Images de page

the gospel remedy would experience a far different reception in the world. That'a Being ' of infinite power and mercy' could effect this, as that he could send his Son into the world to become a sacrifice for sin, and a price of redemption, and could ensure the reception of the remedy, and salvation by it, who can doubt? But he is a Being of infinite Wisdom and Justice, as well as of Power and Mercy.


The Bishop's avowed Sentiments on PREDESTINATION and ELECTION, examined.

1. The subject stated.

§ 2-4. That Predestination is irreconcilable with divine Goodness and Justice, examined.

§ 5, 6. A reprobating decree is not implied in Non-Election.

8. Nor in Preterition, 9. The Non-predestinated are not denied, repulsed, or hindered. § 10. Remarks on the term Reprobation. 11-13. An enquiry, Why CALVIN and some others inferred a decree of Reprobation, and Preterition, or Non-Election.

14, 15. The notion of a voluntary restriction of Prescience, considered, 16-20. Whether there be any other ground of certain futurition beside a divine decree, discussed. 21. Inferences from the preceding discussion. 22-25. That we cannot reconcile Prescience with other divine perfections; and § 24. With Free-agency, examined.

25. That the actions of Free-agents are only permitted, examined. 26, 27. His Lordship's account of divine decrees and appointments, and of Election, examined.

§ 1. THE remarks made by his Lordship on the subject under present examination, are so numerous, that it is no easy task to reduce them to any general heads. However, the most prominent are the following: That Predestination is irreconcilable with the divine goodness and justice-that absolute election and reprobation are inseparable--that we cannot reconcile prescience with other divine attributes and free agency-that the actions of free agents are only permitted that God did appoint the power of believing and obeying to all who hear

the gospel-but did not appoint that the benefits of Christ should be enjoyed by some onlythat the prescience of our being ordained to eternal life, is founded on our compliancethat the idea of a covenant is inconsistent with the Calvinistic system-that there was no difference between Judas and the other apostles, except good works-that an exhortation to walk worthily, is incompatible with certainty and salvation--that the general terms of God's love, are irreconcilable with his electing some and leaving others to perish-that election is not confined to those who will actually be saved-that to choose in Christ, is to make known the gospel of Christ-that the "predestination" of the 17th Article, is God's gracious purpose to make a conditional offer of salvation to men—and, finally, that Calvinistic Election is disclaimed and condemned in the strongest terms in the 17th Article.

§ 2. In the first place, his Lordship supposes, that predestination is irreconcilable with divine goodness and justice. I reject the Cal'I vinistic doctrine of Predestination, not because it is incomprehensible, but because I think it 'irreconcilable with the justice and goodness of God."* In another place it is said, It is not

*Refut. p. 252.

[ocr errors]

' denied that God had a right, founded on the uncontrovertable will of the Creator over his creatures, to consign the far greater part of men to eternal misery, and to bestow eternal happiness on a chosen few, although there 'was in themselves no ground whatever for 'such distinction.-But the question is, whether

such a conduct would have been consistent ' with infinite justice and infinite mercy.* This last quotation appears to me very singularand very objectionable-as containing the most exceptionable part of Hypercalvinism! That must be a very anomalous and strange kind of 'right' which is not consistent with infinite justice. If men were consigned to eternal misery without desert, and this founded in right, what is it but saying that the Creator had a right to be unjust! But if men so consigned, deserved it, by previous delinquency, how would · it be inconsistent with justice? Is it not of the essence of justice to give to every one his due? To ascribe to the Creator, preserver, and benefactor of his creatures a right, an 'arbitrary' right, of conferring benefits upon them beyond their due, is infinitely worthy of him; but to ascribe to him the same right to render the undeserving miserable, is to offer him a compliment which he must needs reject with infinite disdain,

* Refut. pp. 258, 259.

-a right to be unjust, were he not infinitely just, good, and merciful!

§ 3. But what is the Predestination of modern Calvinists, and how is it irreconcilable with the justice and goodness of God? What we maintain is, that all mankind are in a state of guilt and sinful imbecility-that God foresaw this from eternity-that he therefore predestinated an adequate remedy in the sacrifice of Christ--that this should be announced to men, as commensurate to the evil. We further maintain that there was not in the present state of man any ground of certainty, that any one, without preventing gracious influence, would avail himself of the proposed remedy--and therefore, that God predestinated, under the direction of infinite wisdom, to influence the hearts of some, i. e. those who are finally glorified, to repent, believe, obey, and persevere in a holy course, as the way to everlasting happiness. Heaven is the end, but holy obedience is the way to it. We hold no Predestination that separates the end and the means. We do not presume to conjecture, a priori, who are predestinated to eternal life; but rather infer, from the imbecility of man, that if any one is penitent, faithful, diligent, persevering, and finally glorified, these great effects are from the special and distinguishing energy of God; and

« PrécédentContinuer »