be impaired and diminished by the destruction of any ; and it would be inconsistent with the infinite wisdom and goodness of the great Governour of the world, to inflict misery upon any individual of the human race. The everlasting punishment of the finally impenitent, would reflect infinite disgrace upon his character, and stand as an eternal blot in his government. And has he not in his word most solemnly threatened them with endless punishment, and pledged his truth for its execution, declaring that they shall go away into ever¬ lasting punishment — that they shall be “punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his power?” Math. xxv. 46. and 2 Thess. i. 9. This idea is not imaginary, but real, per¬ manent, incontrovertible truth. A minute’s candid attention would issue in the conviction. I bring no railing accusation. The subject is too serious too near my heart, for ridicule or satire. I have no disposition to reproach, but a most earnest desire to convince. It is not from the warmth of sectarian zeal, but from an honest consciousness of truth and in opposition to a sentiment which however intended, reflects high dis- honour upon the character of God. Permit me to ask, is the administration of justice un¬ essential to a good government ? Is the general hap- 14 158 piness of a state or nation unconcerned in the regular execution of good laws ; and the punishment of offen¬ ders ? Could the general good be in any measure se¬ cured or government, even have,a being, if the laws had either no sanctions, annexed to them, or had sanc¬ tions which were never executed ; and out of all the existing offenders, let their crimes be ever so great, not one should ever be punished? Who would not blush to answer these questions in the affirmative ? Reason and common sense say, No. Such an admin¬ istration would be no other than the prostration of all government, and issue in national ruin. How then can any one presume to say, and that too with a so¬ lemn appeal to the word of God, that the general good of his kingdom, does not require the punishment threatened in his law, denouncing destruction upon the disobedient, to be executed upon any of the human race ; and that it is false deductions which have led any one to believe it ; when all mankind are rebels to his government, and guilty of high treason against the king of heaven. The destruction of a part of the hu¬ man race, is therefore but the execution of justice, ab¬ solutely necessary to the honour of the lawgiver, and the security of the general good of his moral kingdom. It is but the due desert and just punishment of the final¬ ly impenitent, and is fitly called destruction, because great in degree and eternal in duration. But is the government of God less wise and perfect than that of men. If the threatenings of God’s law should never be executed, his government must sink into contempt, and all the happiness of ' his kingdom be eternally ru¬ ined. Can it be true, then, that the good of the gen¬ eral system does not require the destruction of any part of the human race ? Can that doctrine be the re¬ sult of false reasoning, which the exercise of our rea¬ son must compel us to believe ? Can that faith be the fruit of false deductions, which is ultimately founded upon the unchangable perfections of God, and flows as a natural and necessary consequence from those prem¬ ises? This is most certain, however paradoxical it may appear to superficial thinkers, that if God be infi¬ nitely wise and good, his government, which is a fruit 159 of his character must be conformable to it — that is, it must be most benevolent, and of all possible plans, the wisest and best — the best suited to exhibit his true character, and effect the greatest possible general good. And can we say, that the punishment of the finally impenitent, is unnecessary to the honour of the divine character — that the destruction of a part of the human race has no place in the government of God, and that the general good of his system does not require it? Yet, Sir, you assert that you can find no representa¬ tion of this kind in Scripture : — What, when every threatening of God’s word, every expression of his un- changable determination to punish and destroy the im¬ penitent, is an unequivocal declaration of it ? what, when he tells us that he hath made all things for him¬ self, and the wicked for the day of evil ? Prov. xvi. 4. What, when the heavenly host are represented as re¬ joicing in view of the final and everlasting destruction of the wicked actually accomplished, and striking an¬ thems of the highest praise and thanksgiving to God for this most glorious display of 4fis justice, saying, “Alleluia, salvation and glory and honour and power, unto the Lord our God, for true and righteous are his judgments.” Ret. xix. The whole book of God is re¬ plete with the most clear and pointed declarations of his holy anger against sin, and his inflexible justice. — H is law is sanctioned with the most tremendous pen¬ alty. It threatens eternal death to the offender — “Curs¬ ed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” Deut . xxvii. 26. The soul that sinneth it shall die.” Ezekiel xviii. 4. God will by no means clear the guilty. Exod , xxxiv. 7. He that believeth not shall be damned. Mark xvi. 16. These shall go away into everlasting punishment. Math , xxv. 40. And this is a stamp of divinity upon the Bible. It is a distinguishing beauty and glory of God’s word, and a glowing evidence of its truth, that it expresses the divine displeasure at all kinds and de¬ grees of moral evil — that it uniformly represents wick¬ edness as the object of the divine hatred, and the anger of God against sin to be in proportion to its demerit. Were it otherwise we never could rationally believ# 11 ]60 that the Scriptures came from a good God — for they would not evidence his regard to the happiness of be¬ ing. They would not exhibit the divine character as a lover and rewarder of righteousness, and a hater and punisher of iniquity. All the threatenings of God’s word — all its awful denunciations against his enemies, evidence his infinite regard to the happiness of his moral kingdom and are so many declarations of that truth, which I am grieved to hear you deny — that both his holy character and the good of his general system absolutely require the display of his justice in the pun¬ ishment of his enemies — or the destruction of a part of the human race. As God is love, his anger can be no other than his dislike and abhorrence of those ac¬ tions in creatures, which are destructive of the happi¬ ness that his goodness inclines him to produce. God’s love inclines him to do good, and to be pleased with that in creatures, which tends to promote happiness. His anger is his dislike and abhorrence of those moral actions which are subversive of happiness. The exer¬ cise of this love in God in opposing sin and the ways of the wicked, is his anger. Iiis anger against sin is the exercise of his love to the happiness of being as much so as his approbation of righteousness, and his complacence in moral virtue. His anger is the dis¬ pleasure of goodness, the necessary operation of good¬ ness in abhoring and opposing that, which in its nat¬ ural tendency is hurtful and destructive to the general welfare. If then the divine anger against the wicked be the natural and essential operation of God’s goodness, which none can doubt, we may hence safely, and with¬ out any danger of false deductions, conclude, that the fruits and effects of it will infallibly be made to ap¬ pear in his government : — otherwise, the external evi¬ dence to his creatures of the perfection of his good¬ ness, or his infinite regard to the happiness of being, must be defective ; — Therefore both his character and the good of the general system equally require, that, the benevolent anger existing in the divine mind against sinners should be expressed by sensible fruits, in the 161 punishment of all the impenitent among the human race. It is therefore, from the infinitely pure nature of God, and the perfection of his goodness, that the cer¬ tainty of the sinner’s destruction arises. Were the Deity less good, there would be more reason to expect, that impenitent sinners might escape : — but if God be infinitely good, this goodness excludes all possibili¬ ty of it. So far, therefore, are we from having any reason to be dissatisfied with that character of God, which ori¬ ginates the necessity, and certainty of the sinner’s de¬ struction, that we have every reason to love it, and rejoice in it, just the same reason, as we have to esteem the character of a civil ruler, which is the terror of thieves, robbers, murderers and destroyers of the pub¬ lic peace : for were it not for this character of God, there would be no peace or safety under his govern¬ ment. And now, my friend, I appeal to your candour and your conscience, whether this reasoning be not ration¬ al, scriptural, and conclusive. Is this to be set down, as one of thos e false deductions, which draw us away from the truth, and lead us to believe, that the good of the general system requires the destruction of a part of the human race. We may conclude with certainty, upon this principle, that if the good of the general system does not require the destruction of any part of the human race — God will never destroy them— -but save all mankind — for his infinite wisdom and good¬ ness are engaged to promote and secure, in the most effectual manner the greatest possible general good of his system. And he is a being too wise to mistake the best means for accomplishing that important end. He is a being too good to sport with the happiness of his creatures, or wantonly to inflict needless misery upon any part of his moral system. But, you say,- if there he such a necessity as you contend for, I am incapable of reconciling it to this de¬ claration of Scripture , “ That the Lord is long suffer¬ ing to usward — not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 14* 162 This is because you misunderstand the passage, ap¬ ply it in a sense contrary to its most obvious and ne¬ cessary meaning. This will appear when we come to exame it in its connection. The text is the words of Peter, (2. Peter iii. 9.) — • But to whom, and of whom is the apostle here speak¬ ing ? This was an important point of attention, which, however, you have quite overlooked. Who were meant to be included in the word, us, must determine the question, and show how far the words any and all are' to be extended. Is the apostle speaking to or o/all mankind? This is not certain from the phraseology — for the word, all, according to the occasion of the speaker or writer, may be as properly applied to a part as to the whole. This word all may as fitly apply to the inhabitants of New England, if no greater number of people were the antecedent subject — as when speak¬ ing upon a more extensive scale it is applied to the whole human race. This and the former epistle of Peter are styled, Epistles general — yet they both have a particular direction — a limited address. The first epistle is ad¬ dressed thus — “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia — elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” The second epistle, which contains the passage before us, is intro¬ duced and addressed in the following manner. “ Si¬ mon Peter, a servant of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” So that it is most evidently the elect — true believers — his beloved brethren in Christ, and those only, to whom he directs his epistles. These, including himself, are the only persons, to whom and of whom lie is speak¬ ing, and whom he means to implicate in the words us, any, and all, in the forecited passage. The chapter which contains it he begins thus, “ This second epis¬ tle, Beloved , I now write unto you, in both which I stir up your pure minds, by way of remembrance.” Here still he is addressing only the saints — his Christian brethren. The epithet, beloved, is never applied by 163 the apostle to any other. And this address without any apostrophe he continues throughout the chapter which ends the epistle. In the verse immediately pre¬ ceding the text, he repeats the appellation — so that we cannot mistake. I will cite it at large, as it will cast still further light upon the passage — “ But, beloved , be not ignorant of this one thing that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his prom¬ ise as some men count slackness — but is long suffering to usward, not willing that any [of us his elect] should perish — but that all [of us] should come to repentance.” The words any and all refer only to the elect — they cannot be applied in any greater extent than the word ns, with any propriety of speech, or without torturing the manifesTsense of the passage in a very arbitrary manner. Us is the antecedent, any and all the rela¬ tives, in which the antecedent is necessarily under¬ stood. The drift and design of the apostle in the whole pas¬ sage, was evidently, to encourage his Christian breth¬ ren to whom he wrote, and arm the m with motives of patience and fortitude, under the insults and reproach¬ es of scoffing infidels, and the ungodly world, who ridiculed and mocked at the idea of Christ’s second coming to judgment — “saying, where is the promise of his coming, for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were, from the beginning of the crea¬ tion.” But the apostle, in effect, exhorts them to wait with patience, and be neither moved, nor discouraged by the reproaches of their enemies, nor the delay of Christ’s coming ; — for a long lime with us, is but a short time with God, who views not things as we do, by suc¬ cession and parts. A thousand years are with him, but as one day, and one day as a thousand years; Eter¬ nal duration is constantly present in his view — is one unending now. Peter, therefore tells his Christian brethren that they had no reason to faint, or doubt the divine faithfulness, because Christ did not immediately come to Judgment, for he would not delay beyond the proper time. In the meanwhile, this visible material earth and heavens was reserved in store as the place and fuel for the perdition of ungodly men. “Yet” saith he “the Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness — that is, as these scoffers count slackness, but is long suffering to usward ” — that is, for our sake — it is all for our benefit. He de¬ lays the final punishment of the wicked, and his last coming to judgment, for the sake of his elect, that shall hereafter be born, in the various succeeding ages of the world, to the end of time — that they all in their turn upon the stage of probation, might be called in. The Lord is not willing that any of his elect shall perish, but determines that all of them shall come to repent¬ ance. This is the obvious and legitimate sense of the pas¬ sage, as any one may be convinced who will read it in its connection, with any attention or candour. It ex¬ presses the purpose of God towards his elect only — that he wills their salvation, and every thing necessa¬ ry to that end. Yet, my dear Sir, while intent only upon the the establishment of your favourite point, you have overlooked the obvious and only true mean¬ ing of the passage, and given it an application to all mankind. Hoping that we may eventually see alike — be united in the truth, and speak the same thing — I am respectfully yours, Aristarchus. LETTER XIII. Dear Sir, Your next objection is quite plausible, and to some perhaps may appear unanswerable, and yet it cannot be well founded. I wish to have every objection that 165 is made, or can be made, brought forward, and fairly tested by the light of reason and revelation. Let the points of truth which are already established be made to bear upon this objection, and I think it will be obvi¬ ated to the satisfaction of the candid examiner. “The idea of God’s having an eternal purpose to save but a certain, particular part of mankind, and his effecting the impenitency and unbelief of the nonelect, cannot consist with the divine sincerity, in that univer¬ sal invitation, “ Look unto me all the ends of the earth and be ye saved.” — Isaiah xlv. 22. This objection, formidable as it appears, and there are none perhaps more imposing, will appear without sufficient and real foundation, when examined in the light of several important points of divine truth, al¬ ready established by scripture proofs. It has, as I think, been demonstrated, that moral necessity, and natural liberty are consistent — -that the doctrines of eternal election, and universal divine agency, do not in the least interfere with the freedom of the will and the moral agency of the creature ; — that our actions are our own, though absolutely dependent — and the inquiry, whence their origin, has no bearing upon their merits and is no criterion of guilt or innocence : And now, if we will keep our eyes open to the light of these truths what grounds for the present objection can we discover ? What difficulty will remain in the way, of seeing the consistency between them and the divine sincerity in the universal invitations of the gospel ? It is merely by our inattention to these truths that we are led into difficulty upon this point. A false principle naturally produces false consequences. Whenever we lose sight of our own guilt, and cast the blame of our impenitency and unbelief upon God — we shut out the light of truth, and shroud our path in darkness and confusion. We are lost in a labyrinth of errors, and stumble at every step in an endless train of inconsist¬ encies. But only let us realize this truth, that the guilt of rejecting Christ, and the invitations of the gospel is wholly our own, and how can we charge in¬ sincerity upon God, because he is a sovereign dispen¬ ser of his grace, and has mercy on whom he will have 166 mercy ? Is it necessary to evince the sincerity of his invitations, that God should make the sinner willing to accept them? Is not the great oath which he hath sworn sufficient for the purpose? “ As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wick¬ ed — but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” .Ezekiel xxxiii. 1 1. — in connection with that solemn declaration of our Saviour, “ Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.” This immediately fol¬ lows his declaration of God’s eternal purpose — “ All that the Father hath given me, shall come to me.” I may be sincere in offering a gift, even if I know at the time, that the person to whom I offer it will not ac¬ cept it ; — as sincere as if I knew that he would. As it respects me, the gift might be offered, equally freely in both cases. But, if after I have offered the gift, he actually accepts it, and I then refuse to bestowr it, he may justly charge me with insincerity. But does this circumstance apply to the case in question ? Was there ever a sinner cast out, who came to Christ? Did any ever accept the invitation of the gospel, who failed of receiving its benefits ? Until this takes place, the sove¬ reignty of God affords no ground for the objection. But you will reply, this comparison is not parallel. It does not reach the case. Annex another circum¬ stance to the supposition, which is necessary to make it parallel, and we will then inquire whether the same conclusion will follow. Admit that the person to whom you oiler the gift, is absolutely dependent on you, for his existence, and for all his exercises ; and that you not only know that he will not accept your offer, but you determine that he shall not ; and at the very time of making it, you effect by your own posi¬ tive agency, his act of refusing the offer. This would be a parallel case. And would not this be just as in¬ consistent with your sincerity as if you had refused him after his actual acceptance of the offer? I admit the comparison as it is stated, but deny that any such consequences will follow. This case is dif¬ ferent in its nature from that in which I refuse him af¬ ter his acceptance. In that he was cut off from the benefit by my fault. In the last case solely by his 167 own. For only admit, what is already fully proved, that the absolute dependence of the man makes him neither a machine, nor a brute, but perfectly consists with his freedom and moral agency — that the nature of the effect is distinct from, and may be opposite to the nature of its cause — that the act of God, and that of the creature are perfectly distinct, the one holy and the other sinful; and it must follow in the case you last put, that the sinner is cut off from receiving the benefit offered, by his own act ; and his refusal to ac¬ cept the invitation of the gospel, is altogether his own blame, and therefore there can be no insincerity on the part of God, notwithstanding his universal agency ; — for insincerity is inseparable from the imputation of blame. If God therefore, be insincere in the univer¬ sal offer of the gospel, because he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth — or because he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will — the sinner is completely exonerated from blame, in his refusing the offers of mercy, as a necessary consequence. But if, on the other hand, the creature alone be blamable, for his unbelief, then it follows as a necessary consequence,' that God is sin¬ cere in his offer of mercy to the nonelect, and in giving that universal invitation, “ Look unto me, all the ends of the earth, and be ye saved.” God was sincere in offering to the children of Israel when in Egypt, the land of Canaan, if they would go and take possession of it — though for their murmur¬ ing and rebellion against God, they fell by thousands in the wilderness, and finally none of all that great host of six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty fighting men, exclusive of their old men, wo¬ men and children, who left the land of Egypt, ever reached the promised land, excepting only Caleb and Joshua. And God is equally sincere in offering heaven to sin¬ ners, of which the earthly Canaan was a type, upon their believing in his only begotten Son — though he hardeneth whom he will, and they perish by thousands and millions from under the clear light of the gospel, and with the offers of mercy sounding in their ears. 168 “The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded” — according as it is written God hath given them the spirit of slumber — eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear unto this day.” Rom. xi. 7, 8. And again for this cause, God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you breth¬ ren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctifica¬ tion of the spirit and belief of the truth.” 2 Thess. ii. 11—13. If the question now be asked why is it that a God of infinite goodness, blinds, hardens, gives a spirit of slumber, and sends strong delusion to those his crea¬ tures to whom with infinite sincerity he offers the en¬ joyment of heaven and eternal glory ? — as an answer to the question, I would point to those words of the ho¬ ly Jesus, when, in the view of this subject, he rejoiced in spirit, and in language of the most ardent praise and thanksgiving, exclaimed, “ I thank thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes : — Even so Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Matthew xi. 25, 26. The divine purpose — that great and important end, which infinite wisdom and goodness hath in view, is eventually to be accomplished by it. And should not this satisfy us, that the Judge of all the earth will do right: — that though clouds and darkness are round about him, yet righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne?” Psalms xcvii. 2. “ What I do know” said Christ to his disciples, “ye know not, but ye shall know hereafter.” John xiii. 7. The mysteries of di¬ vine providence shall be unfolded in the light of celes¬ tial day with unspeakable joy and satisfaction to all the true disciples of Christ. “ This doctrine supersedes the design and benefit of means, and cuts off all rational encouragement to the use of them. For let us do what we will, we cannot in the least help ourselves, or better our state. The un- 169 changable purpose of God will overrule all creature exertions, and have its certain accomplishment. Un¬ less, therefore, I first know, which it is impossible that I should know, that I am elected to eternal life, I have no encouragement to use any means, or take any pains to obtain salvation. And if I could and did know that I were elected, the use of means would be wholly un¬ necessary, for the event is certain and inevitable. This doctrine, therefore has a direct tendency to stupify the secure sinner, and drive the awakened one into utter despair.” This objection, though the most common in the mouths of mankind is yet of all others the most absurd and nonsensical. A man would be viewed as wanting in common sense, who should use this mode of reason¬ ing upon any other subject, and in applying this argu¬ ment in the common affairs of life, to the visible and daily effects in the natural world, alike connected with the use of means, and equally depending upon the great first cause. Should a hungry man refuse to eat, till he knew that his food would not strangle him in the act of swallow¬ ing : and if he certainly knew that, still refuse to eat, because if he is to be nourished, he will be nourished, whether he feeds or fasts, — Or Should a man dangerously sick, refuse to employ a physician, until he certainly knew that his means would recover him to health, and then refuse to take the medicine, saying if I am to recover I shall recover, whether I live or die — Or Should a husbandman determine not to plow or sow, until he certainly knows that he shall have a crop — and by this knowledge be still further confirmed in his negligence, saying if I plow and sow, I shall have a harvest, and therefore I will do neither — for I shall have one if it be so decreed. These three reasoners would stand upon the same footing with the objector, and talk equally good sense. But before this knowledge of the divine purpose could be obtained, in the neglect of the necessary means, the hungry man would starve — the sick man would die — the farmer beg his bread, and the objector lose 15 170 his soul. The fact is, God has instituted means as much in the moral as in the natural world ; and these means are as much ordained as their end. They are not disconnected, but inseperably joined by the divine decree, and therefore, in the neglect of the means the end is unattainable, and there can be no evidence that it is ordained. But the impenitent sinner can no more know that he is not elected, than that he is ; or that his use of the means will issue in the attainment of the end. And this same uncertainty attends all the cases which I have put of examples in the natural world, but at the same time forms all the ground of encourage¬ ment which there can be to the use of means. The hungry man does not know that his food will not strangle him but the greater probability is, that it will not — this may afford him sufficient encouragement to feed himself as a necessary means of preserving life. — The sick man does not know that the physician’s medicine, will effect a cure, or that it will not aggravate his disorder and shorten the period of his life — yet he has sufficient encouragement to use medicine, for, as the case may be, his health cannot be restored without it. And the farmer in the season of sowing cannot be certain of reaping a harvest — a thousand secondary causes may operate to blast the fruits of his labour, and disappoint him of a harvest': yet he knows that in neglecting the means, he has no reason to hope for the end, and this affords him a sufficient motive to labour. And the same observations apply in a moral view to the case of the sinner. The uncertainty of his salva¬ tion, or rather, the possibility of his election, affords him the strongest motive to exertion, which the nature of the case can admit. Could he certainly know, while in an impenitent state, that he was one of God’s elect, his encouragementto hope, though greater would still be only in the use of means. It would afford no motive to neglect them. A striking example in proof of this point, is given us in the history of Paul’s tempestuous voyage to Rome. On his passage he had an express revelation from God, that the whole ship’s crew with whom he sailed should be saved from the dangers of the sea. 171 And this event was not a contingency — a thing winch might happen, or might not; but equally certain and infallible as the salvation of the elect ; — it could not fail of effect. Yet, we find, it was necessarily connec¬ ted with their attention to the proper means of their safety — for when upon their near approach to the isle of Melita, the shipmen proposed to leave the ship and escape to the land in the boat ; Paul said to the centu¬ rion and to the soldiers, “ except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” xxvii. 31. But had they replied in the strain of your argument — If we are certainly to be saved , we are in no more danger in the boat , than in the ship , for we are sure of a safe arri¬ val to land: and persisted in their attempt — they would have been drowned. If it here be asked, what if they had persisted in their attempt of landing in the boat, and perished ? This is but asking what if the purpose of God should fail of accomplishment? It was moral¬ ly impossible that it should ; and therefore all the means were as necessary, and their persisting to land in the boat equally impossible. If they had persisted and perished, it would only have proved, that Paul’s first revelation was not from God, and that it was not his purpose that the whole ship’s crew should be saved. As rationally, might we ask, in the flight of an unchas¬ tened imagination, what if God, in the translation of Enoch and Elijah, had let them drop in their midway- course to heaven ? What reason then have you to say, that the doctrine of election supersedes the design and benefit of means, and cuts off all encouragement to the use of them; — and that if a man be ignorant of his own election , or have a certain knowledge of it , he has no encourage¬ ment for the use of means, in the one case, and no need, of them in the other — that the doctrine, therefore has a direct tendency to harden the stupid sinner, andto drive the awakened one into utter despair. My dear fellow sinner, have you thoroughly studied this subject ? Have you fully realized all the certain consequences of your own plan? Let me only ask, does a full belief of absolute dependence on sovereign mercy, tend to stupify the unawakened sinner ? The 172 conduct and experience of all mankind abundantly prove the falsity of this. He cannot realize his de¬ pendence, and continue in a state of stupidity. Will a fixed and sensible belief, that his present temper and line of conduct will infallibly lead him to eternal dam¬ nation, and that unless he is plucked as a brand from the burning, the horrors of hell are his certain portion — I say, will the conviction of all this, tend to steel his conscience against the terrors of God’s law, and rock him to sleep in the cradle of carnal security? No. Directly the contrary effect will follow. It is true that sinners make use of the doctrine to stupify themselves. They improve it as a sheathe to their consciences, while busied in the gratification of their base lusts — but it is only by perverting it. It is only because they really disbelieve the doctrine, that they can continue in car¬ nal security, and bless themselves in their iniquities. A realizing sense of absolute dependence on God, is the most alarming thought that can enter the mind of the impenitent sinner. Nothing like this, so thorough¬ ly arouses him from his lethargy, excites him to the most vigorous efforts, and, like a drowning man to struggleand snatch at every twig. This is the princi¬ pal reason, why men are so braced against the convic¬ tion, and so opposed to the doctrine of election — be¬ cause it is such an effectual disturber of their carnal peace. But, does the probability of obtaining mercy — a hope that he may be one of God’s elect — a may be , and a who can tell, that God will be gracious and bestow par¬ doning mercy for the Redeemer’s sake, have a direct ten¬ dency to drive the awakened sinner into utter despair? Indeed, Sir, this is all that can support him, and keep him out of despair. His encouragement rests ultimate¬ ly and solely upon the doctrine of election. Strike this article out of his creed — convince him that God has not elected any of mankind to eternal life, and you plunge him into the unmingled horrors of the damned. Even the hope of a hope would be cut off, and the sit¬ uation of the whole human race upon that hypothesis, became absolutely and utterly desperate, Cut off from 173 all hope, they would have nothing to expect, but fiery indignation and devouring wrath. In one view indeed, the doctrine of election will tend to drive the awakened sinner into utter despair. But it is a despair devoutly to be wished that all may feel ; — a despair begotten and confirmed by all his ex¬ ertions and use of means; — a despair which is neces¬ sary, and as it were the stepping-stone to a good hope of eternal life ; — it is a despair of help and salvation from his own righteousness and strength. But the arms of divine mercy are extended. To them he is invited to flee for refuge and succour. With the Lord Jehovah there is everlasting strength — and Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. He is an all sufficient Saviour — able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by him. “ Work out your own salvation with fear and trem¬ bling, for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” And again. “ Give all diligence to make your calling and election sure.” Phillip , ii. 12, 13. 2. Peter i. 10. Eph. v. 6. This can¬ not mean that the divine purpose is not unchangeable and sure of accomplishment ; but we need the evidence of our own particular election, in order to the comfort of hope ; — and this is what the apostle here directs us to seek for, by the exhortation to make our calling and election sure. That is that we realize to ourselves, the evidence and certainty of our election by the fruits of an effectual calling — the exercises of a holy heart — repentance, faith and good works. From the view we have taken of the subject, under this head, we are led to see that directly the reverse of the objection is truth — that, the doctrine of election confirms the design and benefit of means, and affords all rational, and possible encouragement to the use of them. He, therefore, who makes a different use of the doctrine, cuts himself off from the benefit of means, spurns at the invitations of mercy, and seals his own reprobation. Yours with respect, Aristarchus. 15* LETTER XIV, Dear Sir, How surprising is it that a doctrine essential to saD vation and clearly taught in the Scriptures of truth, meets with the pointed and unrelenting opposition of mankind. Yet such is the melancholy fact. And he who undertakes to answer all the objections brought against this doctrine, has assumed a laborious task. He may expect to find them multiplying around him like the heads of the Hydra. He may confute, and reconfute them. God only can effectually convince. The field of controversy which we have already pursued for a such a length of way, is not yet travelled over. Our attention is now called to the following ob¬ jection, and the reasons offered for its support. The doctrine of Election is inconsistent with the im¬ partiality of God. To represent God as having from eternity, by a positive and unchangeable decree, elec¬ ted a certain definite number to salvation, being but a part of the whole ; and given his Son to die, with an ultimate design solely for their actual redemption — reprobating all the rest, and by a like decree consign¬ ing them over to inevitable, hopeless misery and end¬ less destruction ; is to represent him as a respecter of persons, and exercising such a glaring partiality, as would be inconsistent with rectitude, and derogatory to the honour of his character. Is it not, in the eye of Reason and Scripture more consistent with the justice and goodness of God, to be¬ lieve that he makes the personal moral character of his creatures, the ground of retribution, and the rule of his conduct towards them — and not an absolute ir¬ reversible decree, established for eternal ages before they had any existence, and which instead of being grounded upon their moral character, decrees it and is 175 the almighty operating cause in effecting it. And again, Is it not more rational to believe, that mankind form their own characters — that none are under a necessity of perishing — but all have a chance for obtaining sal¬ vation — if not equal with each other, yet adequate to their exigencies? Do not the Scriptures teach, that the sinner’s destruction proceeds from himself, as the natural and necessary fruit of his own folly? “O Is¬ rael thou hast destroyed thyself, but in me is thy help.” Hosea , xiii. 9, — And again, “ O Israel return unto the Lord thy God, for thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.” Hosea. xiv. 3. This would be a formidable objection, if it had any foundation, or any thing for substance, but a deceptive shew. To pervert Scripture, and distort the truth, is the only feasible method of disputing, where the cause admits of no other mode of defence. In this way it is easy, to exhibit wisdom in the garb of folty, and daub the most important and best established thruths with the most frightful colours. I am satisfied that a mind which has no restraint from a sense of its own weakness— of its subordinate rank in the creation, and the extreme danger of letting the imagination loose upon some subjects, may very plausibly attack every thing the most excellent and venerable ; that it would not be difficult to criticise the creation itself ; and that if we were to examine the divine fabrics, by our ideas of reason and fitness, and to use the same method of attack, by which many peo¬ ple assault the clearest and most important doctrines of revealed religion, we might with as good colour, and equal success, make the wisdom and power of God, in his creation, appear to many no better than foolishness. There is an air of plausibility which ac¬ companies vulgar reasonings and notions taken from the beaten circle of ordinary experience, that is admi¬ rably suited to the narrow capacities of some, and the laziness of others. But this advantage is in a great measure lost, when a painful, comprehensive survey of a very complicated matter, and requiring a great vari¬ ety of considerations and distinctions, is to be made: 176 when we must seek in a profound subject, not only for arguments, but for fresh materials of argument — their measures, and their method of arrangement : — when we must go out of the sphere of our ordinary ideas ; and when we can never walk sure, but by being sensi¬ ble that we are blind. And this we must do, when we examine the result of a reason which is not our own. Even in matters which are, as it were, just within our reach, what would become of the world, if the practice of all moral duties, and the foundations of society rest¬ ed, upon having their reasons made clear and demon¬ strative to every individual? These observations are not designed to evade the objection by the show of an answer, which standing alone, would amount to a virtual acknowledgement of its force, but simply to erace the first impressions of plausible colourings, too often mistaken for truth ; and to remove the veil of obscurity by pride and prejudice interposed between the object and the mental sight ; — that the prospect may be open, and the examination conducted with the greater accuracy and candour. I will therefore, return from a digression made in jus¬ tice to the cause of truth, and attempt a direct and thor¬ ough investigation of the point in controversy. You alledge that the doctrine of Election, by which is meant that the happiness or misery of every individ¬ ual of Adam’s race ultimately rests solely upon the di¬ vine purpose, is inconsistent with the divine impartial¬ ity, and represents God as a respector of persons, &c. This is the fault found with the doctrine — the object which first presents itself to our view. The amend¬ ment which you propose for a more consistent mode of divine conduct, as it does not affect the real point in dispute, will be reserved for a subject of after consid¬ eration. Notwithstanding the variety of suggestions from reason and scripture, and the mingled fragments of truth and error, brought in support of the objection — yet its whole merits lie within a narrow compass, and may be determined almost in a single glance. It turns simply upon this point, and may be conclusively de¬ termined by an answer to this simple question — viz. 177 Does the doctrine of Election, as just explained, in¬ volve the idea of any injustice in the divine conduct? If it does — then the objection stands — if not, it falls to the ground. This must be the point in general issue. Partiality always implies injustice ; and im¬ partiality and justice, are equally synonimous. But the merits of the objection, may be brought to a still smaller point — and examined by this test — Is God unjust in the actual infliction of punishment upon the sinner ? This question, while at the same time that it answers itself, will answer the general question al¬ ready put. The objection of partiality to the doctrine of elec¬ tion, is just as groundless as the affirmative answer to this question : — for if it be right and just that God should actually punish the sinner, it is equally right and just, that he should from eternity determine to pun¬ ish him. It cannot be wrong to determine to do a thing which is right — and if so, what ground remains for the idea of partiality in such a determination ? Furthermore, If it be right to purpose what it is-right to perform, it is right to take all the intermediate steps, or to do all and whatever things are necessary to be done, in order to establish a certain connexion between that righteous purpose, and its complete performance. — Therefore it is right for God, not only to decree the punishment of the sinner, but also to prepare the sin¬ ner to be a proper subject of punishment; — for this is necessary to a complete performance of his eternal purpose, and to establish a certain connection between the decree of punishment and the event. Once more, If it be right in God to effect the sinner’s preparation for punishment, it is right for him to determine to do it — it is right for him to decree the wickedness as well as the punishment of the sinner. So that there can be no partiality in God, in any of these respects, for there is no injustice done. God is righteous in all his deal¬ ings, and holy in all his ways. But can we be so irrational as to say, or believe, that God acts without a design ? — that he administers government at random, and without any fixed purpose, ns or end in view? Would this be consistent with infi¬ nite wisdom? Does not wisdom necessarily imply counsel and design ? If God, then, determines his own conduct, that of the sinner too is necessarily connec¬ ted — for the creature is absolutely dependent on the will of his Creator. “ Of him, and through him, and to him are all things.” Rom. xi. 36. But this certain connexion between the decree and the event, you make a ground of objection to the doctrine. You complain that for this reason all have not an equal chance for salvation; — but that the nonelect by a 'positive and irrevocable decree are consigned over to inevitable hopeless misery and endless destruction. This distinc¬ tion between them and the elect is made an argument of partiality. But how does it apply ? Is God under any obligation excepting his own good pleasure, to save either? Might he not consistently with personal de¬ sert, and the strictest retributive justice, proceed to punish all — the elect as well as nonelect? for all have sinned and come short of his glory. Was God under obligation to anv of the human race to give his Son to die for them ? If so, it was but an act of justice, and there is no grace in the gospel. If he were not under any obligation of this kind, what partiality is there in his not saving the whole, when all are deserving of punishment? If he save any, is it not infinite grace? And is it not his prerogative to determine who and how many shall be the subjects of his mercy, and receive the benefit of his pardon ? Do not earthly sovereigns, in similar cases exercise this prerogative by an acknowl¬ edged right, and without any charge or suspicion of partiality, where the publick good requires the pardon of a number of condemned criminals ? And is not the king of Heaven vested with this right ? Is not his wisdom adequate to determine whom the general good of his kingdom requires him to pardon and whom to punish ? Does not infinite goodness aim at the greatest good; and can infinite wisdom fail of its end? God declares that he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy — but does this characterize him a partial being ? “ Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel to honour, and another unto 179 dishonour?” Hath he not a right to do what he will with his own ? Is thine eye evil because God is good? Does the mercy of God to the redeemed eclipse the glory of his justice, by merging the guilt of the dam¬ ned ? Because they are punished and others are saved, have they any just grounds of dissatisfaction with the government of God ? — any reason to complain of their wages, and cry out of partiality and injustice? All the difference, therefore, both of character and state be¬ tween the elect and the nonelect, which ultimately flows from the unchangeable purpose of God, reflects no dis¬ honour upon his character, or affords any ground of ob¬ jection to the rectitude and impartiality of his govern¬ ment. But this inevitable certainty of the reprobate’s pun¬ ishment, or the infallible connexion between that and the divine decree, is, to you, a grievous burden of com¬ plaint. Why so? Is it any more desirable than it is possible, for a divine decree to fail of accomplishment ? On the other hand, would it not be a just matter of un¬ utterable regret to the whole moral system, if the pur¬ poses of infinite goodness were to be frustrated, and fail of execution ? This is what none but devils and wicked beings can desire ; but would be the greatest grief to all holy intelligences, and an infinite disap¬ pointment to the Most High. But because creatures are unable to'disannul the decrees of God, or prevent their accomplishment, is this an argument to prove that God has made no decrees ? If they could do it, it would be an infallible argument to prove that there is no God. But blessed be his name we have the high¬ est reason to rejoice in that full assurance of his \tford. “ My counsel shall stand and I will do all my pleas¬ ure.” Isaiah xlvi. 10. What then is the nature of this necessity of which you complain? Is it such as deprives the creature of the freedom of choice, and compels him against his will to be a sinner ? This supposition would destroy itself, as it involves a contradiction. It has been shown, that the decree and agency of God notwith¬ standing, the whole blame of sin rests upon the crea¬ ture — that moral necessity and natural liberty — abso- 180 lute dependence and moral agency, are all perfectly harmonious and consistent. And furthermore, that absolute foreknowledge (and there can be no fore¬ knowledge, unless it be absolute) excludes all contin¬ gency, and accompanied with bare permission, induces as great a certainty, and imposes an equal necessity upon the sinner, as absolute foreordination, accom¬ panied and executed by positive divine agency. By the moral necessity of the divine foreknowledge the creature is equally bound over to inevitable , hopeless misery and endless destruction , For, to argue upon your ground, he stands no chance for salvation. It is infinitely impossible he should ever be saved, if God foreknew that he would be lost — since the event is in¬ separably connected with his absolute foreknowledge. So that if the doctrine of decrees should be stricken out of being, it would not in the least degree remove your difficulty. The same objection would lie with equal force against the divine foreknowledge. And in order to make man free and happy, or rather to set him as high as his pride would place him, should we go on at this rate, pruning and lopping off one perfec¬ tion after another from the divine character, until we had formed a God to our minds, — the true God would be renounced — no proper object of religious worship remain — the throne of Jehovah would be vacant, and man’s independence absolute and complete. But to return — If the sinner, therefore, acts his free choice, he cannot complain of compulsion, either upon the hypothesis of decrees, or forknowledge. If the blame of sin be wholly his own, and in no part, God’s — I10V can there be partiality where there is no injus¬ tice ? What right has he to complain of the holy gov¬ ernment of God, and say, “ I am doomed to be a sin¬ ner — and am consigned over to inevitable hopeless mis¬ ery , and endless destruction , while others no better by nature than I, God hath elected to eternal life — given his Son to die for their salvation, made them the sub¬ jects of his pardoning mercy, and the heirs of his eter¬ nal kingdom.” It is certain that he will have no ground for this complaint under the actual suffering of punishment in the world to come ; and he has, if pos- 181 sible, still less, while under the calls of mercy, and the offers of salvation in the present life. Should a man in the exercise of his reason, and with his eyes open, make so foolish and unnatural a choice, as that of run¬ ning into the fire, or leaping off a tremendous preci¬ pice ; and persist in the mad attempt, notwithstanding all the prayers and entreaties of his friends — he dies the death of a fool, and his blood must be upon his own head. But does impartiality require that God should make all his creatures holy and happy, if he does any of them? We know that the good things of time are une¬ qually distributed. The safest way then, of determin¬ ing the question, is by actual and known events. — These answer in the negative — the objection is built upon the affirmative. So that unless universal salva¬ tion be embraced — the objection must lie in full force against the objector, upon your own plan ; and wheth¬ er mankind be all saved, or all damned, the case would be the same, as long as either the angels exist in hap¬ piness, or the devils in misery to disprove the impar¬ tiality of the divine government. This subject, opens so large a field, that the answer to the present objection, must be continued, and will be concluded in my next letter. Yours, &c. Aristarchus. 16 / LETTER XV. Dear Sir, Your objection, stated and partly considered in my last letter was, that, “ The doctrine of election is inconsistent with the divine impartiality — represents God as a respecter of persons — leaves not mankind an equal chance for ob¬ taining salvation, &c.” It will be unnecessary to retrace the ground we have gone over, but it may be of some importance to de¬ termine precisely what we are to understand by par¬ tiality and respect of persons — for unless we are agreed in the sense of the wrnrd, the dispute would be about different things, and both might be true or both false. If by partiality you mean simply this, that God does actually save a certain definite number of mankind, through the redemption of Christ, and punishes and destroys all the rest according to his own eternal de¬ cree ; the thing intended is granted for truth, and the dispute remains only about the application of terms. But this doctrine does not imply partiality, or re¬ spect of persons, according to the common acceptation of those words, or the ideas they are ever used to ex¬ press in the holy Scriptures. Let us then by application to these standards, en¬ deavor to obtain determinate ideas, that we may not be deceived by sounds, or led astray from the real ob¬ ject, in pursuit of a phantom. This general definition then, of partiality, and re¬ spect of persons, I will venture to say is agreeable to scripture and common usage, and applies to all cases where the words may be used with propriety — viz. To act with a view to the interest of a part , in oppo¬ sition to that of the whole — or Witholding that benefit from one, which you bestow upon another , either where the former only has a right, 183 or where both are equally and well entitled to the same benefit , and common justice and the publick good re¬ quire that both should receive . This is partiality , or having respect to persons, be¬ cause private interest, in opposition to the publick good is the ultimate end — and motives of party inter¬ est, or personal respect, alone, influence the mind of the agent. It is “ having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.” Jude 16. This applies to the case of a judge, who through the influence of bribery, or party prejudice, or sinister views of any kind, renders judgment in favour of a dis¬ honest claim — condemns the innocent or acquits the guilty — or sustains the action of one suitor, and rejects that of another, where both had the same merits, and both claimed by right. Such a judge we say is par¬ tial , and acts with respect of persons ; — because the publick good requires an equal distribution of justice. This too is according to the sense of Scripture. — The parable of the unjust steward affords an example in point. He acted from motives of personal favour — with sinister views, and to a selfish end. The reproof of the apostle James, gives us also, the same criteria of distinction. “My brethren have'not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your assembly, a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel — -and there come in also a poor man, with vile raiment. And ye have respect to him- that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, set thou here in a good place, and say unto the poor man, stand thou there, or set here under my footstool ; are ye not partial in yourselves, and become judges of evil thoughts James ii. ] — 4. The impartiality of the divine conduct, as a contrast to this, is asserted and explained in many parts of the Bible. I shall content myself with a recital of one of them, and a topical reference only to a few others. In the introduction of Peter’s sermon to Cornelius, which respects the enlargement of Christ’s church, by the accession of the Gentiles — we read, “ Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in ev¬ ery nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteous- 184 i ness is accepted with him.” Acts x. 34, 35. — Parallel passages are found in Deut. x. 17. — 2 Ckron. xix. 7. — Job xxxiv. 19. — Psalms lxxxii. 1. — Ecclesiastes v. 8. — Rom. ii. 6 — 12.— Gal. ii. 6. — j Eph. vi. 9. — Col. iii. 25. — 1 Peter i. 17. — These passages are not adduced lo prove the divine impartiality, a point in which all are professedly agreed ; — but only as illustrations of the proposed definition, and to operate as further aids in proof of the point which you deny, that the doctrine of election is consistent with the divine impartiality. We are now, I think sufficiently guarded against misapprehension, and misapplication of terms ; and we may proceed without fear of stumbling blocks in our way. And let me seriously ask, does the doctrine of elec¬ tion oppugn the divine impartiality, according to the general definition given, and explained and supported, both by the authority of Scripture, and of common usage ? Does it, at all, imply, that the Most High acts with a view to the interests of apart of his moral kingdom, in opposition to the general interests of the whole ? Unless it necessarily involves this, it implies no partiality. But how can this be made to appear ? Does a civil magistrate act inconsistently with his offi¬ cial character — a part opposed to rectitude and justice, in strictly executing the laws upon convicted offend¬ ers ? Does he thence incur the heavy charge of partial¬ ity and injustice ? Does he act for the interest of a part, in opposition to that of the whole ? Is he for such a line of conduct, to be condemned for the abuse of authority — a breach of his publick trust ? No. He deserves well of his country, as an impartial man, a faithful, upright magistrate ; — his conduct is patriotic, benevolent and praise worthy. A righteous king who would deserve and exhibit the dignified character of a father to his people, by making his subjects as happy as possible under his government ; must support his authority with firmness, and impartially execute the laws, in the punishment of offenders. Inflexible jus¬ tice is essentially connected with goodness. A being who is not just cannot be good — for favour to the guil¬ ty is cruelty to the innocent. In fine, the publick good 185 is promoted no further, and in no higher degree, than as justice is administered. As, therefore, the general good of God’s kingdom requires that he manifest his righteousness and hatred of iniquity, by suitable displays of his punitive justice upon his rebellious subjects, it also requires that he provide the ways and means for making these displays : or that he prepare fit subjects for the exercise of his justice. How then can he act with a view to the in¬ terests of a part, in opposition to that of the whole, in previously determining to do all that which the publick good requires ? — in decreeing, from eternity, and ef¬ fecting in time, all those means and measures, and those only, which are directed, and designed to pro¬ mote the general good, and which are absolutely ne¬ cessary to the accomplishment of that important end ? But this is all that the doctrine of election can be made to imply. So that the objection in reality is opposed to God’s decreeing and effecting, the general good and happiness of moral beings. As the general good is promoted in exact proportion to the amplitude and clearness of these displays of pu¬ nitive justice — the greatest possible general good re¬ quires the clearest and fullest, possible displays of the divine justice. And are not these displays made in the divine government? Could they be more clear and full upon any other plan ? Let us inquire. The destruction of all moral beings, is not an admis¬ sible supposition. But supposing that all mankind were saved, and none perished, would the displays of justice be as clear and full ? Evidently they would not. The punishment of the devils, it is true, would be in itself, a display of justice — but this display would not be so clear and full, as it might be, while mankind, who were equally deserving of punishment (I do not say, deserving of equal punishment) are all pardoned and made happy. As the devils are a distinct order of beings,- — commenced existence under different circum¬ stances, and incurred greater and more aggravated guilt by their apostacy than man — their punishment would not afford conclusive evidence of God’s dis¬ pleasure against the sins and rebellion of mankind ; — *16 186 no display of divine justice towards them; — no proof by sensible fruits in government of the same moral character of God, as an infinite hater of tlieir iniquity, which is expressed in his written law. It would give intelligent beings occasion to think, that man was saved because not so guilty as the devils — or because he was not so deserving of that punishment which God had threatened him — or not deserving of any ; — by which man would have something whereof to boast, in either case, alike derogatory to the honour, truth and justice of the divine character. It would, I think, afford some ground to suspect the divine impartiality, and so far defeat the intent of justice, the promotion of the gen¬ eral good. If a king should punish all his subjects who lived in a certain particular province, that Were guilty of high treason — and never punish, or call to account, any in another province, who were guilty of the same crime ; for example, if the king of England should execute the laws against high treason, only upon his Irish and never upon his British subjects, however guilty they might be in the eye of the law ; would not his subjects have just cause to complain of his partiality, and say that he was actuated bv sinister views, and favoured the interests of a part, in opposition to the equal in¬ terests of the whole kingdom ? Would such a plan of government be calculated to promote the greatest pos¬ sible, general good ? Therefore, I argue, and I think on good ground, that the clearest and fullest display of divine justice, does not consist with the salvation of the whole hu¬ man race. And therefore the greatest possible gener¬ al good, equally requires the punishment of a part, as it does the salvation of the other. And now let me again ask, does God seek to promote the interest of a part, in opposition to that of the whole in decreeing the greatest possible general good of his moral kingdom ? Nothing short of this is implied in the doctrine of elec¬ tion. So that the objection is found to lie against the greatest ‘possible general good. It will be proper in this place to introduce an im¬ portant distinction, which is necessary to be made, 187 and kept clearly in view, in order to a right under¬ standing of this subject. It arises in answer to this • query, viz. If the justice of God require the punish¬ ment of the guilty; how can justice be satisfied with the punishment of only a part of the guilty ? Or, how is the general good better promoted, by the salvation of those particular individuals, who compose the num¬ ber of the elect, than it would be by the salvation of others, since there is no personal desert of salvation in either ? To answer these questions, the distinction between general and distributive justice is necessary to be brought into view. The general good requires the salvation of a certain part of the human race. — Who these are, or why these in preference to others is known only to God. Yet he does not act without reasons, however unknown they are to us. Infinite wisdom ever acts from the highest and best reasons. God does not act arbitrarily in electing. The general good is better promoted by the salvation of the elect, than it would be by the salvation of any others. And we may set it down, as a certain fruit of infinite good¬ ness, that God will make as many of his rational crea¬ tures happy, as can consist with the greatest general good — perhaps the number will be by far the greater part of the human race — so that it will appear in the grand consummation at the last day, that there are but few state criminals for execution, in proportion to the number of the redeemed and saved — and perhaps too, all the reasons of the divine counsel and conduct will be unfolded, in the exhibitions of eternity. But to re¬ turn. The general good requiring the salvation of a part of the human race — it is therefore general justice — or what is due to the general good, or the fruit of a supreme regard to that end, that they should be ex¬ empted from personal punishment. General justice has both an ultimate and an immediate respect to the general good : — distributive justice has also an ulti¬ mate respect to that end, but an immediate respect on¬ ly to the personal moral character of the creature. — General justice admits of mercy, yea requires it ; — dis¬ tributive justice knows no mercy, but treats every sub¬ ject according to his personal moral character — saying, V 188 % “ the soul that sinneth it shall die. Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” This is the awful sanc¬ tion of the moral law. In the salvation of the elect, general and distributive justice, independent of the atonement, would forever clash and stand mutually opposed. In the destruction of the nonelect, they con¬ spire and are jointly exercised. Here the wisdom and glory of the gospel scheme of mercy appear, in perfectly harmonizing the contending claims of general and distributive justice, by removing all the obstacles that were cast by the latter in the way of mercy, so that “mercy and truth are met to¬ gether, righteousness and peace have, kissed each oth¬ er.” Psalms lxxxv. 10. — or, justice and grace are har¬ monized, Since Christ has suffered the just for the unjust — tasted death for every man, and become a pro¬ pitiation for the sins of the whole world — God can have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and can be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.” Rom. iii. 26. The righteousness of God is declared and displayed in the atonement of Christ — his infinite love of holiness and hatred of sin. So that he acts as a just God, in freely pardoning sin for Christ’s sake, and receiving into his divine favour and friendship, every true believer ; and working faith in every soul whom he hath ordained to eternal life. The distribu¬ tive justice of God as it respects the redeemed, is fully satisfied and displayed in the sufferings of Christ. — “ Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Gal. iii. 13. In allusion to this, the apostle John says, “If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John i. 9. So that God maintains and displays the same glorious character of impartiality and justice in all his ways and works — in the salvation of his chosen, as in the de¬ struction of reprobates. In both he is equally just, and equally good : — both are the accomplishment of his eternal purpose, and flow from the same unchange¬ able perfections of his nature. Thus for example, both general and distributive justice required the punish- 189 ment of Judas the traitor — and God is glorified, and the system made happier by his destruction. Again — General justice required the salvation of Paul the per¬ secutor — therefore he was elected from eternity : — dis¬ tributive jhstice called for his eternal destruction — yet, through the redemption of Christ, Paul the sinner is saved — the demands of justice satisfied, and divine grace gloriously displayed. This distinction being made, and as I think, suffi¬ ciently explained, I proceed now as was intended in the 3d place, to observe, that if the greatest possible gen¬ eral good, require the clearest and fullest displays of divine justice ; and these displays cannot be made, but by the punishment of a part of the human race — then the duration of this good, requires an eqnal duration of these displays : a^l the atonement of Christ, though in itself an adequate expression of the divine displeas¬ ure, yet is not a display of justice sufficiently clear, sensible and impressive, to the minds of intelligent creatures, unless accompanied with the punishment of impenitent sinners, as standing visible monuments of divine justice, in a continued and eternal state of suf¬ ferings. For, the impressions of faith must be more feeble and languid than those of sight. We well know that we more sensibly realize, and are more deeply af¬ fected with what we see, than with what we only hear, and merely believe, even though it be without the least doubt. Had welived at the time, and been eye witnesses of Christ, hanging, bleeding, groaning and dying upon the cross — had known his true character, and under¬ stood the language of sufferings — the awful glory of di¬ vine justice in the sufferings and death of the Son of God, might have had the deepest impressions, perhaps, that we are capable of receiving in the present state. Yet as soon as the sensible medium of display were remo¬ ved, and the impression continued, but by the power of memory, and mental reflection, it would constantly languish and decline — the objects become Jess and less vivid, and gradually affect us less and less in propor¬ tion to the distance of time from the scene of recol¬ lection. This was the reason of the institution of the Sacra- 190 mental Supper, in commemoration of the death of Christ. It was designed to revive and strengthen the impression of Christ crucified, by bringing the object represented by symbols, as nearly as possible into sen¬ sible view. And were we to dwell forever with Christ in his glorified state, and have the same nearness of access to him, which Thomas had, after his resurrec¬ tion — yet, the display of divine justice by Christ upon the cross, would still be but an object of faith— it would need a sensible monument to enforce the impression in the deepest and most realizing manner. The divine character of the Redeemer, though an adequate medium of expressing the divine justice, yet that expression must be displayed by gradual and successive discove¬ ries to the finite views and limited capacities of crea¬ tures. And this can be done in rif other way, than by the punishment of the impenitent. This is declared by the apostle as one important end to be answered by the destruction of the wicked — “What if God willing to shew his wrath and make his power known, endured with much long suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that he might make known the rich¬ es of his glory , on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory.” Rom. ix. 22, 23. When the redeemed in glory look down to the dark regions of despair, and view the wretched millions of their fellow men, and fellow sinners, weltering in the flames of divine wrath — reaping the wages of sin, in a state of continual, increasing, intolerable, and eternal mise¬ ry, they will have a deep and realizing sense of the evil of sin, and the punishment it deserves. “And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me — for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” Isaiah Ixvi. 24. By the misery of the damned, they will the more sensibly feel their own deserts, and the greatness of their salvation. By viewing the wrath from which they are delivered, through distinguishing, sovereign, unmerited mercy, they will the more feelingly realize the rich grace of God — the value of Christ’s atonement, and the infinite dignity of his person and character. X 191 As the damned sink in misery, they will rise in happi¬ ness — the glory of Christ will be exalted, and rise high¬ er and higher to eternity. As the smoke of their torment arises, they will swell their songs of joy and triumph, and strike eternal anthems of praise upon their golden harps to redeeming love and power ; say¬ ing “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, and hath re¬ deemed us unto God with his blood — Not unto us — not unto us O Lord, but unto thy name give glory for thy mercy, and thy truth’s sake.” In the beginning of the 19th Chapter of St. John’s Revelation, we have the most lively and affecting rep¬ resentation of the saints in heaven rejoicing for the visible displays of God’s justice in the eternal punish¬ ment of his enemies. — “And after these things, I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia — Salvation and glory and honour unto the Lord our God, for true and righteous are his judgments — for he hath judged the great whore, which did cor¬ rupt the earth with her fornications, and hath avenged the blood of his servents at her hands. And again they said Alleluia — and her smoke arose up forever and ever.” Here is the grand consummation of all God’s works — the complete and final accomplishment of all his eternal purposes. They all issue and termi¬ nate in one infinitely great and glorious end — the greatest possible general good and happiness of his moral kingdom, effected by the fullest and clearest dis¬ plays of his justice : and this good the greatest in de¬ gree, rendered eternal in its duration, by the equal con¬ tinuance and increasing clearness of those displays. This is the proper fruit, the necessary consequence, and ultimate end of the doctrine of Election : — a doc¬ trine which reflects the highest glory upon the divine character, and exhibits every perfection of the God¬ head, in the most amiable, attractive and adorable point of view. What blindness, arrogance and presumption — what narrowness of spirit, pride and selfishness does it dis¬ cover in us imperfect and short sighted worms of the dust to censure the conduct of infinite wfisdom, — to murmur and complain — to change God foolishly, and 192 say that his ways are not equal? How perfectly groundless is the charge of his partiality ! The per¬ sonal moral character of his creatures, and not his de¬ decrees, is the ground of his retributions. In the execution of his eternal purposes, he will judge and reward every man according to his works, with an ulti¬ mate aim to his own glory, in the general happiness of his intelligent system. What possibility does this ad¬ mit of his respecting persons ? of his requring much where little was given or the reverse ? Was there ever a man of any nation or age, who feared him and wrought righteousness, that was not accepted with him ? We indeed form our own characters, and God forms them too-— we are not independent. The Scrip¬ tures truly teach that the sinner’s destruction proceeds from himself, as the natural and necessary fruit of his own folly — yet this does not in the least disprove the divine purpose or agency, or clash with those other declarations of his word, that God hath a right to pre¬ pare his creatures for glory or for destruction, as the potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dis¬ honour. How idle then is the appeal to those passa¬ ges of Scripture, “ O Israel thou hast destroyed thy¬ self — thou hast fallen by thine iniquity.” A sacred important truth. What enlightened mind does not believe, that the sinner has no one to blame but him¬ self — that his sins are the procuring cause of his ruin — his destruction the fruit of his own perverseness and folly ? But what is all this to the purpose ? They have not the least application in support of the objec¬ tion, but disprove the very argument, they were de¬ signed to enforce. — That you may heartily subscribe to this glorious doctrine of the gospel, and rejoice for¬ ever in the rich blessings of God’s eternal electing love, is the earnest prayer of your sincere friend and well wisher, Aristarchus. LETTER XVI. Dear Sir, It appears that your objections to the doctrine of divine election, are not yet exhausted. The one fol¬ lowing strikes me as somewhat new in its structure — but tho’ supported by a shew of argument, its sophistry may be easily exposed. We will give it a fair and candid examination.— -You say, The doctrine of election involves this inconsistency — that the elect are chosen of God from eternity, and yet they are not actually beloved of him, until their actual regeneration, or spiritual birth. If otherwise, then they are the objects of the divine complacence, while perfectly destitute of holiness, and at total en¬ mity with God. But the apostle tells the Ephesian believers, that they “ were by nature children of wrath even as others ” — and how can they be children of God’s wrath, and of his love, at the same time? The same apostle says in his epistle to the Romans, “There is therefore, now, no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” — Romans , viii. 1. Here the apostle does not describe them by their eternal election, but by their actual engrafting into Christ. Before they were actu¬ ally in Christ, or while in an impenitent state, they were, according to the apostle under condemnation — but how does that consist with their being eternally chosen ? Are they rejected when impenitent, and then reelected, when they repent ? Before they were in Christ they walked aftef the flesh only, equally with the reprobate world, and how then could they be the objects of the divine love and favour, any more than others ? If this be a criterion of the divine impartial¬ ity, that “ in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him ” — then, must we not conclude, that in every nation he that de- 17 194 spises him, and works wickedness is rejected by him 1 Is not this equally necessary to the divine impartiality 1 Would it not be more consistent to consider the doctrine of election in this point of view — that, God from eternity elected those whom he will finally save, because he foresaw that they would repent and believe. So that, though they were in this manner, elected from eternity, yet their election continues in embryo, or waiting in abeyance, as inchoate as their faith, and is not actually made, until they actually believe. This objection, rny friend, arises from a narrow and partial view of things — from very low and unworthy apprehensions of God, and a total inattention to the true nature of the gospel seheme of mercy. — The in¬ consistencies objected to are merely imaginary — but on the part of the objection, they are real and irremo¬ vable. The doctrine of election, according to your view of it, is neither consistent with Scripture, with reason, nor with itself. An embryotic choice in the divine mind — inchoate as the faith of the elect — but made eternal ages before their existence; — a divine determination from eternity to elect certain of man¬ kind for their foreseen faith ; and yet no actual elec¬ tion made, until they actually believe — are words, which to my mind, convey no consistent, or even in¬ telligible idea of the doctrine of election. It bears the same complexion, and I must think, belongs to the same scheme with the doctrine of a self determining power in the human will. They both agree with each other- -but with reason and common sense, they are equally at war. But as it appears in the dress of serious and solemn argument, I will not condemn it without a fair and for¬ mal examination. You proposed an amendment to the Scriptural doc¬ trine of election — Its consistency is now the object of inquiry. Let us analyze it, and distinctly view its com¬ ponent parts. God eternally elected his redeemed, be¬ cause he eternally foresaw that they would repent and believe. But we will proceed a step further and ask, — how did God foreknow that any of mankind would believe in Christ ? What cause established the certain- 195 ty of that event — so that it became an object of God’s absolute foreknowledge, and the ground and reason of his eternal determination to save them ? If it be replied that the divine purpose was condi¬ tional and not absolute — that is, God from eternity determined to save them, if they repented and believ¬ ed, this would but plunge us the deeper in difficulty. It would be an utter relinquishment of the divine abso¬ lute foreknowledge; — for this effectually precludes all idea, or possibility of contingency, There can be no certain foreknowledge, but what is absolute. A con¬ ditional foreknowledge is of no higher kind, than what creatures possess, and, in fact, is no foreknowledge at all. I may, for instance, resolve and determine, that I will pay my neighbour such a sum of money, if he will deed to me his house and farm — without the least foreknowledge, that he will consent to make the con¬ veyance. The divine election, therefore, cannot be of this nature. It is essential to your scheme, that the divine fore¬ knowledge is not the cause, but the effect of the crea¬ ture’s faith ; and the divine purpose, the effect of the divine foreknowledge. So that here are two effects, the divine foreknowledge, and foreordination, which take place eternal ages before the existence of their cause : — and if the creature’s act be the first cause, then man is eternal and supreme, and God dependent and finite. But if man be a dependent being, his faith must be an effect — what then is its cause? Not the di¬ vine foreknowledge, or foreordination, for these are both the effects of the creature’s faith. Here once more, we come to the tortoise, and can go no further. Neither men, nor angels can answer the question. Here we find an effect standing alone in the universe, and existing without the being or even possibility of a cause : and not only so, but operating as the first cause to certain effects which existed from eternity, and never had a beginning. What a transporting consistency is presented us in this amendment of the doctrine of election! How very remedial of the evils complained of ! This di¬ rect inversion of the natural order of things, and in- 196 stead of foreordination, foreknowledge and the event — placing them, the event , foreknowledge and foreordi¬ nation constructs a scheme of theology as rare and wonderful, as the sight of a pyramid standing upon its point. Now let us bring the other parts of the scheme into view, and see whether an equal consistency be continued throughout. You proceed thus, in your rea¬ soning. — So that , though they were in this manner elec¬ ted from eternity , yet this election continues in embryo , as inchoate as their faith, and is not actually made , until they actually believe. An embryotic election, or a half formed purpose, gradually growing and pro¬ gressing towards perfection, till at last completed and finished by an event in time — that is, by an action of a dependent, finite creature, I confess, exceeds the ut¬ most stretch of my feeble powers to conceive of, as existing in the mind of that Being who is infinite in knowledge and understanding. Infinite knowledge can admit of no accession or diminution — no succes¬ sion or change ; and therefore rejects the idea of an embryotic purpose — a purpose which can be rendered more complete and certain, by an after event. “Be¬ loved be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day, is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2. Peter iii. 8. — “ The works (of God) were finished from the foundation of the world.” Heb. iv. 3. If, therefore, it were possible, that there could be an embryotic election, in the divine mind, or one inchoate purpose from eternity — it would be im¬ possible that it should be actually made in time — or that it should not continue in embryo, or the same in¬ choate state, to eternity. The reverse of this would be a direct contradiction of the passages of Scripture just adduced, and equally inconsistent with reason, and every correct view of the divine perfections. It would necessarily imply a succession of ideas in the divine mind, and mutability in the divine character and con¬ duct. This doctrine, therefore, like that of a self de¬ termining power in the human will, effectually destroys itself. It represents the divine Being, as electing from eternity, and yet not actually electing till in time ; till 197 his his purpose have an actual accomplishment, in the view of creatures ; — or that God chooses what to choose, before he proceeds to make an actual choice. No man but he who cherishes the belief, of a self de¬ termining power in his own will, can ascribe such a character as this to his God : and the reason is given in the 51st Psalm, — “ Thou thoughtest that, I was al¬ together such an one as thyself.” Your amendment of the doctrine of Election, I think, therefore, must be given up. Instead of removing difficulties, it multi¬ plies them. Every attentive and candid mind, must see that it is inconsistent with Scripture, with reason, and with itself. This affords at the same time, a general argument of conclusive force, that the doctrine of Election, to which you so irreconcileably object, is true and in¬ volves no inconsistency. We have no other alterna¬ tive, for these schemes are direct contrasts to each other. If we admit, that there is any such thing as a divine election (and here the Bible stares upon us) one or the other of these, either the one you offer, or the one you oppose, must be true. If one be clearly shown to be false, the other is true. If one falls, the other must stand. But I will not dismiss the subject with this general argument only, but descend to distinct and particular considerations to show that your objection is as ground¬ less, as your amendment. The objection is stated in these general terms, and afterwards explained and enforced by scripture author¬ ities : — that, the elect are chosen of God from eternity, and yet not actually beloved until their actual regener¬ ation, or spiritual birth. By the way, this would not be a greater inconsistency, than the plan of chosen and not chosen, which you propose as a remedy. But, Sir, this assertion is an utter mistake. It is no part, or consequence of the doctrine of election, but a per¬ version of it. It is not true in itself — or supported by the comment which you subjoin — or by the passages of Scripture on which you rely. It does not follow in the least, that because the saints in their natural state, are totally depraved and destitute of holiness, they are 17* 199 not, at the same time, the objects of the divine mercy ; or that, because they are by nature, children of wrath, even as others, they cannot be, at the same time, the children of God’s eternal electing love in distinction from all others — for we have already seen, that with respect to the elect, general and distributive justice are harmonized through the atonement of Christ. But before I proceed to a more particular view of the objection, I would lay down several general prin¬ ciples, essential to the doctrine and of necessary con¬ sideration to a right understanding of it. And they are these. 1. God’s last end in the creation and government of the world, is his own glory, or the exhibition of his own infinitely perfect character. 2. All beings and things that ever have existed, or ever will exist, excepting only the divine Being, and his eternal purposes, considered abstractly from their accomplishment — are but effects — they all have a be¬ ginning. God is the only eternal Being, and the only first cause. Therefore, 3. Nothing can take place, but as the fruit and ac¬ complishment of his eternal purpose ; and he can be actuated, and influenced in the formation of his pur¬ poses, by no motive out of himself — for the effect can never precede the cause. From these general principles, which are indisputa¬ ble, the following conclusions, immediately applying to the doctrine of election, will necessarily follow. 1. That the holiness of the saints, is not the reason, or motive with God, for his choosing them to eternal life. It is not the cause but the effect — not the ground but the object of the divine decree of election. And such is the language of Scripture. “ Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he hath saved us.” Titus, iii. 5. And again — “ According as he hath chosen us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” Eph. i. 4. Not because he foreknew that they would be holy : and 199 2. I conclude, that the love of God towards his elect is uninterrupted, unchanging and eternal in the fullest sense. God does neither begin, nor cease to love them. He does not love them because they repent and believe, but they repent and believe because God eternally loved them. And he loves them as much while in their impenitent state, as in their converted or glorified state : — as much before, as after their actual regenera¬ tion, or spiritual birth — for their personal character is not the ground of the divine love towards them. This is confirmed by the following Scriptures. “We love God because he first loved us.” 1. John iv. 9. Here is the connexion between God’s election, and the creature’s holiness, as cause and effect. Again, “ I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee.” Jerem . xxxi. 3. What right, then, Sir, have you to assert, that the elect are not actually beloved of God, until their actual regeneration, since his eternal and unchanging love, was the only cause productive of their regeneration ? It is in Christ , that they are eternally chosen and be¬ loved ; — in Christ they are regenerated, pardoned, jus¬ tified, sanctified, glorified. The saints in heaven are beloved of God only as they are in Christ. They have no other title to blessedness. Their inherent holiness is the effect and not the ground of God’s fa¬ vour. Were it possible that their union to Christ should be dissolved, they would immediately, upon fhat dissolution, sink down into eternal perdition. — They are accepted in the Beloved. It is because Christ lives, that his people also live. And what is it to the purpose for you to assert from the instruction of Rom. viii. 1. that before they were in Christ they were under condemnation — since they were eternally in Christ, in the eye of the divine pur¬ pose, as much before as after the effects of that pur¬ pose had taken place to creature view ; — for “ God calleth those things that be not, as though they were.” Rom. iv. 17. Their walking after the spirit and not after the flesh is only evidential of their being in Christ. Before the purpose of God had actually taken 200 effect in their regeneration, it is true, they walked after the flesh only, and had no evidence of their election — yet they were then as much as afterwards, the elect of God. Their wicked conduct is as much condemned as that of others, and it is punished too in the various suf¬ ferings of Christ, who is the “ Lamb of God, slain (in the divine purpose) from the foundation of the world.” Rev. xiii. 8. yet their persons were never at any time condemned. They were justified as Christ was slain — from the foundation of the world, or from eternity. — (l Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died — yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God — who also mak- eth intercession for us.” Ronu viii. 33, 34. All that I have now said upon the subject you might have found contained in the same chapter of Ephe¬ sians, from which you make your quotation, had you only read on a few verses, and not disconnected a short sentence, to make it speak a different meaning from what the Apostle intended. The saints by nature are children of wrath, because it is not by nature , but by election that they are in Christ. Let us hear the Apos¬ tle’s explanation in the very next words. “ But God, who is rich in mercy, for the great love , wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quick¬ ened us together with Christ ; by grace ye are saved. And hath raised us up together and made us sit togeth¬ er in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That in the ages to come, he might shew the exceeding riches c$f his grace, in his kindness towards us through Christ Jesus. For by grace ye are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works , which he hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” This view of the eternal electing love of God to the persons of his redeemed will tend to expose and cor¬ rect a practical error unwarily adopted by many who are real believers in predestination. It is not uncom¬ mon to hear Christians speak of the Most High, as “ a 201 reconciled God to his people — and ready to be recon¬ ciled to sinners, &c.” and even to use these expres¬ sions in their prayers. But this is evidently unscrip- tural, and opposed to the grand and fundamental doc¬ trine of Election, rightly understood. It is, however undesigned, virtually ascribing mutability to God, and therefore ought to be disused. Reconciliation, neces¬ sarily implies a change in the subject of it, from ha¬ tred to love, and therefore cannot apply to him, who is ever of one mind. The sinner is reconciled to God — but God is never reconciled to the sinner — for his love to his elect is eternal — “ I have loved thee with an everlasting love.” Your friend and servant in Christ, Aristarchus. LETTER XVII. Dear Sir, Your next objection is very common and popular. It is often made, and as often been amply refuted ; and yet it still continues to be made, and justice to the cause of truth requires that it again be answered. I shall make the attempt, and only request your candid attention. “ This doctrine opens a door to licentiousness. It depreciates the importance of virtuous practice, and removes the most engaging motives to holy living — since it teaches that our good works are not the cause of our election, or the ground of our reward. Let a man who believes this doctrine, only imbibe a belief that he was eternally elected, and the restraints of fear are wholly enervated — the comfort of hope dis- 202 connected from good works, and the natural conse¬ quence will be that the man feels sure of salvation in living as he lists.” These, my friend, are not the consequences, but the perversion of the doctrine of election. The objection is grounded in ignorance of the nature and operation of true grace, and springs from the supreme selfish¬ ness of the corrupt heart. Many who make the ob¬ jection, do the most to disprove it, by their own disso¬ lute and immoral practice — while those who conscien¬ tiously embrace the doctrine, are never known to make that licentious use of it, of which you complain. If a man believes that he is elected, while living in the allowed practice of wickedness, he judges without evidence from Scripture or reason — shuts his eyes against the clearest light of divine truth, and cherishes the most unreasonable and groundless delusion. He acts the part of a fool, and will, (if repentance do not prevent) be punished for his enthusiasm and pride. — None but hypocrites ever do or can believe, without evidence that they are elected, or improve the doctrine as a motive to licentiousness, under the influence of that belief. But shall the conduct of self-deceiving, ungodly hypocrites be brought to characterize the humble Christian — the elect of God, and cast a re¬ proach upon the clearest revealed truth in his word? The objection proves no point so clearly, as that the Objector is determined not to believe or embrace the doctrine, let the evidence of its truth be ever so clear and forcible — but obstinately to discard one of the most powerful motives to a life of virtue and piety. This is an additional argument in favour of the doc¬ trine. That sentiment must be true, which when right¬ ly understood every good man will embrace, and eve¬ ry bad man oppose. Scripture, reason, and experi¬ ence all join to disprove the objection, and show the reverse of it, to be truth. They unitedly declare, that the doctrine of Election, rightly understood and im¬ proved, is the most effectual antidote to licentiousness — that it appreciates the worth and importance of vir¬ tuous practice, in the highest possible degree, and af- 203 fords the only, and the most engaging motives to holi¬ ness and purity of life. The desire of obtaining any good, accompanied with a certainty of success, will the most powerfully excite to exertion, for obtaining the object. The assurance of a harvest affords the highest encouragement to the husbandman to till his ground and sow his seed. The doctrine of election has the same effect in the practice of virtue. Our hope of heaven must be in exact pro¬ portion to the evidence*of our election ; and this evi¬ dence consists in and increases with our conscious ho¬ liness of heart and life. “Called to be saints” — saith the apostle — “Chosen unto obedience through sancti¬ fication of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” 2 Thess. ii. 13. “Created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Eph. ii. 10. The nature of true grace is opposed to every sinful indulgence. It is persevering in holiness, and con¬ stantly aspiring after greater and higher attainments in the divine life. “ How shall we that are dead unto sin live any longer therein ?” is a question put by the great apostle, amounting to a negative assertion. It is the true language of every sanctified heart, “O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes. — O how love I thy law.” If we have any holiness, we have evidence of God’s eternal electing love. The greater is the degree of our holiness, the brighter the evidence of our election, and the higher the comforts of hope. This will powerfully excite us, to use all diligence to make our calling and election sure. This will cause us to run with patience the race set before us. “ The path of the just is as the shining light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Prov. iv. 18. The next objection which you offer is of a kindred character but still more revolting to the feelings of the pious mind. “ The doctrine of predestination removes all encour¬ agement to the duty of prayer. As the divine pur¬ pose respect all events — are unchangeable and also unknown to us, we cannot know but that the subject of our petition is contrary to the will of God; — if it 204 be not, it will certainly be effected, and our petioning, in either case, would be vain.” The secret purposes of God were never designed to be the rule of our prayers, or the directory of our petitions — nor can be. On the contrary, we may pray with a right heart, and be heard and accepted of God, and answered too, when the thing petitioned for is con¬ trary to the will of God, and can never take place. This, however, does not imply, that the will of the creature is contrary to the wilt of God when known. We have several instances of this kind, in the his¬ tory and person of David. He had set his affections to the house of his God, and had a great desire to build a temple to the honour of his name ; and accordingly made very great preparations for it in materials for the building. Yet it was contrary to the will of God, that David should build the temple. He was afterwards strictly forbidden. “Thou shalt not build an house for my name, for thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed much blood. ButSolomon thy Son, he shall build my house, and my courts. Nevertheless thou hast done well, that it was in thine heart, to build an house unto the name of the Lord thy God.” 1. Chron , xxviii. 3. and 2. Chron. vi. 8. Here we see that his desire, which is prayer, though contrary to the unknown will of God was yet an holy desire — an acceptable prayer ; and he was heard and answered ; — for though, he was forbidden to build the temple, himself — yet the great object of his desire, which was that a temple might be built, was granted, in the assurance given him, that Solomon his Son should build it. We have another example in point, in the history of David. After he was reproved by the prophet Nathan, for his complicated and abominable wicked¬ ness in the matter of Uriah — had confessed his sin and was pardoned — he was assured of the divine purpose, respecting his child. “ Howbeit, because by this deed, thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee, shall surely die.” 2. Samuel xii. 14. Accordingly the child was directly taken very sick, and David, there- 205 fore, besought God, for the child, and fasted and lay all night upon the ground : — he continued in fervent supplication, till the seventh clay, when the child died. The child was now, no longer a subject of prayer ; and being informed of its death, he discontinued his sup¬ plications — arose from the earth, and washed and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the Lord and worshipped ; and when he required, they set bread before him and he did eat.” His servants inquired the reasons of this strange and sudden alteration in his behaviour, which to them, ap¬ peared unaccountable ; — he observes to them, — “ while the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept, for I said who can tell whether the Lord will be gracious unto me ? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast ? Can I bring him back again?” David though assured that the child would die, yet was not assured that it would die, of that particular sickness: for aught he knew, it might recover of that, and therefore it was consistent with duty for him to pray for its recovery. Yet had he assuredly known the child must die of that sickness, yet it would have been duty to pray for the salvation of its soul. And it appears that he prayed for both these objects, and in both was heard, accepted and answered, though the divine purpose was fixed and unchangeable. It is not essential to God’s accept¬ ing and answering the prayers of his children, that he actually confer, the identical thing petioned for — nei¬ ther does it consist with true prayer to make such an absolute petition; — but the way, — the manner, and the thing itself, are all cheerfully submitted, and referred to the direction of infinite wisdom. God often gives an answer to prayer, in the bestow- ment of some other, and a greater good, than the thing actually desired and asked for. This was the case with Paul, when he petitioned for the removal of that thorn in his flesh. The subject of that petition was not granted ; yet his prayer was answered in a way that was better for him. “My grace is sufficient for thee ; for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” 2. Cor. xii. 9. 18 206 And so it was with David in the instance before us. His supplication for the natural life of his child was heard and accepted — and though the very thing asked for, was not granted, yet his prayer was answered in another and better way, as we learn from the 24th verse immediately following the passage recited. It was answered by the birth of Solomon, designed to be his successor upon the throne — to excell all in wisdom — to accomplish the great desire of David’s heart, the building of the temple, and who was also a lineal an¬ cestor of Christ, who was all David’s salvation, and all his desire. We have reason also to believe, that Da¬ vid’s prayer for the soul of his child was answered, and the very subject of his petition granted. The cheerful¬ ness with which he’received the tidings of its death — the comfort and satisfaction he afterwards manifested ; and his saying, / shall go to him — are all circumstances, which, if not conclusive evidence, yet naturally lead the mind to the opinion, that David received in answer to his prayer, a divine intimation, that the soul of his child was a subject of salvation. The example of Hezekiah’s prayer, and the answer given to it (2. Kings xx.) affords us the same instruc¬ tion upon the subject. And also that memorable pray¬ er of our Lord Jesus Christ — “ O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me — nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” Matthew xxvi. 39. From all these we learn, 1. That the divine purpose, while unknown to us, or but imperfectly revealed, is not designed, nor can be improved by us, as a rule or directory to our peti¬ tions in prayer. And therefore, 2. The immutability of the divine purposes, does not clash with that duty, or render it a vain thing to pray. Let us next inquire, whether our encouragement to prayer be removed, or in any measure impaired, by the doctrine of the divine decrees. That it is not wholly removed, is already proved. This idea is forever inadmissible, while the immutabil¬ ity of the divine purpose is consistent with the duty of prayer — for consistency does not exclude, but promote 207 encouragement. There can be no encouragement without it. The only question, therefore, is, whether our en¬ couragements are really diminished by the immutabil¬ ity of the divine purposes, or whether they are not as great as they would be, in case the doctrine objected to were wholly expunged. These questions, I think, are inseparably connected) and can admit of no differ¬ ent determination ; — that is, if the doctrine of decrees admit of one degree of encouragement to the duty of prayer, it must, for the same reason admit of every possible degree of encouragement. That property in the doctrine, whatever it may be, which admits , cannot operate to exclude , where the thing to be admitted or excluded, is precisely one and the same. Therefore, if any encouragement be admitted by the doctrine, there is none excluded. If the doctrine of decrees ad¬ mit of encouragement to prayer, then the reverse of that doctrine excludes encouragement — and if any, then all, for the same reason. The former must afford the highest encouragement — the latter exclude every encouragement. Give me leave, Sir, to say, that you appear to have quite overlooked the true nature, the real design, and the only end of prayer, when you say, We cannot know but that the subject of our petition is contrary to the will of God; — that, if it be not, it will certainly be effected without our prayer, and our petitioning, in either case would be vain. Does this give us a just idea of prayer? Is dictating rules of conduct to the Most High, the nature of prayer? Is the design of it, to inform him of our wants — to melt his heart into kind¬ ness and clemency ; and induce him to change his pur¬ poses, by the means of argument and moral suasion ? And is the end of prayer, the effectual accomplish¬ ment of the creature’s will ? Far otherwise — totally different. These principles, though adopted in prac¬ tice by the blind multitude, and virtually drawn into theory, by their stupid reasonings upon the subject, are too gross, for the explicit avowal of any rational being. What then is Prayer ? To comprize both its 208 form and essence, in one word, I answer, that, it is the expression of holy desires. The nature of it consists in a conformity of temper to that relation in which the creature stands to God, and his moral system ; — or a hearty acquiescence in his absolute dependence upon the will of his Creator. The design of prayer is by cherishing and strength¬ ening this moral temper, to prepare the creature to be a proper subject, or recipient of divine grace. And in this view, prayer is one of the most powerful, and ef¬ fectual means of sanctification. It is a duty in which the creature has the nearest access to the mercy-seat of God, and by beholding his glory, is changed into the same image. Nothing but the unpreparedness of our hearts, or the unadaptedness of our minds to the nature of moral good, bars ns from the most ample re¬ ception of the divine goodness. Every man is just as happy as his moral character, can possibly admit. — This natural unpreparedness of our hearts for the re¬ ception of divine grace, the duty of prayer is instituted and designed as a means of removing. Every holy desire is not only an expression of the creature’s con¬ formity to God, but increases and strengthens this conformity — expands the divine image upon the soul, and prepares the creature for a higher and fuller re¬ ception of the divine beneficence. Thus, the design of prayer is to affect the creature and not God — to prepare the creature to receive, and not to move his Maker to give. And this design is effected by every true prayer ; the language of which is — O my God, I am less than the least of all thy mer¬ cies, and unworthy of any favour at thine hands- — but if it may consist with thine eternal purpose , grant — for Christ's sake : — thy will be done; and to thy name be all the glory. Such a prayer, when the undissem¬ bled language of the heart, never fails of an answer. “ Ask and ye shall receive.” It is itself the gilt of God, as much as the thing asked for, and, therefore, cannot militate with the unchangable purposes of Je¬ hovah. We never pray, but when God gives us the spirit of prayer. This affords us the highest and most animating encouragement to pray ; — for, it not only 209 prepares us to receive, but is an earnest, or token to us that God will grant. Here we may see also, that the inseparable connec¬ tion, between duty and interest, and obedience and reward, is established, not only by the divine purpose and promise, but is founded in the very nature and re¬ lation of things— for when the creature asks, he is pre¬ pared to receive : every obstacle is removed out of the way, and nothing can interrupt or obstruct those effu¬ sions of infinite goodness, which flow as naturally and as necessarily from God, as the beams of light are emitted from the sun. The ultimate end of prayer is inseperably connected with its immediate design. It is the visible display of God’s essential glory, by the sensible fruits of his be¬ nevolence. As the natural sun, in the centre of the system, diffuses his kindly influences to all lesser bod¬ ies, and is seen and known to be luminous through the medium of its own light, “The Lord God is a Sun. He will give grace and glory, and no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.” Psalms Lxxxiv. 11. And now let me ask, for I want no other answer, but the still voice of reason and conscience — is this temper of mind at war with the immutability of God ? Do the eternal purposes of infinite wisdom and good¬ ness blast the first buddings of holy desires — destroy every encouragement, and cut off all the hopes of the creature in his addresses to his Maker? Were the Most High a mutable and fickle being — capable of con¬ ceiving new ideas, and acting with altered purposes ; — neither duty nor encouragement could belong to the idea of prayer. Every ground of faith, of hope, of trust, and of confidence, would utterly vanish, and the great Object of prayer be infinitely unworthy to re¬ ceive from his creatures the adoration of a God. May the unchangeable purposes of God; therefore, ever be our high encouragement to the duty of prayer. Your affectionate friend, Aristarchus. 18* * LETTER XVIII. Dear Sir, I am truly grieved to find in the list of your object tions to the divine appointment of all things, one hold¬ ing the language of the following : “ The doctrine of Election implies that God hath created a part of mankind on purpose to damn them. I reply — God hath given being to none of his crea¬ tures without some purpose in view ; — and besure, it was his eternal purpose for the glory of his justice, in effecting the greatest possible general good of his sys¬ tem, forever to punish and destroy all the finally im¬ penitent. Who these should be was also an object of his eternal decree. “ The Lord hath made all things for himself — yea even the wicked for the day of evil*’* Prov. xvi. 4. But this idea is directly opposed to the spirit of the objection, if by the words, on 'purpose , you mean that the damnation of the nonelect is in itself pleasing to God, and his last end in their creation. And this, I think must be your meaning. If it be not, there is no controversy between us. The thing objected is grant¬ ed. If it be, it is at once the most unreasonable ob¬ jection that ever was made ; and brought as it is against an essential and fully established doctrine of divine Revelation, is the vilest reflection upon the character of God, and a libel upon his word. It is strange in¬ deed, that an objection clothed with the grossest absur¬ dity, and breathing the highest impiety, should yet so often be heard from those under the light of the gos¬ pel, and even from the publick instructions of many' who appear in the character of religious teachers. But such is the painful fact. VYere it not, I would treat it with the contempt it deserves, and it should have no expression either from my lips or my pen. The doctrine of eternal election is a doctrine of God 211 and as firmly established as the pillars of his throne. My conviction of this truth is perfect. I have thus long laboured the subject with patience and with pleas¬ ure. I have found it to brighten with increasing con¬ viction at every step I have pursued it — and if my la¬ bour be unattended with any advantage or profit to you, the satisfaction derived to myself from the inves¬ tigation and vindication of this great and fundamental doctrine of Christianity, will abundantly reward my pains. I now neither wish for, nor will I advance an¬ other argument in proof of the doctrine. But I must observe, that it gives no countenance to the idea sug¬ gested in the present objection — that the misery of creatures is pleasing to the most merciful God, and the end for which he has given them being. It would be infinitely derogatory to the honour and dignity of the divine character to suppose that God should make either the happiness or the misery of any part of his moral kingdom his last end in their creation. The doctrine of Election teaches no such thing — but that his own glory, in the greatest possible general good of his system, wras God’s last end in creation ; — this, the grand object of his eternal purposes, and this, the final consummation he will effect from all the works of his hands. “ Of him, and through him, and to him are all things— to whom be glory forever. Amen.” Your next remark in support of the controversy is very unpleasant, in application to a subject so solemn and important. I am confident you will retract it ■whenever you attain to a more candid spirit. “ All the arguments in explanation and support of these subjects of polemical divinity — total depravity — eternal election— efficacious grace — universal divine agency — moral necessity and natural liberty, &c. are metaphysical and fine spun. The distinctions made are too minute and microscopic for the discernment of the common eye. They are therefore more nice than wise, more curious than useful. And a religion which cannot be understood or embraced, but by the aid of Metaphysics, cannot be calculated or designed for the common benefit of mankind.” This, my friend, you must be aware is an objection wdiicli any one disposed, is able to throw out. I con- 21*2 sider it as an implicit acknowledgement of the truth of those doctrines which you oppose, and a virtual relin¬ quishment of the controversy. It is an easy and ne¬ cessary substitute for argument, after every show of argument fails and the objector is still determined to disbelieve, in opposition to the clearest demonstration, and though confuted never to be convinced. He has then, only to raise the hoot of Metaphysics, to drown the voice of Scripture, of Reason, of Conscience and common sense. These are considered but a small sac¬ rifice to his pride, since his purpose is answered, and not only so, but he can hug the self flattering conceit of liberality of sentiment, superior sagacity, and great¬ ness of mind, in affecting to despise the quibbles of a trifling dispute ; and looking through all the sophis¬ try, and subtle chicanery of a subject, which alas ! he has neither candour to discern, nor arguments to dis¬ prove. But what is that frightful and yet trifling thing — Metaphysics ? There are many who use the word as a term of reproach, who have as little knowledge of its meaning as they have of the ring of Saturn, or even of Bible religion. They use it only as a blind to shut out every ray of truth from error’s dark retreat, and it serves as a seal to the bond by which they are the wil¬ ling slaves of ignorance for life. But what is metaphysics ? Is it the same as sophisti¬ cal reasoning, or false argumentation — making dis¬ tinctions where there is no difference, and inferring consequences without any, or any just premises ? If so, let the charge be substantiated, by a rational and fair disproof of that sophistical reasoning — those ground¬ less distinctions, and absurd consequences ; and then stamp the odious brand of Metaphysics, in open day flight, and with universal consent. And this task need not be declined. By the suppo¬ sition, it is neither impossible, nor difficult. The shades of sophistry and false reasoning are not imper¬ vious to the light of truth, and the forcible sunshine of conviction. It is easy for men of reason and dis¬ cernment, to detect the cunning arts of sophistry, and expose the blunders of ignorance and folly ; and to a mind possessed of benevolence, and an honest love of 213 the truth, it must appear no less a duty, which he owes to the honour of religion, and the general interests of mankind. But if the idea of Metaphysics according to this odi¬ ous sense of the word be just, why is it honoured with the rank of a science — made a distinct branch of clas¬ sical literature, and one important object of liberal ed¬ ucation ? They who entertain so unfavorable an idea of Metaphysics, surely cannot be so inconsistent as to wish, either for themselves, or their sons, to mispend the golden hours of morning life, for so unworthy and mischievous a purpose, as the acquisition of such a science. But if, on the contrary, the idea of Metaphysics, rightly understood, is that of a science designed to de¬ tect the arts and prevent the effects of sophistry, and superficial reasoning ; — that it consists in drawing ar¬ guments from the nature, relation and fitness of things, in a rational and well connected chain of close and critical reasoning, and nice and accurate distinctions, which is indeed the case, why then the objection is less invidious than was intended, and 1 might feel myself rather flattered than otherwise, by the charge oi Meta¬ physics : for this, at the same time would effectually disprove the reproachful part of the objection, and show that the terms, fine spun , more nice than wise — more curious than useful 6pc — together with the ulti¬ mate conclusion thence deduced, is not metaphiscal reasoning, but the fruits of a deperate attempt to impose upon the understanding by dressing up truth in false and odious colours. And in what different light, can they be viewed ? Is that mode of reasoning which stands opposed to sophistry, too fine spun to be true — too nice to be wise — too curious to be useful ? This once admitted would leave no distinction between fair reasoning and false. Is truth rendered less clear and perceptible to the com¬ mon eye, in the same proportion as it is accurately de¬ scribed and thoroughly distinguished from all its coun¬ terfeits? This would be placing mankind in afar more deplorable situation, than the most rigid votaries of total depravity and eternal election, ever thought of describing them. All attempts to instruct them would 214 be worse than in vain. Their ignorance would be a3 necessary as their being, and continue to increase in proportion to the knowledge and the degree of light actually set before them. If the system of truth be connected throughout, and every part be essential to the perfection of the whole, will the beauties of truth fade away, and lose their lus¬ tre in proportion to the clearness in which they are brpught into view ? Will the conviction of this con¬ nection and consistency be utterly lost by a thorough knowledge of the system ? If the Bible contain a religion from God, the infinite source of wisdom, is the study of it an exercise more nice than wise , and a right understanding of it an ob¬ ject more curious than useful ? Is it not duty to study it with attention — to search the Scriptures with accu¬ racy and diligence, to know whether these things be so? Is it a religion which cannot abide the test of metaphysical investigation, but the more closely it is examined, and the more clearly explained, the less ca¬ pable it is of being understood, and the farther remo¬ ved from the discernment of the common eye? This idea is opposed to the reason of every one, however pleasing it may be to the feelings of some as opera¬ ting to justify their neglect of the Bible, and their practical inattention to every truth and duty which it contains, The Bible is not in itself a sealed letter. It is ad¬ dressed to the understanding and adapted to the capa¬ cities of mankind, and it is owing alone to their wilful blindness, that they do not understand all the doctrines and duties which it inculcates. It is so plain a path that the way-faring man, though a fool need not err therein. He that runs may read, and he that reads may understand. — Yet it is not to be understood with¬ out attention. “ If thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding — yea if thou liftest up thy voice for understanding ; then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowl¬ edge of God” Prov. ii. 2 — 5. It is only the inattention of mankind— their perversion of Scripture — their darkening counsel by words without knowledge, that 215 obscures true religion from the discernment either of the learned or the common eye. This only occasions the necessity of metaphysical reasonings — of nice and critical distinctions, and laborious investigation, to guard our feet from the paths of error, — to dispel the clouds of atheism, ignorance and darkness, and exhibit truth to the mental eye, in its own native lustre and beauty. Is, then, the object of metaphysical reasoning, when applied to religion of a light and trifling nature? Are the doctrines in controversy so uninteresting to man¬ kind as to be beneath their notice and unworthy of a single inquiry, whether they be true or false, when the question to be determined by that inquiry is no other, and of no less importance, than this, shall we trust in God, or in ourselves for salvation? Is not this a question of importance to mankind, and the right de¬ termination of it calculated and designed for their com¬ mon benefit? But after all, Sir, it is a fact of which you ought to be apprized that this objection is wholly misapplied. It has an opposite direction, and wounds what it was designed to defend. Yes, Sir, give me leave to say, you have mistaken your weapon, or rather the art of using it. You have unhappily seized your sword by its point, and are thrusting with the hilt. Your right to the objection is disputed ; it belongs to the side which you oppose. The votaries of your creed, are they who, in their reasonings upon the doctrines of grace, are metaphysical and fine spun. Their distinc¬ tions are indeed too minute and microscopic for the discernment of the common eve ; and hence when pressed with the plain truth, the complaint is so often heard of being misunderstood. Like the responses of the Delphic Oracle, they may be interpreted as best suits the occasion. An error as ancient almost a3 Christianity, dressed in a new garb, and shrouded in mysticism and mental philosophy, is now presented to the churches, and hailed by many as ari important improvement in Chris¬ tian theology, and marking a new era in the gospel church. We have for years been amused and perplex- 216 ed with learned and philosophical sermons and trea¬ tises, calculated to bewilder the minds, and subvert the faith of the orthodox. And now may we not examine the subject, with the privilege of judging and deter¬ mining for ourselves — and if we attempt to avail our¬ selves of this privilege, must we be met at the thresh¬ old of inquiry, with the cry of metaphysics, and put down as wanton disturbers of the peace and union of the churches ? The painful truth is, we are forced to resort to metaphysical reasoning to parry the attacks and expose the arts of sophistry ; — to dispel the mists of error, and defend the faith once delivered to the saints : and however fond of peace and union, we dare not shrink from a task, which present duty and the cause of truth, so imperiously require. It is time that the religious publick should be disabused of this blind¬ ing delusion, and the clear light of truth be brought to shine upon it. “ The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream ; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully ; — what is the chaff to the wheat saith the Lord.” Jer. xxiii. 28. But one more objection remains, when all others fail. It is one of sovereign efficacy to flatter the pride, cher¬ ish the sloth, and seal the stupidity and ignorance of men, I will state it in your own words, and then, with a few remarks, close this protracted correspond¬ ence. “ These are unproffitable and mischievous doctrines, however true they may be. They will ever be oppo¬ sed by the generality of mankind. They have no ten¬ dency to the important ends of peace and harmony in society, but, on the contrary to set mankind together by the ears, and to turn the world upside down. To inculcate the practical duties of morality, in the various relations of human life, would much better an¬ swer the purpose of promoting the peace and happi¬ ness of mankind.” If the argument which you have here offered, dis¬ prove any thing, it disproves every thing, and to be consistent with yourself, you must discard the whole of Revealed Religion ; for by far the greater part of mankind are infidels. And where let me ask you, 217 would now have been our knowledge of the gospel, and our moral distinction from the heathen, had the Apostle’s and primitive preachers of Christianity, im¬ bibed your sentiment, and consulted the peace and har- mony of society, by waiting till mankind were all dis¬ posed cordially to embrace the gospel, before they taught them its essential and distinguishing doctrine ? The stupid calm of Jewish infidelity, and Pagan idola¬ try would have been continued — and they might have escaped the rage of persecution, and the flames of martyrdom — but the gospel had died in its cradle, and the reign of heathenism, been uninterrupted and uni¬ versal. If no truth be profitable, or advisable to be in¬ culcated, but what meets with the ready belief and ac¬ ceptance of mankind, we have then, no further use for the Bible — for all the distinguishing doctrines of it, have been and are to the present day, disbelieved and opposed by the generality of mankind under the light of the gospel. The fact is, that every truth of the Bi¬ ble has successively been brought into controversy, and by controversy been investigated and established. Every friend of truth must be a friend to candid inqui¬ ry, and dispassionate controversy. It is the means whicli God has used to promote the knowledge ofhis truth — increase the purity of his church, and extend the blessings of his salvation. How much has the knowledge of divine truth been increased, diffused and established by the able divines of the last Century — - the controversial writings of Dwight, Strong, Smalley, West, Bellamy, Hopkins, and especially of the immor¬ tal Edwards, — the Paul of modern days — whose in¬ comparable treatises on original sin — on the affections — the nature of moral virtue — the freedom of the will — and justification by faith, will remain standard works, while Christ has a church on earth. Does it follow from all this, that the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel which pertain to salvation are unprofitable, yea too mischievous to be taught, and of no importance for mankind to hear any thing about them ? It is now eighteen hundred years since the Saviour died — arose from the dead and commissioned his Apostles to preach his religion to the world- — since 19 218 the gospel was promulgated — and the canon of Scrip¬ ture completed ; and yet mankind are opposed to the truths of the gospel, and they are unprofitable to be taught. How much longer is it desirable and neces¬ sary that they should be kept in ignorance, and in¬ structed only out of the morals of Seneca ? How long will it be before they may know the truth ? Let us again, for a moment, look back to the primi¬ tive age of Christianity. The gospel was violently op¬ posed, in its first promulgation, as well as since. It was a stumbling block to the Jews, and to the Greeks foolishness. The Apostles were accused of disturbing the peace and happiness of society, and even of turn¬ ing the world upside down. Did they for these rea¬ sons desist from preaching those important truths, which were so generally and greatly displeasing ? — Did they thence conclude that all farther attempts to teach mankind, that only name given under heaven by which they could be saved would be unprofitable, and therefore they had better lay aside the gospel, and preach only the religion of nature, the practical du¬ ties of morality, in the various relations of human life ? No. Their common and canstant motto was, If we seek to please men, we are no longer the servants of Jesus Christ. The duties of morality have their importance in so¬ ciety; and he who seeks to discredit them, opposes its best interest. But they are also, the genuine and ne¬ cessary fruits only of a heart that is warmed with the influence of Christianity, conformed to God, and in love with his truth. Religion is to morality as the fountain to its stream, or the tree to its fruit. The sur¬ est way of promoting morality, and by that the peace and happiness of society, is to make men religious , lovers at heart of the divine character. And experience proves that this is the only way. And this can be done but by disseminating the knowledge and belief of the Truth. To preach or practice morality without religion, is like supplying the fountain with its stream, after the former be dry. "it is the direct way to estab¬ lish hypocrisy in the comfort of that hope, which “ shall be like the giving up of the ghost.” Peace is indeed desirable, but not without purity. u The wisdom that is from above, is first pure then peaceable , gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypo¬ crisy.” And now, my friend, to conclude, I beseech you, not to dismiss the subject hastily, or form your judgment upon only a cursory and superficial examination — but to think closely, examine thoroughly, and judge im¬ partially. For truth is a gem, whose price is above rubies, and the most fine gold is not to be compared with it. An establishment in the truth is the most im¬ portant attainment of a rational being. It is absolute¬ ly necessary to the acquisition of true and permanent happiness. These doctrines, if true, you cannot hesitate to ackowl- edge are all important. They are the fundamental principles of all revealed religion. A system, there¬ fore, which excludes them, must stand upon no other, or better foundation, than sand. I intreat you also to guard against the pride of opin¬ ion, which often effectually resists the conviction of truth, when that conviction is opposed to favourite sen¬ timents already imbibed and professed. This pride, for certainly it deserves the name, is one of the many infirmities of our nature, and in some de¬ gree common to us all, but, at the same time, is direct¬ ly opposed to candid investigation, and therefore, the most dangerous obstruction to the knowledge of truth. For this reason only is the caution given, and not be¬ cause the writer considers himself more free from this infirmity, than the friend whom he addresses. Whether in the present discussion I have been so happy as to escape the influence of this blinding prin¬ ciple, so far as essentially to promote the knowledge of scripture truth, — the Scriptures alone must determine. There is no other standard, to which we can with safe¬ ty resort. My sentiments or yours are not the more true or false, because they are mine or yours. The opinion of a mortal worm cannot be the standard of eternal truth. 220 Sensible of this, I have endeavoured to shun even the appearance of dogmatism, and have been careful in every sentiment, 1 have advanced, if a controversi¬ al point, to fetch my arguments directly from the stan¬ dard of truth and to recite at large the very passage or passages of Scripture upon which I ground my belief. The manner, however, in which I have conducted this correspondence, doubtless needs, in many instan¬ ces the mantle of charity to be spread over its imper¬ fections. But, if in any instance, I have expressed myself with an unbecoming warmth, or in language savouring too little of tenderness and a kind respect for your different feelings and sentiments — be assured that it proceeded from the excess of honest frankness, and not in the least from a spirit of invective. Exer¬ cise, therefore, that charity which is not easily provo¬ ked, and let not the cause of truth be prejudiced, be¬ cause its advocate is imperfect. You cannot, my friend, be too strictly guarded against a certain wide spread evil in our country, and which has done incalculable mischief to the cause of truth. Its baleful influence is felt by the pious as well as the profane. I mean the indulgence of a strong and blinding prejudice against any doctrine or sett of doc¬ trines, and affixing to it the name of its distinguished advocate as a term of reproach, and as the only reason of rejectingit, even without examination. It is deeply to be regretted, as well as decidedly condemned as uncan- did and unchristian, that the venerable name of Hop¬ kins presents an example of this degrading character. Hopkinsianism has become a term of reproach, both with the friends and enemies of truth ; and by many of the latter, who have never read his writings, and are profoundly ignorant of the doctrines he taught, it is used as a shield and a sword against the distinguishing doctrines of the gospel, — a watch word, or an alarm bell, denouncing execration against every religious sentiment obnoxious to their own views and feelings. But what is the chaff to the wheat ? What is the name of Hopkins as a criterion either of truth or falsehood? He was an eminent divine of the last Century — an able defender of the truth — and the enemies of Calvi- 221 rustic doctrine, unable to oppose him by argument, accomplish their object, more effectually by opprobium and invective. — Personal as well as sectarian prejudi¬ ces ought to be most carefully shunned. The charac¬ ters either of individuals or of parties, should never be brought into view as the criteria of truth. These are intirely out of account with the candid and honest inquirer. Youth stands upon its own base. Blessed be God, we have a better and safer standard than the opinions or characters of men. “ To the law and the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Revolve then the whole subject. Add to it all those reflections which your own mind may suggest ; and for the acquisition of truth, make one strenuous effort, beyond the reach of popular theology, party prejudice, or self-opinionated wisdom. Take into one collective and comprehensive view, the several parts of that widely extended system of doctrines, which has been presented you in these let¬ ters, and see if there be not a perfect harmony through¬ out, between one part and another, and between each part and the whole : whether they do not all coalesce and brighten in composition like the vivid colours in the etherial bow ; and like a solid well connected arch, be found to gain strength in proportion to the super¬ incumbent pressure of objections. If this conviction be the fruit of your examination, as it is now of mine, the system must then appear to you with equal clearness as the only system of scripture truth, and no longer rejected as the invention of man, be readily embraced as the wisdom of God. May the Divine Spirit lead you into the knowledge of his truth ; and prepare us each for the eternal king¬ dom of the Redeemer, is the earnest prayer of your friend and servant in Christ. Aristarchus. ERRATA. Page 52, 8th line from top, for doctrine , read objection . page 62, 7th line from bottom, for portion , read potion. Page 68, 4th line from bottom, for regenerate , read unregenerats. Page 73, 21st line from top, for have , read are. Page 80, 20th line from top, between agency and are , read as. Page 83, 14th line from bottom, for continuation , read combination Page 86’, 18th line from bottom, for direct , read divert. Page " 6th line from bottom, for Saul, read Paul,: Page 95, 22d line from top, before moral, read his. Page 124, 7th line from’ top, for dashing, read dashing. Page 125, 8th line from top, for last] read least. Page “ 12th line from top, after law, read is. Page 126, 5th line from bottom, for ecouraging, read encouraging. Page 151, 5th line from bottom, for woring, read working. Page 155. 9th line from top, for germs, read genus. Page 176' 16th line from top, for erace, read erase. Page 191, 21st line from top, for servents, read servants. Page 197, 1st line at top, one his to be taken out. Page 204, 1st line at top, for petioning, read petitioning. Page 216, 15th line from bottom, for unprojfitable, read unprofitable . Page 217, 3d line from top, for Apostle's, read Apostles. Page 221, 8th line from top, for Youth, read Truth . * w V * - ■ . I I ■*v ♦ V- Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer 012 01012 7621