Page images
PDF
EPUB

chapter ought to be read by all Christians, and especially the lukewarm, For if God spared not the natural branches (the Jews) take heed lest he spare not thee (Gentile). Behold the goodness and severity of God: On them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. The election therefore, so far from being unconditional, is guaranteed to believers on the express condition of their continuing in his goodness. It is true, your inconsequent inferences from the ninth chapter, savours too much of "rigid predestinarianism," and is too "blasphemous" to be fathered on God. It is well, however, for the character of the Apostle Paul, and for the character of the sovereign whose ambassador he was, that your comment is the comment of a fallible man, in which implicit faith is not required. Although you cannot have "the least mite of charity" for the man who thinks the blood of Christ has cleansed his heart from all sin, I hope the time will never come, when men shall think they do God service in burning these poor deluded reprobates, because they cannot believe God from all eternity doomed myriads of intelligent beings to hell, merely because he would. If any, however, should feel a disposition to do so, they might think that, inasmuch as "all sins are included in God's perfect plan," and also have a tendency to " promote the greatest good of the universe," it would be perfectly right to exert it in exterminating such "sinless monsters." How easy, upon your principle, for

men to persuade themselves, that it would be for the greatest good of the universe, to rid the earth of such deluded heretics, such "ministers of Satan," who go about to deceive and devour the elect, who were secured by an unchangeable decree of God, before the world was made! You seem wonderfully concerned for fear these ministers of Satan, as you indirectly insinuate Methodist Preachers are, should destroy some of the eternally elected ones. Did your faith stagger in an unguarded moment? Or did you think our "malicious hatred" to God so inveterate, and that we were so omnipotently strong, that we could reverse the eternal decrees of God, and rob Christ of those whom he had bound by a chain of eternal decrees! Make yourself perfectly easy, sir ; we will be content if we can save some of your imaginary reprobates, which you erroneously and unbelievingly consign to eternal torments before they were born. We will strive not to hurt the oil and the wine, the precious elect. But if after all, we should find ourselves mistaken, your system proving true, we shall have the consolation to reflect that we fulfilled the decree, and consequently the will of God. And in this case, I know not which will be most happy, the deceived reprobate, or the undeceived elect. Both did the will of God, one precisely as much as the other; only with this difference, our labour was the hardest, and most commendable, because without it the "greatest good of the universe" could not have been obtained and certainly there must be much, very much

merit in those "wicked deeds" which secured the greatest possible good to the universe! The hearts of the reprobates will be so elated at the recollection of having been the wicked instruments of so much good, that hell itself will be turned to heaven; and instead of gnawing their tongues for pain, they will sing the praises of sin to all eternity!

11. No man in the world can shew that this consequence does not flow from your doctrine; for you assert that just so much sin is ordained as is for the greatest good of the universe. If so, the greatest good could not be realized without it. And most certainly, that which is the cause of the greatest good, must have the greatest merit. O happy sinners, who are the cause of so much good! Is not this deifying sin? That which is the cause of the greatest good, must be the greatest and best being. But according to your system, sin is the cause of the greatest good. If therefore you would be consistent in practice and principle, you ought no longer to preach against sin, lest you should be found to fight against God. But you have a reply at hand: you will, perhaps, say, God is the efficient cause of sin; and therefore God is the cause of good, and not sin. But do you not frequently assert, that sin was ordained because the greatest good of the universe required it? This dernier resort therefore, does not help you any. God is the cause of sin—sin is the cause of the greatest good—A good cause will produce a good effect, and a bad cause a bad effect. Which sword will you choose? If the

first, you make sin good.

Will this do? If the second, if you assert sin is bad, and also say God is its cause, you make God unholy.

Will

Will you then cling to a system which makes you call evil, good, and good, evil? Which makes either sin-good, or otherwise God, unholy.

III. In part second of your third sermon, you make" an attempt" to answer some objections.Let us see whether your "attempt" is effectual

or not.

1., "It is objected that this view of the doctrine, destroys the accountability of creatures." I suppose you mean rational creatures; and not stones and trees, and all material substances, all which are creatures. However, on your principle there is no difference; for the stone attracted to the earth by the law of gravitation, or the water descending from the clouds, are equally responsible with men. According to "this view of the doctrine," a man acts as much under the control and immediate direction of an almighty energy, as does the needle under the attracting power of the load-stone. And it is as absurd to talk about the responsibilty of man, on your "view" of election, as it would be to talk of the accountability of the needle in the compass. Your whole reply to this objection is so curious, and such a demonstration of your utter inability to accomplish your end, that, were it not for its verbosity, it would be worth transcribing. After making several unimportant remarks, not at all

in point, you at length, in p. 66, make an assertion, the truth of which no man will dispute-" It is the choice of the reprobate that Christ should not reign over them." Is it indeed? What a wonder ful discovery this! I thought you were under obligation to reconcile man's accountability with your doctrine. We all know it is their choice. But the question is, can they choose otherwise? If you say they can, you allow they can add themselves to the elect number; and in that case in what a pitiful condition would the universe be, seeing it could not be good, unless there were reprobates in it. If you say they cannot choose otherwise, which you must say to be consistent with yourself, then you acknowledge they have no more freedom in their choice, than the feather which mounts the air. If you say they can if they will; then, I ask, why will they not? You probably reply, because they have no disposition. Why this want of disposition? "Because they are depraved." From whence their depravity?" From Adam's fall." Why did Adam sin and fall?"Because he would." Who determined his will?" God is as much the author of sinful as of holy volitions." Contrast p. 65. "Calvin, and the assembly of Divines at Westminster, assert that the divine decree and agency, respecting the existence of sin, imply more than a bare permission, viz. something positive and efficacious," ibid. From this it is evident, Adam could not have done otherwise than sin, unless it is supposed possible he could have broken the eternal decree, or

M

« PreviousContinue »