tion and humility in judging of the mysterious dispensations of God, and of his incomprehensible attributes, as a part of the trial to which we are subjected in this probationary state. The pride of the understanding, as well as the pride of the heart, is to be repressed. We are not to imagine that we have "searched out God," or that we comprehend the reasons and designs of all that he doeth in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth." "Such knowledge is too wonderful for us; we cannot attain unto it."

I am aware that some persons, now living, who seem to glory in the name of Calvinists, maintain the doctrine of Election, and reject that of Reprobation. That this was not the system of Calvin himself, will fully appear by the quotations from his Works in the next Chapter. And that it was not the system of the Calvinists at the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, will be equally evident from the first of the Lambeth Articles, all of which will be there subjoined. It may perhaps be said, that it is unfair to attribute to any persons, sentiments which they themselves disavow. surely there is no want of candour in saying, that those who maintain the Calvinistic doctrine of Election, must also admit that of Reprobation, if it can be proved that Reprobation necessarily follows from Election; and if our adversaries

But

confess

confess that the doctrine of Reprobation is unfounded, it is strictly logical to shew, that the doctrine of Election is also unfounded, by proving that Election cannot subsist without Reprobation, unless it could be shewn that those who are not predestinated to life eternal, may be annihilated, of which there is no hint in Scripture. In every dispute it is argued from premises upon which the parties are agreed, to those points about which they disagree; and this seems to be the only mode by which error can be exposed, truth established, or conviction produced. "No medium," says Dr. Davenant, himself a distinguished Calvinist, and one of those who attended the Synod of Dort, " can be assigned, either on God's part, betwixt the decrees of predestinating some men, and not predestinating some others; or on men's part, betwixt men absolutely predestinated to attainment of life eternal, and absolutely prætermitted, and left infallibly to fail of the obtainment of eternal life, which we call absolute Reprobation. As for example, let us suppose the number of mankind to be two millions of men; if out of these, one million only, by the decree of Election, be infallibly appointed to eternal life, and these certainly and absolutely distinguished from others, not only as to their number, but their persons also; who can deny, but that one million also, and those certain as to their persons, are as abso

lutely

lutely comprized under the decree of Non-Election or Reprobation, as the others were under the decree of Election or Predestination." "So that, says Dr. Whitby, there is no possibility of asserting one of these decrees, without owning the other also; and so whatsoever argument holds good against an absolute decree of Reprobation, must certainly destroy the opposite decree of absolute Election." If God of his own good pleasure elected certain persons exclusively to be eternally happy, by furnishing them, through his especial grace, with his own appointed means of Faith in the death of Christ, it is implied, that those means are denied to the rest of the human race, who are passed over and left to their own unassisted powers. This denial or præterition is in fact Reprobation; for both Calvinists and ourselves believe, that "Man by his own natural strength and good Works cannot turn to Faith," the only appointed mean of Salvation; and that "the fault and corruption of every man that is naturally engendered of Adam, deserveth God's wrath and damnation (y)," which he is of himself unable to avert; and consequently, in the words of the 4th Lambeth Article, "Those who are not predestinated to Salvation, shall be necessarily or inevita bly damned for their sins." This was unquestionably the doctrine of former Calvinists, who were fully

(y) Article the 9th.

fully sensible that Election and Reprobation are inseparably connected. If therefore Reprobation be unfounded, which some modern Calvinists allow, it follows, upon their own principles, that Election also is unfounded, since the latter cannot exist without the former.

It being contended that Reprobation is unfounded, because it is obviously inconsistent with the mercy and goodness of God, it may be asked, Whether it be not also inconsistent with the mercy and goodness of God, to create men who he foresaw would be hereafter miserable? I answer, Certainly not, and for this plain reason: because, according to the system which we maintain, God has enabled every man born into the world, to work out his own Salvation. Whoever therefore is finally unhappy, is unhappy through his own fault; and the mercy of God is fully vindicated by his giving to every individual of the human race the means of happiness,

Theological writers, in arguing upon the pcculiar opinions which they have formed, are extremely apt to think it a sufficient defence of their system, if they can shew that it is compatible with some one of the divine perfections, although perhaps it may be utterly irreconcileable to other attributes of the Deity, Thus, the Calvinist, in maintaining the doctrine of partial Redemption, without any regard to merit or demerit in the objects

S

objects of God's favour or rejection, triumphantly asks, "Had not the glorious Being who created the universe, a right to create it for what purpose he pleased (2)?" It is not denied that God had a right, founded on the uncontrollable 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

(z) It seems to be forgotten by Calvinists, while they strenuously assert the doctrine of Predestination to eternal happiness or misery, as necessarily following from the belief in an Omnipotent Immutable Being, that the doctrine of conditional Salvation, for which we contend, must originate solely in the Will of God. This question is sometimes argued by our opponents as if we considered men as self-created independent beings, capable of counteracting the designs of God. But are not the conditions of Salvation, of divine appointment? Are not our powers of performing these conditions, divine gifts? What have we that we have not received? If a law be made, that death shall be the consequence of the commission of any particular crime-(theft, for example) is not a man who steals, as much sentenced to the punishment of death, by a decree promulgated by absolute authority, as a slave condemned to die by the order of his master, without having done any thing worthy of death? The slave had no means of escaping death. The thief, if he had not stolen, would not have been punished by the law. In one case, the death of the man proceeds from the will of a capricious tyrant; the other, from a transgression of a known law: but this law originated in the will of the Sovereign.