time; and instead of being immutable, are all liable every day to be altered, and are, in fact, altered, by the changing will of his creatures; that there is no certainty of his predictions and promises ever being fulfilled, because he can neither foresee nor control future contingencies; that it is his express design to save all men alike, while yet it is certain that all will not be saved; that he purposes as much, and does as much for those who perish, as for those who are saved; but is, after all, baffled and disappointed in his hopes concerning them; that he is certain of nothing, because he has determined on nothing, and is not able to do all his pleasure;-I say, do not these allegations shock every serious mind? Are they not equally contrary to Scripture, to reason, and to all the hopes of the pious? Yet they have all been either actually avowed by the apponents of Calvinism, or they follow unavoidably from the principles which they assume. The truth is, the moment we abandon the ground that Jehovah is acting upon an infinitely wise and eternal plan; that he is ordering all things according to the counsel of his own will; and that his people are not their own saviours, but indebted to his sovereign grace for every real good which they possess or hope for; the moment we abandon this ground, we abandon all that is solid and tenable, and if we would follow up unavoidable consequences, must plunge into the gulf of Atheism.

The same train of remark may be applied to the difficulties which attend the doctrine of original sin. The humiliating fact, that all men are by nature sinners; that their nature is corrupt; that is, that there is such a tendency to sin in all the children of men, that no mere man of all the human family ever failed of falling into it;-is not only taught in Scripture, but is notorious to universal observation. Now the question is, how shall we account for this fact? Presbyterians, speaking the language of Calvinism, of their Confession of Faith, and, above all, as they think, of the Bible, say that Adam was constituted the covenant head of his posterity, that they were to stand or fall with him; that when he fell, all his posterity in that first transgression, sinned in him, and fell with him; in other words, that the guilt of this sin, in virtue of a sovereign and righteous constitution, was imputed to his posterity-that is, it was set to their account; they incurred the same forfeit as if they had themselves committed it. And hence, as Adam, by that transgression, became mortal, lost the moral image of God, and incurred the penalty of a corrupt nature—so all his posterity, in consequence of their covenant relation to him, came into the world mortal depraved, and guilty, and liable

66

to the same penalty, in all its extent, which fell upon him. This, Presbyterians profess to believe, is the meaning of those Scriptures which declare, "in Adam all die," 1 Cor. xv. 22. By one man's disobedience many were made sinners." "By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation," Romans v. 18, 19. They do not suppose, indeed, that there is here any transfer of moral character, or any transfusion of Adam's act into his posterity; but that, in consequence of the covenant relation in which he and they stood, they are treated as if they had themselves committed the sin by which our race fell. This, and this only, is the imputation of the sin of our first parents for which Presbyterians contend.

Pelagians, revolting at this view of the subject, hope to remove all difficulty by saying that man's nature is not corrupt; that all men come into the world in the same state of entire innocence that Adam was when first created; and that to suppose men to be born with a corrupt nature, would be dishonourable to God, and inconsistent with moral agency. They acknowledge, however, that all men are in fact, sinners; and that all begin to sin as soon as they become capable of moral action. But is any difficulty which is supposed to attend the Calvinistic doctrine really removed, or even diminished, by this hypothesis? Is it more honourable to God, or less revolting to our sense of justice, to represent the whole human family, without the adoption of any covenant arrangement, or representative principle, as brought into being, and placed by their Creator in circumstances in which not one of their number ever fails of falling into sin?

Arminians, or semi-Pelagians, also rejecting the Calvinistic doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, but at the same time, perceiving that the Pelagian hypothesis is utterly unscriptural, take another method of removing the difficulty. They tell us that Adam was not constituted the covenant head of his posterity, and that the guilt of his first sin was not imputed to them; but yet that, in virtue of their connection with him, and descent from him, they come into the world mortal, and infected with a sinful nature; but that it is on account of their own sin, and not that of Adam, that they are guilty, and exposed to any penalty. Is it not plain, however, that this hypothesis, instead of removing the difficulty which its advocates suppose to lie against the Calvinistic doc<rine of original sin, rather increases it? On what principle is st, according to them, that mortality, and a depraved nature descend from Adam to his posterity? Not, it seems, in virtue of any covenant relation between them; not on the principle

of representative headship; but of an arbitrary constitution, ordering it so by a mere act of authority. And while they reject the doctrine of imputation, they are constrained to confess that in consequence, somehow, of Adam's sin, all his posterity come into the world with a depraved nature, which, if not removed, must lead to everlasting destruction. And is this no evil, no penalty? But if being born in this condition be a penalty, and a heavy penalty too, why was this penalty inflicted upon them? It cannot be said that it was on account of their depravity; for this would be to make their depravity the procuring cause of itself. No imputation of our first father's sin! and yet acknowledge that in consequence of that sin, some of the most awful inflictions are sent upon us that can affect moral and immortal beings! No imputation! Whence, then, the fact, that all the posterity of Adam are born depraved, and liable to death? How came this calamity upon them? Surely, while the term is rejected, we have here the essence of all the imputation for which we contend! Alas! we never fail to augment difficulties, and introduce additional perplexity, whenever we deviate from the simple statements of God's word!

5. The very same objections were made in Apostolic times to the doctrines of grace, as taught by the inspired Paul. In the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the doctrine of sovereign, distinguishing grace, is discussed professedly and at length. The Apostle boldly announces the language of God to be, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." He then asks, “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." Still the Apostle is aware that a blind caviller may continue to object. He therefore adds "Thou wilt say, then, unto me, why doth he yet find fault? for who hath resisted his will?" The very language and scope of this objection show that the Apostle meant that his doctrine should be understood in a Calvinistic sense, for upon any other ground, the objection would be irrelevant. How does he reply to it? Does he retract or disavow that view of the subject on which the cavil is evidently founded? Not at all. He attempts no mitigation or softening His reply is" 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, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unio dishonour What if God, willing

to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering 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?" Here the Apostle has anticipated the whole force of the Arminian objection. It cannot be pushed further than he has carried it in a single sentence. No addition has ever been made to its force by the most ingenious gainsayer. Yet the Apostle answers it, not by an attempt to explain, to bring down to human comprehension, or to show that his statements had been misconstrued. Nothing like it. He resolves the whole into the supremacy, the sovereignty and the incomprehensibleness of God and his counsels, and calls upon all to yield to this great and all governing principle; closing as he does in another place, when on the same subject, with that memorable exclamation-"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

6. It is a strong argument in favour of that creed which the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian Church exhibits, that every serious, devout professor of religion, however decided as an Arminian or Semi-Pelagian he may be, in preaching, or in conversation, never fails to be a Calvinist in prayer. So far as my observation has gone, the most zealous advocates of Arminianism almost always lay aside their favourite opinions, when they pour out their hearts in prayer, under a feeling sense of their dependence and their unworthiness. How many examples have we of this in thousands of pulpits, and in thousands of published volumes, in which the preaching is decidedly semi-Pelagian, while the prayers are quite as decidedly Calvinistic! The reason of this inconsistency is perfectly evident. In preaching and conversation, errorists argue to maintain a point; in prayer, they supplicate grace. In the former, they are actuated by the spirit of controvertists; in the latter, they feel their entire dependence as creatures, and their lost and perishing conditions as sinners. "A prayer,' says one, upon Arminian principles, and into which the peculiarities of that system were introduced, we have never seen, and never have heard. It would be a theological curiosity sufficiently daring in its structure; but we venture to say, no man of Christian humility and devotion will be found to carry it into the presence of his God." There, there the sinner ever acknowledges his weakness and depravity; disclaims all merit; confesses his multiplied sins; adores the sovereign unmerited mercy of God; ascribes to his grace every good de

66

sire and hope; glorifies his universal government over all his creatures and all their actions; and ascribes the plan, the execution, and the consummation of that deliverance for which he hopes, to the sovereign undeserved grace of God abounding through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Now here is the very essence of Calvinism. Not, indeed, of those monstrous absurdities and impieties in which its adversaries are ever fond of dressing it up; but of that sober and scriptural system which is found in our formularies, and for which all whom we acknowledge as Calvinists, have ever contended.

7. Finally, it is worthy of serious inquiry, whether the moral influence of the Calvinistic system has not been found in all ages, more pure and happy, than that of any other. For this appeal no apology is necessary. That system which is ever found connected with larger measures of the spirit of prayer, and of humble, habitual, deep devotion; that system which is ever productive of more holy living, and more active Christian benevolence than any other, we may confidently say, without presumption, is most agreeable to Scripture, and, of course, most worthy of being embraced. This allegation, it is presumed, will not be denied. For, although the opponents of this system, at one time, charge it with having a tendency to promote licentiousness; yet much more frequently and unanimously they charge it with being austere, over strict in its abstinence from worldly pleasures, and standing unnecessarily aloof from the various forms of public amusement. Is it not notorious that the followers of Augustine, of the Paulicians, of Claudius of Turin, of the Waldenses, and of Wickliffe, Huss, and Jerome, in the dark ages, were far more pure in their morals, devout in their habits, and separated from a corrupt and idolatrous world, than any of their contemporaries? Will it not be granted by every intelligent reader that, during the first half century after the Reformation was established in England, when no one doubts that nineteen twentieths of the Protestant clergy in that kingdom, were avowed Calvinists, the state both of piety and of morals was unspeakably better, than during the latter half of the seventeenth century, when Arminianism had, among the majority, taken its place? What was the character of the two thousand "ejected ministers," in the reign of Charles II. who were almost to a man Calvinists? Were they not, characteristically, as a body, the most pious, pure, diligent, and exemplary servants of Christ, that England ever saw? Is it not universally admitted, that the state of piety and of morals