^ ^ - -^vc" -jiirX ^ <
A DEFENSE
)f
/ m ■ ■ ■"*£ ■-*, w~+ I m i m m-+
;#(
OF THF, DOCTRINE OF
^ -_- .- . _ „. , _ __ _ . __ _
J
*)
,%1
in
fi CONDITIONAL SALVATION
)#•'
IN ANSWER TO A SERIES OF LETTERS
WRITTEN BY ELDER JEREMIAH MOORE,
LATE OF FAIRFAX COUNTY. VA.,
■•f
AND ADDRESSED TO A LADY! I'URTORTING TO BE AN
* EXAMINATION AND REFUTATION
)#
OF THE DOCTRINE OF
UNIVERSAL CONDITIONAL SALVATION.
)f
BY REV. LEVI STANSELL.
41
f(
'1
.!(
*t
iv
k
V
Wit
M
35Xnrnn, $a: ^
PRINTED BY BENJAMIN F GRIFFIN, (
y No. 10, Cotton Avenue
1 8 5 4. .
* (
»■* _•»- -» -» a
A DEFENSE
OP THE DOCTRINE OF
CONDITIONAL SALVATION
IN ANSWER TO A SfcfelES OF LETTERS
WRITTEN BY ELDER JEREMIAH MOOSE,
LATE OF FAIRFAX COUNTY. VA.,
AND ADDRESSED TO A LADY 1 I'URPORTlW TO BE AX
EXAMINATION AND REFUTATION
OF THE DOCTRINE OF
UNIVERSAL CONDITIONAL SALVATION.
"nTiivTLEVI STANSELL,
ffl 11 B n :
FEINTED BY F. GRIFFllf,
1 8 5 3.
PREFACE,
Whether these letters were originally designed for pri¬
vate or public use, is to us immaterial. The fact that they
are published to the world, and that they attack, and at¬
tempt to disprove doctrines which we believe to be scrip¬
tural, and of vital interest to mankind, and attempt to set¬
up instead thereof, doctrines which we believe to be un-
scriptural, and ruinous in their tendency, is the reason, and
a sufficient oner as We think, a&d the only apology we have?
to offer the public for attempting an answer. We have al¬
ways been opposed to controversy, when it is conducted in
the spirit of bitterness and persecution. But when doc¬
trines of vital interest to godliness are assailed, it becomes
a duty to repel the onsets, and to contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints. And when this is done
for the sake of truth, and in the spirit of the gospel of
Christ, we think it cannot fail to do good. This spirit we
have labored to preserve. We have desired to be plain
and honest, and at the same time respectful. That this
work is all it should be, is not pretended; but it is believed
that it is what it purports to be, an answer to Mr. M.'s let¬
ters,—a defense, of the doctrine of conditional salvation,
and a refutation of the unscriptural doctrine of uncondi¬
tional salvation. With these prefatory remarks, we desire
humbly and prayerfully to dedicate the following pages to
the cause of truth.
A DEFENSE &c.
LETTER I.
As Mr. M., an his first letter does little more than intro
duce his subject, we will make a few general remarks, and
notice only a few particulars in it, and pass on.
1st. The reader will remember that the point of contro¬
versy is whether the doetrine of conditional or uncondition*
al salvation is the true, the scriptural doctrine. Mr. M,
affirms the latter-r-we maintain the former.
2nd. Mr. M. often uses terms and definitions which are
•either so ambiguous, or so applied as to obscure his subject
and make at very difficult to understand his meaning; and
at other times he seems to become bewildered by his sub¬
ject, and -scarcely to know towards what point he is tending,
A few examples may illustrate what we mean. Mr. M. uses
the term universal conditional salvation very often in his
letters, .and he defines, or rather tells us what he under¬
stands &e advocates of conditional salvation to mean by it.
He says he understands the advocates of this system to
hold, •" That God has in Christ made the salvation of all
men possible on certain conditions to be performed by them,
as the ground of their acceptance in Christ." Now it will
be difficult for the reader to determine whether our author
means, that he understands that the conditions contended
for sire required of all mankind indiscriminately, or only
of swjh as are capable of knowing and performing condi¬
tions. If he means the former, his representation is false;
if the latter, it is true. Nor is it clear what he means by
the term " ground of their acceptance.'7 If he means the
chief, or meritorious cause of salvation, the advocates of
conditional salvation hold no such doctrine; but if he means
the condition upon which a sinner receives the merits of
Christ's death, in the forgiveness of his sins and renewing
of his nature, he is right. Again, Mr. M. says, "Yon per¬
haps feel alarmed to hear it intimated that there is any
doubt that & system that has the support, and meets the ap¬
probation of euch multitudes of respectable advocates, can
4
be supposed to want the only thing that can confer dignity
on any religious tenet: I mean its being certainly true."
Here, it will be seen, that the point at which the writer is
aiming is, that the doctrine in question, though popular, is
untrue. But what a marvelous route he takes to get at it.
Again, our anthor says, " There are but two cardinal points
expressed in divine revelation, * * * the Law and the Gos¬
pel." And these two points our author represents as flow¬
ing from different principles, and as being so different in
nature that they never can incorporate. "The law," he
says, "is the manifestation of God's justice. The gospel is
the manifestation of his graceand then adds, " In the sa¬
cred scriptures they are denominated works and grace."
Now we know of no place in the Bible where the law is
called works. True, we read of the works of the law, the
deeds of the law, &c. But who does not know that the
works of the law and the deeds of the law, are not identi¬
cal with the law itself? Works may be in obedience to
law, or in violation of it; but they cannot be law itself.
But worst of all, Mr. M. says these two great leading fea¬
tures of the Bible flow from different principles, and are
so dissimilar that they never can incorporate. Now as both
law and gospel proceed from God, the principles from which
they flow must be found in him. It follows, then, that in
the nature and being of God, there are principles so unlike
that they cannot incorporate. How these views can be re¬
conciled with the teachings of God's word, we leave for
Mr. M. to explain.
«l^l> I »
LETTER II.
In this letter Mr. M. proposes to bring the doctrine of
conditional salvation up to the test of divine wisdom; and
here he says, " But whether this appears most illustrious
in providing for the salvation of all the human family,
while it does not insure the salvation of any one individual
remains to be matter of serious inquiry." Now this is a one¬
sided view of the subject. The real question, or a fair
statement of it is, whether the wisdom of God appears
most illustrious in that scheme which provides salvation
5
for all mankind, and proposes it to men upon certain con*
•ditions; or in that scheme which secures absolutely and un¬
conditionally the salvation of but a part of the human fam¬
ily, while it leaves all the rest to perish forever, without
hope or remedy. Now if the question is, which scheme
will secure the final salvation of most of the human fami¬
ly, and that is possibly what our author means, then the
answer is quite beyond the reach of human wisdom. God
alone can know which scheme would result in the salva¬
tion of the greater number of the human family; there¬
fore God alone can know which would be most wise. But
let us take another view of the subject. It will not be de¬
nied that the omnipotent God could have saved the whole
human family unconditionally and forever, as easily as any
part of them; and there were the same reasons why he
should save all unconditionally as there was that he should
save part in that way. And if he had it in his power to
save all, and the same reasons operated why he should save
all as that he should save part, just so far as he has failed
to secure the salvation of all he has acted unwisely; for if
it was wise in God to save one man unconditionally, it
would have been far more wise to save all in the same way,
and a failure to do so, all the circumstances being equal,
would be unwise. It follows, therefore, that if salvation is
unconditional, all men must be saved, or the wisdom of
God cannot be maintained.
But Mr. M. says the " The question is not whether the
wisdom of God is manifest in the conditional salvation of
all men, * * but whether taken in this point of light it is
directed to the most valuable end or not." Mr. M. assumes
that it is not, and undertakes to prove it by a figure. He
asks, " Woijld it be wise and prudent for a merchant who
was rich and independent, to form a partnership with a no¬
torious bankrupt, and leave all his wealth, and the future
prosperity of his family in his hands, while he not only
knows that he does not possess one cent, but at the same
time knows him to be a notorious villain, in whom no con¬
fidence is to be placed ? " Now it must be obvious to eve¬
ry reflecting mind, that this figure does not represent the
case correctly. Who does not see that there is a vast dif¬
ference between an offer of salvation upon terms which the
6
scheme of human redemption and salvation; and in fact
giving up into his hands the entire control of the scheme
of redemption, and the future prosperity of the church ?
Such a representation can do nothing better than weaken
the cause it is intended to support.
But our author introduces another figure here, He says,
" And let me ask your kind heart if one of your neigh¬
bors, who was poor and starving, and had no chance of re¬
lief but from ypur bounty, and was at the same time so at
•enmity with you that he would receive nothing from you,
■even to save him from death, would you lay it at his feet
And say take it or starve, or would you send it by some oth-
<er hand with a charge not to let it be known that it came from
you ? I fancy I hear y ou say O! I would employ some one to
^ct for me where he could not mistrust I was concerned."
The reader will discover that the former of these two fig¬
ures was intended to represent the doctrine of conditional
salvation, the latter, Mr. M.'s views, or unconditional salva¬
tion, and yet it is probable that the doctrine of uncondi¬
tional salvation is a? far from being truly represented by
the latter figure* as that of conditional salvation, by the
former. In fact we think Mr. M. himself will blush to own
Jhis doctrine as represented by this figure, when he looks it
full in the face. God, in order to save the sinner, is repre¬
sented as being under the necessity of having recourse to
trick, or deception. The sinner would not have salvation,
if he knew, or even suspected, that God had any hand in it.
The Lord is therefore careful to conceal that fact, and
thereby cheat or deceive him into the reception of it.—
But that is not all: the reader will perceive that the figure
represents salvation as being conditional for the very reas¬
on why God was under the necessity of deceiving the sin¬
ner is, he would not receive salvation if he knew it came
from him, and he would not force it upon him, and there¬
fore other means must be resorted to, to gain his consent.
And now in taking our lea^e of this second letter we must
be allowed to say, Mr. M. pever intended to represent the
character of God in the light that is represented by this
figure, and certainly he intended any thing else rather than
•conditional salvation—for he is opposing that—it is his
■strong prejudices that have betrayed him into these errors,
1
and inconsistencies; And "beyond doubt there would be as
much wisdom in laying the provision at the starving
man's feet and leaving him to eat of starve as he choser
as there would be in leaving him to starve without any pro¬
vision. We maintain then that that scheme which makes
the salvation of all men possible transcends infinitely in
wisdom, that scheme which saves a part unconditionally,
and leaves all the rest to perish without hope or mercy.
ml ' > |i»i> ■ ■
LETTER III.
In this letter our author tries the droctrine of conditional
salvation by the attribute of divine goodness. He says:
lhat when the divine goodness is spoken of in relation to
his creatures "it means the good he does them in the dis¬
pensations of his grace, and providence &c.," * * and he adds,
" It always appears most admirably where there is least mer¬
it or worthiness in the subject of his rich bounty." And
again: " But his goodness loses much of its luster when
something done or supposed to be done by the subjects of
his bounty is considered as the cause on which his goodness
to them depends." And he illustrates, " Suppose for the
sake of illustrating this argument, you are from day to day
in the habit of feeding one of your poor neighbors, but it
is on the express condition that he or she reward your
bounty with one cent each day in return; and your neigh¬
bor, "W , who you please, feeds and clothes a differ¬
ent subject, equally the object of pity with the one who
shares your bounty, without any satisfaction; yea, without the
most remote hope of any reward whatsoever; who has the
most just claim to goodness you or your neighbor?" Now
that goodness appears most illustrious when exercised on
the most needy and helpless, we admit. Man, when he had
sinned and fallen, was sunk down into a state of most de¬
plorable helplessness and ruin; and it is on that account
that his redemption through the suffering and death of the
Son of God, is so glorious a display of the divine goodness.
But that goodness loses any of its luster for being conferred
on a worthy object we deny. If this were so, and God
would make the most glorious display of his goodness, he
of course would seek for the most unworthy obiect: whii®
8
those who were more deserving would be neglected, and
receive a less share of the divine goodness. The doctrine,.
. T. *1 *4*
therefore, would afford encouragement to vice, while i^
would cut off motive to virtue. But all goodness in order
to be such must be exercised upon just and righteous prin¬
ciples}. An incorrigible sinner cannot therefore be pardon¬
ed. To grant pardon to such would be unrighteous, and m
fact would tend to destroy government. We maintain,
therefore, that it would be impossible to grant pardon arbi-
brarily or unconditionally, and maintain the divine govern¬
ment. But again; Mr. M.'s figure of feeding a man for one
cent a day does not represent the case fairly. He confounds
condition with merit. He seems to have got it into his head
that condition is inseparable from merit. But we deny that
merit is necessarily connected with condition. A simple fig¬
ure may illustrate this. Suppose, then, you say to your
poor neighbor who is suffering for the necessaries of life,—-
Come over to my house and I will give you what you need,
Now you see his coming to your house is the condition upon
which you promise to give him. But when he comes and
you bestow upon him what he needs you would never think
that he had merited it; nor would such a thought ever en¬
ter his head. In fact, it is as much a free gift as if you had
carried it to him instead of requiring him to apply for it.—
But our author says: " Conditional salvation detracts from
the divine goodness by making the performance or disposi¬
tion of poor sinners the ground on which the divine good¬
ness flows; and represents the Lord Jehovah as going out of
himself for a reason why he should do good to the wretch¬
ed and the miserable! It does seem as if Mr. M. cannot
think of conditional salvation but he is at once in the land of
ghosts, where he sees nothing but hobgoblins and all sorts
of frightful creatures, who are trying to rob the Almighty
of the perfections of his eternal nature. Now we cannot
see how the requiring a reasonable condition can lessen the
goodness of the donor of a benefit. The performance of
a condition cannot change the quality of the benefit, nor
the character of the giver. How then does it lessen the di¬
vine goodness to bestow benefits where conditions are re¬
quired. But Mr. M. says: "It represents the Lord Jeho¬
vah as going out of himself to find a reason why he should
9
do good to the wretched," &c. Now three things are neces¬
sary in order to the exercise of goodness. 1. The donor must
be good. 2. There must be a needy object; and 3. It must
be exercised upon just and righteous principles, otherwise
it dwindles into mere partiality which may be the offspring"
of the basest passions.
But what does Mr. M. mean by the Almighty going out
of himself to find a reason why he should do good, &c.—
We cannot conceive how the Lord eould make an exhibi¬
tion of his goodness without going outside himself for a
reason. Did God exercise his goodness in the gift of his
Son to die for sinners ? "Why did he do so ? manifestly
because there were sinners perishing who needed salvation.
But that was going outside himself to find a reason; and
what is true in this case will be found to be true in every
other case where the goodness of God is manifested. It ia
perfectly idle to insinuate that God must find no reason out'
side himself for the exercise of his goodness. But our au¬
thor quotes Eze. xxxvi. 22 "I do not this for your salces, 0 T
house of Israel, but for my holy name sake," &c. Now
by reference to the passage quoted it will be seen that the
thing which the Lord promised to do for his holy name
sake was to gather the house of Israel from among the hea¬
then, where he had scattered them for their wickedness, and
plant them in their own land. And in the very next verse
he gives the reason. He says, " I will sanctify my great
name, which was profaned among the heathen; which ye
have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall
know that I am the Lord." Here then is the reason : that
the honor of his name might be vindicated among the hea¬
then, and that they might thereby know him to be the
Lord; and so the greater good result to mankind while his
name is glorified. Mr. M. also quotes Matt, v., 44 and
on the words maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust, he founds
the following argument. " And if those blessings are in¬
discriminately poured forth from the sovereign bounty with¬
out regard to the moral good or evil of the subjects of his*.
2
10
abundant goodness, when "blessings which transcend, all
earthly good, infinitely beyond any comprehension, come
under consideration, can the enjoyment of them stand sus¬
pended on the goodness, piety and performance of poor,
sinful worms? Surely not." Now it is a little difficult to
ascertain what our author means by this argument. If he
were a Universalist, and was trying to prove the doctrine
of universal unconditional salvation, there would be some
pertinence in his argument. But Mr. M. is no Universal¬
ist, and how he can prove the unconditional salvation of a
part of the human family by the unconditional distribution
of temporal blessings to all mankind we cannot tell. But
the reader will remember Mr. M. is trying to get the con¬
dition out of the way: that is what troubles him, and it
makes but little difference what takes its place, if that can
be removed. But Mr. M. says " the medium through which
his goodness flows to sinners being the Lord Jesus Christ
* * * it is impossible that he can fail or cease to be good to
the subjects of his grace; nor is there any argument that
can be adduced to prove that his goodness may be with¬
drawn,but what will equally prove that it never could have
been communicated!" Again he says, " it may be asked,
will not sin provoke him to withdraw his favor from the
transgressor? " He answers, " It did not prevent him from
giving his son to die for sinners * * * and sin cannot be bet¬
ter known, or more abhorrent to God at one time than at
another, * * * If therefore sin can be given as a reason why
God should withdraw his goodness it will furnish the same
reason why it should never have been communicated! "—
Now why Mr. M, did not speak out at once and tell us that
sin would not provoke the Lord to withdraw his goodness
from the transgressor, without all this array of words, one
half of which we have left out, as the reader will see, we
cannot tell. This however is the sum of what he has said:
so we have the idea at last. And now as sin will neither
provoke the Lord to withhold his goodness or to withdraw
it when once communicated, why fear sin ? Why not take
your fill of it? You had as well curse as pray, or pray as
11
•curse—all alike. As neither lias any thing td> do with sal¬
vation, sin is no more sin, and holiness is no more holiness,
for both lose their character in proportion as they lose their
•effect tipon the salvation or damnation of man. God said
to Adam, in the day thou eatest thereof thou, shalt surely
die; but the serpent said, G-od doth know that thou shalt
not surely die. God still says the soul that sinneth it shall
die) but Mr. M. says, sin will not provoke him to withdraw
his goodness. 110! tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the
streets of Askelon, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised
rejoice." And rejoice they will when this doctrine prevails.
O Bir, if you shduld be so unfortunate as to induce some
one to believe that sin will not provoke the Lord to with¬
draw his goodness,until sin proves his ruin, it will be a sad
thing. But what becomes of the divine goodness when con*
sidered in regard to those who are left to perish in their
eins? What kind of goodness, and how great, that moved
the Almighty to pass by the larger part of mankind, are
problems that no Calvinist has ever been able to solve.—
They are usually classed with the mysteries and laid aside,
—passed by as they suppose God passes by most of the hu-
vnan family.
LETTER IT.
In this letter our author considers conditional salvation
in connection with the love of God. He introduces his sub¬
ject by a strange confusion of ideas, which virtually divides
the Godhead, making the Father greatest, the Son the su¬
preme object of the Father's love, and of course the Holy
Ghost next. But our business is with his arguments.
Mr. M. assumes 1st: That love, in order to be such,
must nOt be exercised towards any creature because of any
good or supposed good in or done by the creature; but
purely because it is the will of God to love him without
these good qualities: 2nd, That the love of God is unchang-
able and eternal, and that it must be equally so in regard to
12
the subjects; that is, when he once loves a subject he must
love it forever. Now the former of these we deny, and the
latter, though true in its statement is false in its conclusion.
That love loses any thing for having a worthy object, or
gains any thing by having an unworthy object we deny.
If so, the more unworthy and sinful we can be the more
we shall be beloved. But Mr. M's. doctrine is, that salva¬
tion is unconditional, and therefore the love of God cannot
be unconditional, and neither sin nor holiness has any
thiDg to do with it. Just above our author says, u by the
love of God we understand that perfection of his nature by
which he is qualified to take pleasure in * * * his creatures
* * * as they bear more or less of his own likeness." Now
how this statement can be reconciled with the notion that
the love of God must not be extended to men for any good
or supposed good in them we cannot see. In fact, it is a
plain contradiction. But Mr. M. says, " conditional salva¬
tion represents the love of God as acting in exact propor¬
tion to the works of the Creator." Here it will be seen
that our author confounds a love of complacency with a love
of benevolence. God loved the world when it lay in sin and
ruin with a love of benevolence. He could not love it in any
other way in that unholy state. He so loved the world—so
pitied it as to send his Son to die for it; the object of which
was that man might be redeemed, sanctified and made ho¬
ly like God, that bearing his image he might love him with
a love of delight. God cannot be pleased with the sftmer,
and take delight in him in a state of sin and impurity; but
he can pity him and hold out the scepter of mercy to him.
God does not pity sinners in consequence of any good in
them but because they are destitute. It is false then, that
God's love of benevolence does not extend to sinners only
when something good is found in them, according to the
doctrine of conditional salvation. But it is true that his
love of delight extends only to those who bear his image,
and stops, or is withdrawn, when that ceases. But our au¬
thor says, " the love of God is as unchangeable as any oth¬
er perfection of his pure nature; nor is it possible that any
18
deformity, no not the deformity occasioned by sin, can Lave
any more influence with him at one time than at another.
All our guilt and deformity is ever before him, * * and
•still such is his love that it hides all our guilty stains under
the covert of a Redeemer's righteousness, while with heart
affecting, and soul refreshing pleasure we hear him say,—
" Thou art all fair my love; there is no spot in thee." Can¬
ticles iv. 7. Now if the reader will turn to the passage
quoted, he will see that there is not the most distant allu¬
sion to a sinner, guilty and polluted, covered in a Redeem¬
er's righteousness. A more gross perversion of a text would
be hard to find; and how Mr. M. or anybody else ever con¬
ceived the idea of covering up the guilt and deformity of a
sinner in Christ's righteousness, we cannot tell. But a lit¬
tle further on our author says, speaking of the polluted
state of sinners, " Nor is it possible that God can have any
affection for them, or fellowship with them, in this situa¬
tion, more than he can with the fallen angels." Can any
living man reconcile these contradictory statements ? In
one statement God can have no fellowship with them in this
polluted state, more than with the fallen angels: and in the
other, when their guilty stains are covered with a Redeem¬
er's righteousness, God says to them, Thou art all fair,—
there is no spot in thee. They are then the objects of his
high and everlasting regard. Now as no change has taken
place in the sinner, his guilty stains are only covered up;
and as God out of Christ cannot have any regard for him
in that state, but when covered with Christ's righteousness
he is the subject of his high and everlasting regard, it fol¬
lows, then, that the atonement has made such a change in
God, that he can hold fellowship with the sinner with all
his guilt and crime upon him. Mr. M. is manifestly bewil¬
dered, or he never would have been guilty of such contra¬
diction and inconsistencies. But to us there is something
low and deceitful in the idea of covering up sin: it is a re¬
proach on the character of God. We know of no text in
the Bible that in the least favors such a notion. The Psalm¬
ist, it is true, in the 32nd Psalm, does speak of the man
14
whose sins are covered; but lie explains what he means m
that place: it is the man whose transgressions are forgiv¬
en, and in whose spirit there is no guile; and the apostle
quotes this passage in the 4th chapter of Romans, and uses
it in the same way. It is the forgiveness of sins, and te-
newing of the heart that is here spoken of, which is quite
a different affair from covering up sin in the heart.
But again our author says that out of Jesus Christ God
cannot love sinners. It follows then that all those whom
God loves were in Christ before he could love them in any
way or in any degree. This doctrine, however, is unscrip-
tural, and cannot in the nature of the case be true. Now
we are told, John iii, that God so loved the world that he
gave up his son that whomsoever believeth &c. What was
it that caused God to send his Son into the world ? Hi3 loVe.
He so loved the world. Therefore the love of God was an-
■ terior to his sending hie Son. Ill fact, to suppose that God
sent his Son to die fo* sinners without any love or regard for
them, and then loved them because his Son had died for
them, is perfectly ridiculous. It ie cleat*, therefofe, that
God so loved the world while it lay in sin and ruin as to
send his only begotten Son to die for the redemption of the
world. But that any sinner i» beloved as a child of God
and an heir of heaven, either in or out of Christ, while he
is guilty, living in sin, and is dead in trespasses and in sins,
is a doctrine that has no foundation in God's word* That
the Savior was manifested to take away our siils, not to
cover them up5 that the blood of Christ .cleanseth from all
sin j and that he shall Save his people from their sins, is
clearly taught in the word of God. See I. John i. 9, and
iii. 5 ^ Math. i. 21; II. Cor. v, 21, &c. In fact it was for this
purpose that he was manifested, that he might destroy the
works of the devil; and the Whole scheme of redemption looks
to the forgiveness of sin, &nd the renewal of man's guilty
nature. This alone can fit him for a home in heaven. Any-
thing therefore that falls short of this is worthless to him.
But Mr. M. says: "The love of God being unchangeable in
its own nature must be bo in the objects on whom it cen-
15
ters." Now if it be true, that when the love of God is once
placed on an individual he must be beloved forever, tben
the man becomes unchangeable as soon as God's love is plac¬
ed upon him, or God becomes changeable; for if God can¬
not hold fellowship with the sinner in a guilty, polluted
state, and he cannot sin after God's love is placed upon him,
either God must change or withdraw his love. He once
hated him as a sinner, but he now loves him, delights in
him as a sinner, if his love is still placed upon him; and to
argue that he ia in Christ, and must on that account be be-
loved, is to make Christ the minister of sin. He eaves peo¬
ple in sin, and not from sin. But Mr. M. supposes one to
ask u Ia there not something extremely dangerous to the
morals of mankind, and may not many take the liberty to
sin if it is once admitted that those who are once the objects
of the divine complaisance must forever continue to be so ?"
We think there is something dangerous to morals in that
doctrine. But Mr. M. has an answer, curious enough, to
this question. After writing some half a page, he comes
to this point. u In the scheme of redemption provision is
made to preserte the church of Christ pure. * * * The
spouse of the Lamb is not to be goaded to heaven by the
fears of hell, * * but the charms of his love, * * are to in¬
sure obedience." Now that in the seheme of redemption
there is provision made to preserve the purity of the church
no one denies j but how that proves that men will not com-
mit sin under the influence of the above doctrine is diffi»
cult to see. The fact is, no argument can prove it, so long
as man is a fallen creature, and in a world of sin and tempt--
ation. If you can make him believe that sin will not sep¬
arate him from the love of God, or endanger his salvation,
when temptation oomes to do that whioh is pleasing to the
flesh, he will be sure to yield. You may talk of the
charms of God's love till doom's day, but it will have no
effect in restraining him from sin so long as he believes that
sin will not separate him from the love of God. It is not
marvelous that when David cast his eye upon Uriah's beau¬
tiful wife, if he believed that God must love him forever
16
because lie loved him then, that he should yield to t &
temptation to commit adultery with her, and after to kill
Uriah and take his wife to be his own wife. And who
would not yield to such a temptation, believing it would
not endanger his salvation? You had as well undertake
to chain the boisterous ocean as to curb the evil tendency
of man's nature, under the belief of such a doctrine. What!
a man be tempted to do that which is pleasing to the flesh,
And believe it can do him no harm, and not gratify or in¬
dulge his propensity ? It is unreasonable; absolutely ab¬
surd ; contrary to all experience and all truth.
But the scriptures are plain upon this subject. " For it
had been better for them not to have known the way of
righteousness, than after they have known it to turn from
the holy commandment," &c. II Pet. ii 21; and, "If we
sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins," &c. Heb.
x. 26; see also Ez. xviii. 24, and xxxiii. 12, 13; and Matt,
xviii. 84:, 35, and John xv. 1, 2. But Mr. M. supposes that
the doctrine of conditional salvation is well calculated to
gender terror, and in illustration asks, " "What would be
the feelings of an affectionate wife, who was daily under
apprehension that by some inadvertent act she might for¬
ever forfeit the interest she had in the husband of her love?"
Now this statement represents the subject in a false light.
No one contends that God will cast off one who believes,
in him, merely for an inadvertent act. But for sin com¬
mitted and persevered in, he will cast off. No good wife,
who has a good husband, would fear that for any uninten¬
tional or inadvertent act, she would forever forfeit her hus¬
band's favor. But that therefore she should entertain no.
fears that if she forsakes her husband and takes up with
another man he will not abandon her as his wife is not true-
Mr. M's argument is therefore a sophism.
17
LETTER V.
In this letter Mr. M. professes to try the doctrine of cotlr
tlitional salvation by the standard of holiness. He says—
" Conditional salvation says that an act performed by acaf-
nal man may be and is the condition of his salvation. But
if a carnal man performs a thousand acts, whether internal
or external, they are all the acts of one who is carnal, and
the holiness of God forbids his having any communion with
a fallen creature where no provision is made to secute thei
honor of his divine law, or where a want of purity
equal to the purity of his own nature is found; and these
are the reasons why he cannot have fellowship with any
but in and through Christ. It is not for the sake of the
sinner, or anything done by him, but for Christ's sake and
it would be strange reasoning to conclude that God haTs
made provision through Christ to accept the act of a car¬
nal man, that the man may be accepted through the act as
the condition of his acceptance. This looks like making a
double condition indeed: first Christ is the condition off
which the act of the sinner is received, and then the act be¬
comes the condition on which the agent of the act itself is-
accepted!—a mystery in a mystery, that none but the ad¬
vocates of conditional salvation can understand."
We have made this lengthy quotation, to give the read¬
er the whole idea. Here again it will be seen that Mr. M.
confounds condition with merit. He seems to think there
can be no condition without frierit. In fact, this is the prom¬
inent feature in his argument. Now it does seem to us,-
that our author is either ignorant of what the advocates of
conditional salvation contend for, or he wantonly misrepre¬
sents them. The advocates of conditional salvation are'
as far from believing that any man, either saint or sinner,
can do anything of himself meritorious, as Mr. M. or any¬
body else; nor do they believe that God can be reconciled
to sinners, or sinners to God, in any other way than through
the Lord Jesus Christ; but that therefore salvation must
be unconditional, we deny; and that because an act is not
meritorious, that therefore it cannot be acceptable tor God
through Christ, we deny. That God cannot be reconciled
to sinners without provision to secure the honor of his law,-
18
we admit; but at the same time all maintain that that pro¬
vision is made in the atonement; and therefore that God
can, upon the terms himself has proposed, pardon and ac¬
cept the sinner without fixing any foul blot upon the purity
of his character. But Mr. M. supposes it would bo strange
reasoning to suppose that provision was made in Christ to
receive an act of a carnal man that the man might be sav¬
ed through the act. He calls this a double condition, " a
mystery in a mystery, that none but the advocates of con¬
ditional salvation can understand." Now we are not aware
that the advocates of conditional salvation profess any un¬
common skill in explaining mysteries; but as it is possible
that Mr. M's perception, otherwise clear, has become dark¬
ened by the fogs that hang around his subject, if he wilt
hold on a little we will try to help him out of this difficul¬
ty. Now Mr. M's. argument is, that the act of a sinner
cannot be received as the condition of salvation, from the
fact that it is unholy; that is, it is the act of one who is
carnal. But the act cannot be more unholy than the sin¬
ner who performed it: if therefore the act cannot be receiv¬
ed as the condition of salvation because of its impurity, for
the very same reason the sinner, who is equally impure,
cannot be received. Mr. M's argument, therefore, destroys
itself. He admits the sinner may be saved through Christ,
carnal as he is; but if so the act of the sinner may be re¬
ceived through Christ, as the condition of the sinner's sal¬
vation, without any stain upon the divine purity. And now
for this mystery in a mystery; and in order to present the
subject in as clear a light as possible we prefer a plain fig¬
ure. Suppose three persons, A, B and C. A. holds money;
B. is a poor man and has no horse, but needs one; C. has
„ a horse for sale, price $100: A. knows that his neighbor B.
is in want of a horse and has no means of getting one.—
Now suppose A. goes over to C's. and pays for the horser
then goes over to B's. and informs him that he has paid for
the horse, and that he can have him if he will go after him -T
and that B. goes and actually gets the horse. Here you see
A. pays for the horse, C. is satisfied, and B. gets the horse,
though he paid not a cent of the price |—he simply went
after him; that was the condition; and all he had to do
in order to receive the horse j and yet that he would not
19
bave received him if lie had Dot gone after him is plain.
Here then is a condition performed, and a benefit received
upon the performance of that condition which would not
have been received without it, and yet there is no merit in
the condition. So Jesus Christ has purchased salvation for
the sinner and tells him to ask and receive, to believe and
be saved; and though there is no merit either in faith or
prayer, jet it is plain according to the scriptures that the
sinner cannot be saved without them; and it is equally
plain that when he does call upon God in faith, that he can
hear and pardon him for Christ's sake, without injury to
his holiness or dishonor to his law.
But again, our author says, u Conditional salvation is op¬
posed to the holiness of God, because it attributes to the
acts of the fallen sinner those tempers and dispositions which
are produced by the Holy Ghost." A very novel idea, that
acts have tempers and dispositions attributed to them. But
a little farther on he says, " Gentlemen who are in the hab*
it of telling all around them that they may be converted
now, or within a week if they will use due diligence, would
do well to remember that when souls arc to be converted
it is necessary for the Holy Spirit to be near." Now here
is another error into which our author has fallen, which has
served to bewilder him and mislead his readers; that is, that
mankind in a state of nature are in the same absolutely
graceless state that they would have been in could they have
had a being if no Savior had been provided; and that
they remain in that graceless state, without light, or influ¬
ence of the Spirit until God is pleased unconditionally to
regenerate them. Now it is true Mr. M. does not teach
this doctrine just in so many words; but indirectly, by the
use of terms proper enough in themselves, but so used and
applied as to make them teach what is not true—such as
" when souls are to be converted it is necessary that the di¬
vine spirit should be near." And "conditional salvation
is opposed to the holiness of God because it attributes to the
act of a fallen sinner those tempers and dispositions that
are produced by the Holy Ghost," and other similar expres¬
sions scattered all through his letters. Now the expression
the Holy Ghost should be nigh when souls are to be con,
verted, has nothing in it objectionable in itself considered .
20
yet it is manifest Mr. M. means by it that the Spirit is sel
'dom if ever near to the sinner until he comes to convert,
;and does actually convert him; and in the ether case the
sinner is supposed to be entirely destitute of any divine in¬
fluence, and hence that an act performed by a sinner can¬
not have been superinduced by the Holy Spirit. But it is
not true that sinners are destitute of all light or divine in¬
fluence until they are converted. In fact, we may safely
assume, Mr. M. to the contrary notwithstanding, that no sin¬
ner, no rational being is destitute of all light and all spirit¬
ual influence until given over to a hard heart and a repro¬
bate mind, or his eternal destiny is fixed beyond the limits
•of probation. But let us hear the Bible upon the subject.
" That was the true light which lighteth every man that
■cometh into the world. John i. 9. And when he is come he
will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judg¬
ment, John xvi. 8. My spirit shall not always strive with
man, Gen. vi. 8. Quench not the spirit, 1 Thes. v. 19.
" How oft would I have gathered your children as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings and ye would not;
behold your house is left unto you desolate." Matt, xxiii. 37.
If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the
things which belong to thy peacer Luke, xix. 42. Ye do
always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, so do ye,
Acts vii. 51. The grace of God which bringeth salvation liath
appeared unto all men, teaching, &c., Tit. ii. xi. 12. Behold
now is the accepted time, behold now is the day of salvation.
I have called and ye refused. Walk while ye have the light.
To day if you will hear his voice harden not your hearts.
But we need not extend these quotations. The fact is, men
are born into the world under a dispensation of light, of
mercy and grace, redeemed from the guilt of original sin,
and are visited by the light and influence of the Holy Spir¬
it, who is ever nigh., ever ready to renew and save them
when they will yield to his sacred influences; and the rea¬
son sinners .are not saved is, they resist those influences, and
not because they are passed by, left out, or unconditionally
■doomed to destruction. But Mr. M. says « It (conditional
,salvation) is opposed to the holiness of God, because it
blends the performance of poor sinners with the merits of
the Lord Jesus Christ and makes the one as well as the oth-
21
er the ground of our acceptance before him, and teaches us
we can no more be saved without the one than without the
other." Mr. M. tries to keep prominently before his readers
the idea that condition and merit are about the same, and
that the advocates of conditional salvation attach about as
much consequence to their own acts, performed as a condi¬
tion, as to the merits of Christ; when in fact the very con¬
dition contended for is an entire trust in the merits of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing can therefore be more false
than this representation, and yet it must be seen that that
entire trust in the merits of Christ is necessary in order to
salvation, wherever the means of such a trust is possessed;
while that trust does not in any way merit the divine favor.
Another illustration here. Take for example, Mr. M.,
some poor man now dependent entirely on your bounty.
Now suppose you take the food necessary for him and set
it by his side, where it is fully in his reach, and invite him
to eat and live. Now it will be seen that upon the act of
eating or of refusing to eat,hangs life or death with him : if
he eats he lives, though he does not thereby merit the food
or life; but if he refuses to eat he will as certainly die as
if no provision had been made for him. But there are sev¬
eral other conditions implied in this case, all of which are
necessary. For instance, this starving man must reach out
his hand and take the food, then bring it to his mouth, open
his mouth and receive the food, masticate it and then swal¬
low it, before it can reach his stomach, where it must go
in order to nourish him. Now all this implies action: it
means doing something; and every act is a condition upon
which the other or leading condition depends; and each of
them, or something equivalent, is essential. Perhaps Mr.
M. would call this a double or triple condition; but he cer¬
tainly cannot call it a mystery in a mystery; it is too plain
a case; any one can understand it who is capable of put¬
ting two ideas together. It is strange that Mr. M. can see
nothing but merit in condition, and a blending the acts of
poor sinners with the merits of Jesus Christ, so as to rob
God of his glory and fix a foul blot upon the holiness of
his divine character. Pity he had not thought of that when
he was drawing the merits of Christ's righteousness over the
poor sinner, guilty and polluted, and representing God Al-
22
mighty as addressing him in terms of approbation and de¬
light. " Thou art all fair m y love; there is no spot in thee.'
For surely if the guilty polluted sinner may be so covered
with the righteousness of Christ as to be accepted through
him, the act itself by which the sinner tries to get to God
by the same process may be accepted as the condition of
his salvation without injury to the divine purity.
In taking our leave of this 5th letter, we remark that
our author closes almost all his letters with a devout prayer
for the present and eternal well being of the individual he
is addressing: but what he means by this prayer is difficult
to tell. He cannot believe that his prayer can have any
thing to do with the salvation of this individual, or any one
else. If it has, then salvation is conditional; but if not,
then his prayer can do no good and he acts foolishly when
he utters it'.
LETTER YI.
Mr. M. in this letter makes an effort to show that the doc¬
trine of conditional salvation is irreconcilable with the at¬
tribute of divine justice. By a little attention to his argu¬
ment we shall see how far he has succeeded. His first ar¬
gument is, that man was in a state of condemnation before
any provision was made for his salvation, and consequently
that he is not condemned for rejecting the offers of mercy
through the gospel, but for his sins committed before Christ
died. He says, '*Nor are we to conclude that men are just¬
ly condemned when they hear the gospel and reject it; but
before there ever was a Savior revealed, or a gospel heard
of." But the Savior tells us, " He that believeth not is con¬
demned already, because he hath not believed on the name
of the only begotten Son of God." Now the very reason
assigned here for the condemnation of the sinner is his un¬
belief. But Mr. M. adds, " for surely the God of love nev¬
er sent his Son into the world that he might with propriety
condemn them which believe not." No, that was not the
object. " He sent not his Son into the world to condemn
23
the world, but that the world through him might be saved."
But it follows as matter of course, that he that believeth
not is condemned already, &c. Mr. M. has certainly been
unfortunate here in his selection of a text to prove his doc¬
trine. That the text proves that God did not send his Son
into the world to condemn the world we admit, but it proves
more. The text says, " that the world (not part of the
world) might be saved." a term which can mean nothing
less than all mankind. Moreover the terms might be saved
are very significant here. They do not mean to save the
world, or any part of it, arbitrarily and unconditionally,
but to make it possible that the world might be saved. In
the next verse the argument is carried on, and if possible
made more clear and strong. "ForGod so loved the world
that he gave up his only begotten Son that whosoever be¬
lieveth on him might not perish but have eternal life. In
this text the love of God to a perishing world is declared,
and set down as the cause of his sending his Son to die for
sinners, the avowed object of which is that whosoever believ¬
eth on him might not perish but have everlasting life. The plain
meaning therefore is, that all rational men may believe on
him, have the liberty or means of believing, and that faith
is the condition upon which he who does so believe shall
not perish but have everlasting life. The doctrine taught,
then is, that salvation is made possible to all men, and pro¬
posed to all men upon the condition of faith in the Son of
God. Mr. M's. blunder here is, that he confounds the con¬
dition of mankind redeemed by Jesus Christ, with his con¬
dition when fallen, guilty and unredeemed. Now that man
in his fallen, unredeemed state, was in a state of condem¬
nation we admit; but now that he is redeemed he is in
a state of condemnation, until he contracts guilt by his own
act and thereby brings condemnation on himself, we deny.
It is true as our author says, that man was in a state of con¬
demnation before any Savior was provided, and the provis¬
ion made is the strongest evidence of the fact. But it is not
true that since redemption has been purchased they are in
the same state of condemnation that they were before. But
here our author makes another quotation fatal to his doc¬
trine : " He shall save his people from their sins," and he
comments, " that is from that sinful state in which they
24
were before he appeared for their deliverance." Now it
will be seen that Mr. M. set out with an argument to prove
that men are not condemned for rejecting the gospel, but be-
cause they were guilty before any provision was made for
them; but here he tells us that Christ appeared to save them
from that sinful state in which they were before he appear¬
ed for them. How then are they condemned now for the
guilt that attached to them before Christ appeared for them ?
Mr. M. would possibly tell you that it is His people—the
elect—that Christ saved from that sinful state in which they
were before he appeared for them: that however would
not help the case any. Our author will admit that the elect
are in a state of condemnation just as other men until they
are regenerated. Indeed he argues this strongly. The Bi¬
ble also represents them as being dead in trespasses and in
sins. Now that Christ satisfied the demands of the law for
his people will not be denied; consequently they cannot be
condemned by the law for original transgression, for that is
already satisfied. For what then are they condemned before
regeneration? Not for rejecting the gospel Mr. M. says;
and the law is satisfied. For what then are they condem¬
ned? We leave Mr. M. and his friends to solve this prob¬
lem as best they may.
But our author is contending for unconditional salvation,
and if his doctrine be true neither the rejection of the gos¬
pel nor the transgression of the law has any thing to do
with the sinner's condemnation—it is the sovereign will of
God that has doomed him. If the rejection of the gospel,
or any other sin, had any thing to do with his condemna¬
tion, then it might be averted by avoiding the sin that led
to or caused it. But then salvation would follow, and must
of course be conditional. It follows then that both salva¬
tion and damnation are conditional or both are uncondition¬
al : to contend for unconditional salvation is therefore vir¬
tually to contend for unconditional damnation, for one can¬
not exist without the other. But our author says, " The
idea that men are condemned for rejecting the offers of mer¬
cy and salvation has done great mischief, and tends greatly
to bewilder both preachers and hearers who believe it."—
How ? what mischief has it done ? has it been the means
of any one losing his soul who would otherwise have been
25
saved ? If so, then salvation is conditional. But a little
further on lie says, u but taking it for a solemn awful truth
that men are condemned justly for their sins," Stopj
good sir; not so; men condemned for sin! no sir; not if
unconditional salvation be true: for if there is condition in
damnation there is condition in salvation, as we have just
shown. But our author supposes that all admit that Christ
paid his blood a ransom for sinners; he says, " By the one
party it is contended that he died to effect some certain
purpose, and by the other that he died to make the salva*
tion of all men possible on certain terms or conditions," &c.
And pray is not dying to make the salvation of all men pos¬
sible on certain conditions as much a certain something as
dying to save one or more unconditionally is a certain some
thing? "Now it is manifest that Mr. M., by the above and
similar expressions intends to insinuate that conditional sal'
vation represents God as acting at random,without any pur¬
pose or specific object, when he sent his son to die for sin' •
ners, when in fact the advocates of conditional salvation
contend that God had a specific object in view, and that ob¬
ject was that the world through him might be saved. Mr.
M's. main argument here is founded on the atonement, allu* -
sions to which are to be found all through his letters; but
here he enters more fully into it, and therefore we have rej
served our remarks on that subject mainly for this place.
Our author assumes that it cannot possibly be true that
Christ died to make the salvation of all men possible, and
yet that all will not be saved. But let us hear him. After •
some parade about Christ paying so great a; price for an un- •
certain something, he says, " And is it worthy of his wis- .
dom after all his suffering and sorrows to leave the final
event on the precarious will of fallen worms?" And can
there be any justice in the condemnation of that soul for •
whom he shed his precious blood ? Suppose'" he continues,
" we lived under the Jewish dispensation, where if a per¬
son stole and was found guilty and had nothing to make
restitution, he was then to be sold for his t&eft; would there
be any justice after the money required to be paid as a res¬
titution had actually been paid, in selling the culprit not- -
withstanding ? " He answers, " Surely not." Not quite so ,
4
26
fast brother M.; that I suppose would depend on circum¬
stances. If he were to go and steal again there would be
as much justice in selling him in the latter case as there
would have been in the former. In fact, a sorer punishment
would be justly due him, because he had been ungrateful
to a benefactor and given evidence of a deeper corruption
by repeating the same crime.
But Mr. M. asks, " Can there be any justice in condemn¬
ing those for whom the Lord Jesus paid a full ran&om ?"—
We answer none, unless they go and commit crime again;
but if they do that, we suppose there would be as much
justice in condemning them as before, for if they turn
again to crime the same reason exists for their condemna¬
tion as before—and more, for as goodness is increased to
them obligation increases, and crime under such circum¬
stances is more aggravated, and deserves a sorer punish¬
ment. " Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye he
shall be thought worthy who hath troden under foot the
son God and hath counted the blood of the covenant where¬
with he was sanctified an unholy thing," Heb. x. 29. And
again. "If we sin willfully after that we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice
for sins," x. 26. But Mr. M. says: "He either did make
an atonement to divine justice or he did not." Very good,
" By an atonement for sin, we mean an atonement before
God himself as sin stood charged against the sinner in the
eternal mind." Again he says: "If the atonement was
complete, is it possible that it can afterwards condemn those
who have been absolved before the eternal throne of God
himself." No, the atonement condemns no one, but sin
against God by rejecting it will. " How shall we escape if
we neglect so great salvation." Heb. ii. 3 is proof full in
point. But he adds : "I must take the liberty to say that
it is before the throne of God that the business of our sal¬
vation lies." Now here our author uses a number of terms,
proper and true enough in themselves in the main, but by
which it is manifest he means more than the terms them¬
selves signify, and it is by this means that his subject is
darkened and his readers bewildered and misled. Mr. M.
uses the terms,an atonement to divine justice^ an atonement
27
before God himself, absolved before the eternal throne
<&c., by which it is manifest he means an atonement full
and complete for a part of the human family—the elect,
and that they are forever absolved before God, or in the
account of God, and this he tells us took place when he
shed his blood on Calvary. This however is a mistake.—-
Mr. M. himself will admit it on second thought. Long be¬
fore Christ suffered on the Cross, or perhaj s ere -the world
was made our author would say, it was accepted before God
for them ; if not, either there were no elect who died before
Christ suffered, or they went to heaven before any thing
was accepted there for them, or they went to hell and there
remained until Christ suffered, and*then released from their
chains in hell, have gone to heaven—but we pass that for a
mistake, as it certainly is. But the argument is that it
would be unjust in God to condemn one for whom Christ
had paid a ransom, and was thus absolved before the eter¬
nal throne; while all who are unredeemed, and they, ac¬
cording to this doctrine are the larger part of mankind, are
left in a state of condemnation to fill up their measure of
crime, die and go to destruction, without remedy or mercy,
and without the least reference to any evil in them, done
by them, or to be done bv them as a cause or reason for it,
but simply because God chose to have it so. Now that
these are the views of our author on this subject, will fur¬
ther appear from the following quotations. He says, speak¬
ing of the atonement, " And it ought to be remembered
that if it is applied it is applied in all the intrinsic dignity and
value it holds, * * * and when made over to our account brings
all the merit it holds to our eternal salvation." And again,
speaking of Mr. Wesley's views of predestination, he says :
*l What trifling is this with the Almighty ? He decrees the
salvation of men and yet they perish; he decrees the de¬
struction of men and yet they may be saved." Hence it
will be seen that our author holds that God has uncondi¬
tionally and unchangeably decreed the fate of all men; that
however as matter of course, for if salvation is uncondition¬
al all conaeeted must be so of necessity. Now if it were
possible that some of the human family could be uncondi¬
tionally redeemed and saved without injury to those who
28
are passed by, still it would be unjust to save them in that
way. 1st. Because it would deprive them of that liberty
essential to the nature of man—the liberty of choosing and
acting for himself. 2nd. Because it would destroy their
accountability: man in order to be accountable must be free.
IsTo one can be held to account upon righteous principles
who does not act from choice, or who has not the power to
do right or wrong. To reward a man. for doing what he
cannot help is unreasonable and justice does not require it.
But to punish one for doing what he cannot help is inhu¬
man, an outrage upon all justice. But if unconditional
salvation be true it is perfectly idle to talk of accountabili-
ty, probation, or any thing of that sort: a future judgment
can only be a mock trial—a hypocritical arrangement calling
up men and their deeds to make a show of passing sentence
upon them according to their deeds, when in fact their
deeds have nothing to do with their destiny—that was settled
in the sovereign counsel of God's will long before man. had
a being. But it is not possible that one portion of the hu¬
man family can be saved unconditionally without injury to
the rest. We are aware that it is argued that the Lord did
the reprobate no harm, he simply passed him by. Oftener
than once we have heard the following figure used to illus¬
trate this doctrine. Ten Beggars at your door, all in a state
of starvation and equally dependent; you take five of them
to your house and relieve them, and say to the others pass
on. Now the argument is this: no harm is done to the five
beggars whom you refused to relieve, from the fact you did
not make them beggars, and consequently were under no
obligation to them, and you did not make their condition
any worse; you simply left them as they were. Now if it
were true that you did them no harm, if you could have
relieved them all as easy as one, or half, and you would not,
knowing at the same time that they will starve unless you
relieve them, what becomes of your goodness or humanity, in
that view of the subject ? But suppose you not only refuse to
relieve, but fall on and beat to death those five; could you
still plead you had done them no harm ? Now if God had
simply passed the sinner by, and that was the end of it,
when lie could have saved him as easily as those whom he
29
'did save, it would reflect on his goodness. But that is not the-
end. He is to be called into judgment, condemned, and
-destroyed forever in hell. Ail injury will then be inflicted
lasting as eternity itself. But another figure:—suppose two-
men in the middle of a river drowning, and here is a boat
'by the use of which you can save both, and can save both
as easily as one: but purely to gratify your own pleasure
you save one and leave the other to drown. What would an
enlightened community, knowing the facts, think of your
conduct? Would you not be regarded as accessory to the
death of the lost man ? Where is the individual who would
not be ready to exclaim, Infamous, inhuman wretch ? And
in vain might you plead in extenuation that you did not
put the man in the water; or that you did him no harm by
leaving him to drown. The fact that you had it in your
power to save him without injury to yourself or others, and
would not, would be sufficient to settle forever that you are
an inhuman wretch, unfit to live. But if you had by some
arrangement of yours designedly caused this drowning man
to be in this drowning condition, and then refused to save
him, when you had it in your power to do it, the case would
be far worse—you would be a murderer. Now that God
could have saved all men upon any terms that he might
provide that would comport with his character, and main¬
tain the honor of his law as easily as one, all will admit *
and we maintain that by means of the atonement every
child of Adam that ever was or ever will be born into the
world, haft had, and will have fcheix-being. Had no Savior
been provided our first parents could have had no state of
probation ; their posterity could therefore have had no ac¬
tual conscious being. It follows then, according to the
doctrine of unconditional salvation, that God by the atone¬
ment has brought into being at least one half of the human
family in a state of sin and death, which they never could
help, and has then left them to perish in that state without
remedy, when he could have saved them all if he would;
and hence all who are lost are indebted to the atonement for
the woes of a future and endless state of suffering. Uncon¬
ditional damnation is therefore the inseparable companion
of unconditional salvation. Left out—passed by, how is the
30
sinner to escape it? What can he do ? Manifestly noth¬
ing but sin on, and go to destruction. Had he been left in
that state of non-existence in which he was when our first
parents sinned and fell, it would have been just and right:
the punishment would have been proportioned to the crime.
But to institute a scheme of redemption, that shall call into
actual conscious being the posterity of Adam, which at the
same time leaved the larger part of them without the range
of its saving power, and then to destroy them soul and body
forever in hell, is a system that turns mercy into wrath,
goodness into cruelty. Holiness is crushed by it, justice
outraged, and God himself is made the author of crime.—
In fact, it charges upon the high and holy God, crimes of
■deeper, darker dye, than men or devils ever had it in their
power to commit, and all to gratify what Calvinists are pleas¬
ed. to call his sovereign will or good pleasure. But Mr. M.
says: 11 And on the other hand if the atonement was not
full and complete, then it has left sin still standing, charged
in some degree or other in the eternal mind, to the trans¬
gressor for whom Christ shed his precious blood. If this
■can be proved it will prove that the whole human family
will finally perish." All that we are willing to admit, and
surely he could scarcely have made a statement more fatal
to his views. For if this sentiment be true it follows that
all men aie redeemed or none are; all may be saved or
none can be saved. Indeed, we cannot see liow it can be
otherwise in the nature of the case. All had sinned alike,
not in their own persons, but in their father in whose loins
they were. By one act, in violation of the same law, the
same condemnation, to the same extent, by the same means,
rested upon all. The same law was violated and held its
claims equal upon all, Justice demanded equal satisfaction
from all. Now then so long as any part of the claims of
law or justice are unmet by the atonement, so long it is
impossible for one of Adam's race to be saved; for that
part which is unmet must hold its claims equal upon all.—
But if the atonement is full and complete, the whole de¬
mands of law and justice are met; there can then be no de'
mand against any; all, therefore, are as certainly redeemed
as that any of Adam's race are. But the holy scriptures
3 1
are clear and full upon this point; a few quotations may be
proper here. " For this is good and acceptable in the sight
of God our Savior who will have all men to be saved and
come to the knowledge of the truth, * * who gave himself
a ransom for all to be testified in due time." 1. Tim.ii. 4—6,
" And he is the propitiator for our sins, and not for ours on¬
ly, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1. John, ii. 2.—
u God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." 2
Cor., v. 19. " Therefore as by the offense of one judgment
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the right¬
eousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justi¬
fication of life," Rom. v. 18. Nothing can therefore be
more plain than that all men are redeemed; and it follows-
if unconditional salvation be true, that all must finally be
saved, and so universal salvation will turn out to be true.
But before we pass away from this part of the subject it is-
proper to state, that the atonement was not made condition¬
ally, as Mr. M. seems to insinuate, according to conditional!
salvation. Man could perform no conditions in that case,
nor wad any required. The subject of the atonement was
to make it possible for men to be saved: so the Savior says,
"I am come that they might have life." But what was nec¬
essary to make it possible for men to be saved? We an¬
swer. It was necessary that he should be fully redeemed
from the curse of the law, and that the guilt of original
sin be removed: just what we have shown was done for
him in the atonement.
But 2nd, it was necessary that his nature be purified, and
this can be effected only by an application of the merits of
Christ's death, and for this purpose the Holy Ghost is sent
into the world to apply that merit to the believing heart;
but having noticed this at some length in another place we
will not enlarge here. But our author lays great stress on
the possibility that few or none of the human family may
be saved if salvation is conditional. He speaks of it as
an uncertain something, a mysterious something, and of¬
ten inquiries whether or not it comports with the wisdom
and other perfections of the divine being, to leave the final
result of all his sufferings to the will of fallen creatures ?—
In almost every letter he harps upon it; like a chorus to a
82
song, it must have a place in every verse. Now in addition1
to what we have said on this subject in another place, we*
remark here. We know of no reason why as many or more
of the human family will not be saved when salvation :V
proposed to them upon conditions, as would be upon Mr.
M.'s scheme of saving part unconditionally and leaving the
rest to perish in sin ; but if not one capable of making a
choice would be saved if left to them, it would be their own
fault,—the throne of God would be clear. But if uncondi¬
tional salvation be true, every soul that is lost is lost of ne¬
cessity'—he could not help it: but it would be a violation
of every principle of justice and goodness to send a soul to
destruction for what he cannot help. We maintain there¬
fore that if a single soul was sent to hell upon this principle,
it would be impossible for God to maintain the honor of his
throne or the purity of his divine character: the doctrine'
cannot therefore be true. But our author asks, " Can there
be any justice if Christ has shed his blood for sin, to par¬
don sin through any other medium ? He answers (5th) sure¬
ly not." And we respond, Surety ne>t! But again he says,
" I know that sin is represented in the sacred scriptures as
being pardoned on repentance," * * but this he says " Bre-
lates to the manifestation of pardon and not to pardon in as
proper sense." But who is right upon* this subject, Mr. M.
or the Bible, we leave the reader to judge. But in proof olT
his position he says, "Compunctious sensations cannot pos¬
sibly atone for a breach of law." No one denies that, but
that therefore repentance is not necessary in order to for¬
giveness is not true. But again our author says, " Faith
■never directs them to look on either faith of repentance as
the ground or condition of pardon and salvation, but always
leads them to the divine atonement," &c. There is some^
difficulty in determining precisely what Mr. M. means by the
terms he uses here. Faith is belief, and that belief or faith
should teach us to look on faith as the ground or condition &c.,,
is indeed a novel mode of expression which tends to mystify
the subject. But he has admitted that the scriptures teach,
that sins are forgiven on repentance and that ought to set¬
tle this question. But again our author says: «If the di¬
vine atonement was full and complete, where is the justice
33
of receiving a full price for any article sold and the article
bona-fide purchased being still in uncertainty as to the final
possession?" Now the scriptures teach that you are not
your own,you are bought with a price; therefore glorify God
in your body and spirits which are his." But suppose you
do not glorify God &c., what then? Your servant is not
bis own, he too is bought with a price, therefore you expect
him to serve and obey you. But suppose he does not do that,
but habitually disobeys you, lies and steals; what is to be
done in such a case? Possibly you would first try good
words, but if that failed you would try correction, and if all
failed, you would think it beyond endurance and would be
for getting clear of him on some terms. Nor would you
ever think you had violated any principle of justice, wis¬
dom or goodness in doing so; and so the sinner who is bought
with a price and fails to glorify God &c., must be cast off
and destroyed forever; his salvation then is conditional, be¬
cause he is required to glorify God in order to secure it.—
Our author introduces the divine prescience as an argument
against conditional salvation, and as he has in another place
■devoted a letter exclusively to this subject, it will be prop¬
er, in order to prevent confusion, to consider that letter in
connection with his remarks here. He says: "That the
divine prescience extends to all events in time and eternity
we readily admit", and the Lord Jesus comprehends the num¬
ber of his saints, but at the same time that he as fully com¬
prehends those who will not believe; and how it is possible
that he should make any thing the condition of the salva¬
tion of that man who he knows never will be saved is hard
to understand." Now that nothing can be the condition of
the salvation of that man who never will be saved we ad¬
mit, but that therefore he never could have been saved we
•deny; and that nothing would then have been the condition
of his salvation is equally untrue: nor can we admit that
Ood cannot know with as much certainty that a man will
not be saved when salvation is proposed to him upon con¬
ditions, as he could do if he had decreed absolutely that he
should not be saved. But our author quotes Mr. Wesley,
" That God has presdestinated all obedient believers to eter¬
nal life according to his foreknowledge, and that he has pre¬
destinated all disobedient unbelievers to damnation accord-
5
S 4
ang to his foreknowledge." He asks, "can then the doctrine of
■universal conditional salvation be true." And he adds,
" What trifling is this with the Almighty ? He decrees the
salvation of men and thej perish. He decrees the destruc¬
tion of men and still they may be saved." Nay rath¬
er what sophistry in Mr. M.'s argument! What I an
-obedient believer perish? never, so long as he is such, and
these are they whom Mr. Wesley says God has decreed to-
save; nor caq a disobedient unbeliever ever be saved while
he is such. It was the character, in other words, the good
man, that God predestinated to life, and the bad man to
death. Nor did the foreknowledge of God have any thing
to do m causing or producing the good or evil, or the final
end to which either leads; nor is it any the less certain be¬
cause it depends on conditions in either case, than if God
had by some fatal, unchangeable decree fixed it all. That
God knows with absolute certainty the future actions and
end of man we admit, but that his knowledge causes either
the actions or end we deny. The fact is the doctrine that
God must unconditionally decree that men shall act in a
certain way and come to a eertain end, or that his foreknowl¬
edge causes the action or end, or creates any absolute neces¬
sity for either in order that he may know them, makes him
the author of all evil, and destroys his omniscience. Now
that God is the author of that which he has unchangeably
decreed no one in his sober senses will deny; if therefore
he has decreed all things in order to know them, then he is
the author of all things, the evil as well as the good. But
how God can absolutely know what a man will do and to
what end he will come without decreeing or causing it in
some way, so that it cannot be otherwise, is what puzzles
some people. We are too apt to measure the wisdom of
God by the standard of human wisdom. Alan cannot know
certainly that a future action or event will come to pass, with¬
out decreeing or determining in some way to bring it to pass,
and even then he jnay not have the power to control circum¬
stances so as that it shall certainly come to pass; so that it be¬
comes a matter of power with him rather than wisdom. Now
if God cannot know without decreeing or causing the thing
known to eorrie to pass, then it is matter of power rather
than wisdom with him j and hence the chief difference be-
35
tween God and mail upon this subject is in power, not ill
wisdom, for if man had the power to control all things he
could know as much as God.
But omniscience is shut up to no such decrees; it can
know without them. Let me illustrate: suppose your neigh¬
bor has committed murder and has been hanged. You saw
him commit the murder, and yoli saw him executed; you
know therefore with absolute certainty that he did the deedy
and was hanged for it, and yet your knowledge had, noth¬
ing to do in causing one or the other. He might have act¬
ed otherwise, and ought to have done so. There was na
fatal necessity imposed on him. If there had been, either
by God of man, no just law could punish him for the deed;
but it was upon the principle that he took the life of his fel¬
low of choice that he was executed. Now if God can know
the future actions and end of men with as much certainty
as you know the conduct and end of this murderer, while
they act of choice apd might do otherwise, then he is om¬
niscient. But if he cannot know certainly without decree¬
ing, or causing the thing known to come to pass, he is not
omniscient; his knowledge is limited. Hence it is manifest
that God is the author of all evil and limited m knowledge,
or Mr. M.'s argument is a sophism, and his doctrine of un¬
conditional salvation is false. But our author says: "The
doctrine of conditional salvation, while it supposes that the
final end of all things is not within the divine prescience, op¬
erates to the final destruction of that religious respect that
the Lord claims as his sovereign prerogative." Nothing
can be more false. Conditional salvation acknowledges all
things within the range of the divine prescience. In fact, it
is the only doctrine that does pay due respect to that de-
vine attribute. It is certainly greater wisdom to be able toe
follow one through the changes of life, and to know cer¬
tainly what course he will take who acts of choice, and
who njay do right or wrong as he may choose, than it
would be to know what one would do who is compelled to
act just as he who knows his acts shall choose, or decree he
should act. And we cannot see but that there is as much
religious respect paid to God, by that system of doctrine
which allows him, in the exercise of his divine sovereignty,
to provide salvation for all men, and to propose it to theoa
36
upon proper conditions, such, as himself shall choose, as
there is by that system which saves a part of the human
family unconditionally, and destroys the rest soul and body
forever in hell, lor no other reason than to show his sover¬
eign power, and to gratify a mere freak of pleasure. Some
Caivinists seem to have no higher idea of the divine sover¬
eignty than mere prerogative, and therefore that whatever is
within the limits of the divine prerogative is right. But it
should be remembered that prerogative is one thing and right¬
eousness is another. Illustration,—it is my prerogative to
govern my servant, to regulate his food, raiment and labor, ♦
both as, to quality and quantity. I may if I choose deny him
the neeessary food and clothing, and require him to labor
half naked and half starved, or I may require of him labor
which he cannot perform, and correct him when he fails to
do it. Or I may punish him just to amuse myself, because
he belongs to me and I have power over him. But who
does not see that it would be wrong to exercise my prerog¬
ative in such a way ? Where is the man, knowing the facts
in such a case, but would be ready to exclaim, cruel ty¬
rant! hardhearted wretch! Now God could, acting" upon
mere prerogative, send the holiest man that ever lived, or
the brightest seraph that burns around the eternal throne,
to destruction, without a fault; because they are his crea¬
tures and it is his prerogative to do as he pleases. But it
would be' no more right for him to do so, than it would be
for you to punish your servant without a fault, because you
have the power to do it. We have known boys who were
cruel enough to torture little helpless animals for mere
amusement, or to please themselves; but that God, who is
very goodness, should be cruel enough to torture immortal
spirits forever in hell, to show his power and please him¬
self, is shocking beyond description. God does not exer¬
cise his divine sovereignty in that way. Nor is it true that
what he does is right from the bare fact that he does it. But
what God does is right in itself, and he does it because it is
right. But again, our author asks, " Why should we pray
unless we believe he knows our wants; and why fly to him
in the hour of danger? " Very good. But v ho does not
believe he knows our wants? But rather we would asks,
Why pray to him at all if unconditional salvation be true?
37
What good 'can be accomplished by it ? If prayer can do
*ny good, so far as salvation ia concerned, then salvation is
conditional. But if prayer has nothing to do with salva¬
tion, then there is no use in it. But what is the danger of
which Mr. M. speaks? Surely not one of the elect will be
lost! or a reprobate saved! Such expressions are perfect¬
ly idle and unmeaning, if the doctrine of unconditional sal¬
vation be true.
LETTER VII.
In this letter there are only a few things worthy of no¬
tice, as the arguments are in substance the same with those
we have already examined. Here our author considers
■conditional salvation in reference to the truth of God, and
mainly in regard to his promises. These he tells us are all
through the Lord Jesus Christ, (what no one denies,) but
he adds, "Our subject is illustrated by this mode of ex¬
plaining the promises of God, as it goes to prove that the
promises taken in this point of view assume the nature of
a covenant between the Father and the Son. * * * The Son
condescends to offer himself a substitute for guilty men and
worms, and the Father agrees to accept him and his sa¬
crifice for their complete ransom." But how the fact that
promises of God to sinners are all through the Lord Jesus-
Christ, proves a covenant between the Father and the Son,
or takes the nature of such a covenant, we cannot see. But
Mr. M. quotes, " Sacrifice, and offerings thou wouldst not.
Then said I, Lo, I come," &c. And the Father says of
poor sinneTs, Let him or them go, for I have found a ran¬
som." But really that the Son of God should come into
the world and die for sinners, and that the Father should
accept the sacrifice for sinners proves a covenant between
the Father and the Son, is what we should never have
thought of. Now the Bibl? speaks of a covenant with No¬
ah, with Abraham, with David, his chosen, with his peo¬
ple ; also of a new covenant, and an old covenant, an ev-
3 8
erlasting covenant, &c. but not a of a covenant be¬
tween the Father and the Son. Nor is that the only diffi¬
culty that this doctrine presents. It represents the Father
and the Son as two parties, having different interest, bar¬
gaining with each other, while it leaves out the Holy Ghostr
who of course either has no interest, or his interest is dis¬
regarded. In another letter Mr. M. speaks of a covenant be¬
tween the Father and the Holy Ghost, and there the Son is
left out—a novel idea, which however has about as much
foundation in the word of God or in the truth, as the other.
Now upon this unScriptural dogma our author's arguments,
in this letter are mainly founded, to some of which we de¬
vote a brief notice.
Our author supposes that mai? could not be required to per¬
form any condition without being a party to this covenant,,
and that he could not be a party because he was not born
and was not present at the time. Now when our author is>
a little pressed for argument, he contends that all creatures
and their deeds, are present with the Almighty at all times.
This with him is a kind of sovereign argument: it answers
all arguments. But in this case it does not suit his purpose
so well; he has therefore found a time when man was not
born, and consequently could not be present with the Al¬
mighty. The whole argument, however, is based on the
false assumption that condition and merit are inseparable.
But again, speaking of the satisfaction given to the law by
Jesu^ Christ, our author says: "I never heard or read of
any thing but sin, that exposes men to wrath." But how
sin exposes men to wrath, if Mr. M/s doctrine be true, is
hard to tell. No, Sir, your letters find another cause for a
revelation of wrath to sinners: it is the sovereign will of
God. We are not to be deluded with the notion that sin
exposes the sinner to wrath, when God has unconditionally
appointed him to wrath long before he was born. Finally,
our author says, " Conditional salvation transfers the prom¬
ises of God, which have been shown all to be made to the
Lord Jesus Christ, to poor sinners directly." Now the doc¬
trine of our author in this place seems to be this : the prom¬
ises of God cannot be made to man directly, but that part
of mankind for whom Christ died—the elect—are in Christ,
and that the promises intended for them are made to Jesus:
39
Christ, and as for the rest they have no promises—their lot
is destruction. That the promises of God, whether made
to saint or sinner, are all through Christ, is admitted; but
that they are made to Christ, and not through him directly
to men, is both absurd and unscriptural: absurd beeause
it is promising to one what belongs to another, or it makes
Christ and the sinner identical: linscriptural, because it is
contrary to the plainest teachings of God's word. If the
reader will turn to our Lord's sermon on the mount, con¬
tained in the fifth and two succeeding chapters of the Gos¬
pel by Mathew,he will find quite a number of promises made
to different characters by the Savior himself, such as " Bles¬
sed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.'1 " Blessed
are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness for they
§hall be filled:" Now that the characters here spoken of
are identical with the Lord Jesus himself, or that he made
all the promises contained in his sermdn on the mount and
elsewhere in the Bible to himself, we think is an absurdity
approaching very nearly to the ridiculous. The promises
of God through Christ are all to certain characters, and not
to individuals irrespective of character. When they relate
to salvation the scriptures are plain upon this subject. " Ask
and it shall be given you ; seek and ye shall find; knock
and it shall be opened unto yovi." " )Let the wicked forsake
his ways and the unrighteous man hi& thoughts, and let him
return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon himr
and to our God for he will abundantly pardon." And again
" He that shall endure to the end the same shall be saved."
"Be thou faithful until death and X will give thee a crown
of life," &c. Hence it appears that it is the man that asks,
seeks, or that forsakes his ways, $c., that is to find mercy
and pardon, and he that is faithful till death is to receive
the crown of life. Now that these promises are as immuta¬
ble as God himself we admit: heaven and earth may pass
away, but God's word shall not fail: and while the truth
of God remains it cannot be that one who seeks as his word
directs shall fail to find mercy, or that one who is faithful till
death shall miss the crown of life. But it should be remem¬
bered that the warnings and thrcatenings of God, and in fact
.every thing taught in the Holy Scriptures, are equally and
unchangeably true. Consequently when the Scriptures tell
40
us if any man draw back my soul shall have no pleasure iff
him: If ye forsake me I 4rill forsake you, and ye shall
know my breach of promise; and he that committeth sin
is of the Devil! The soul that sinneth it shall die; we
should be equally assured that the heavens and the earth
may pass away sooner than one such sinner or backslider,
continuing in that state, shall find mercy, or get to heaven.
And it is this unchangeableness in God and his word that
fixes the destiny of mankind according to character. But
if the promises and threatenings of God to mankind are ac¬
cording to character, then salvation and damnation are both
conditional.
LETTEE VIII.
In this letter our author tries the doctrine of conditional
salvation by the mercy of God. He says: " Universal con¬
ditional salvation turns the mercy of God from the channel
of its own bounty to something done by, or seen in the
creature, as the condition on which it flows to the supply
of his wants; and consequently dries up all the channels
of his own bounty, and turns mercy into justice." Mr. M.
tries to keep prominently before his readers the idea that the
advocates of conditional salvation expect to merit the divine
favor by the conditions they perform; and consequently
that Christ and the atonement are set aside. In addition to
what we have said elsewhere in answer to this argument,
we will here introduce another illustration. Suppose a man
■sick and likely to die, and that his physician tells him he
must take medicine and follow his directions closely or he
will certainly die. Suppose also that the doctor promises
to administer to him free of cost. Now suppose the sick
•man takes the medicine and carefully follows out the doc¬
tor s directions and recovers* Wou'id he, or the doctcr, or
•any one else, suppose that he had thereby merited the med¬
icine, or the physician's attention, or the cure ? We think
<not. Every one would regard it as an act of unmerited
kindness, freely bestowed on the sufferer: and yet the mao
41
must as certainly have died if lie had not have taken th$
medicine, as if there had Leon neither physician nor medi*
cine in the land. Here, then, is a condition upon which
life depended, and yet no merit in it. But according to Mr.
M.'s doctrine, the sick man must not consent to take the
medicine; if lie does he dries up the channels of the doc¬
tor's mercy, and merits the cure. Nay, verily, if he would
show due respect for the doctor's mercy, or if the doctor
would make the most glorious display of his kindness, lie
must pour the medicine into the sick man. If it was left
to him to decide whether he would take the tnedicine or
not, it would thwart the whole design and turn mercy into
justice. But Mr. M. proceeds: he says, "Let us for a mo*
ment suppose that repentance and faith are certainly the
conditions on which the mercy of God towards sinners
rests, and that it cannot be extended to their salvation
where these are wanting; is there a man or woman on
earth who can certainly say that they are possessed of these
blessings ? " In answer to this we would ask another ques¬
tion. Is there a man or woman on earth who can certain¬
ly know that his sins are forgiven, and that he or she is in
a state of acceptance with God? If not, then God has left
man to grope his way in the dark, without knowing wheth*
er the next step may not land his soul in hell. Perhaps
Mr. M. would not demur to this sentiment, for I believe it
is held by some Calvinists, that the best evidence of a gra¬
cious state is to be in doubt of it; that is, that uncertainty
is the best evidence of certainty. But if man may know
that he is accepted of God, and any one does know it, then
he knows that his repentance and faith in Christ are accept¬
ed. Now Mr. M will not deny that repentance and faith
are required ii^ the Bible. But if without faith it is im¬
possible to please God, and without repentance there is no
remission of sins, then they are conditions of salvation to
the sinnef. Our author admits the necessity of these gra¬
ces, but denies that they are conditions of salvation. He
says they belong exclusively to the gracious state; and de¬
nies that any man can have them until he is regenerated..
But when a'man is regenerated his sins are forgiven. What
then has he to repent for? The notion that men cannot re¬
pent until their sins are forgiven, and that they are then re-
42
quired to repent, is not only nnscriptnral, but a contradic¬
tion in terms too absurd to deserve a serious notice.
Again, if faith is not a condition, then the gospel is un¬
necessary ; for the great end of the gospel is, that men may
hear and believe its truths that they may be saved. Faith
cometh by hearing, and the gospel is the power of God un¬
to salvation to every one that believeth. Hence if salva¬
tion depends in no way on faith, the gospel is worthless,,
and St. Paul -uttered an untruth when he said the gospel is1
the power of God; an 1 the Savior committed a blunder
equally bad when he said, "He that believeth and is bap¬
tized shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be damn¬
ed." But again, our author holds that though repentance
and faith are not conditions of salvation, yet tbey are necessa¬
ry for Christians. But necessary for what ? Not for sal vationr
but for something else. Perhaps he means that they follow
as a necessary consequence upon conversion. That is, first
the man rs converted of necessity, and being converted be
repents and believes of necessity, all of which is true if
salvation is unconditional. Mr. M. quotes the text where
our Lord speaks of those who would say to him in the day
of judgment, we have eaten and drunk in thy presence,. &c.
and who will be rejected, he supposes, on the ground that
they depended on these things as the condition of their sal¬
vation. He should have said merit of their salvation, for
that is manifestly what he means; or ratberr he confounds,
condition with merit. This, however, is in keeping with
his general drift. But suppose they did depend improperly
upon these things. Is that any reason why others should!
not be in the church, and eat and drink in the presence of
God ? And because some one has fed the hungry and cloth¬
ed the naked, read the Bible, went to church, &c. and trust¬
ed to these things for salvation, are others tlf&refore to neg¬
lect these duties ? But after all, if Mr. M. is right this was
not the cause of their rejection—tbey were left out, passed
by in the economy of God's saving mercy, and therefor©
could not be saved on auy terms, trust to what they would.
That is the true reason of their rejection. But our author
adds, " We never hear of any within the lids of the sacred
volume that trusted in the sovereign mercy of God through
the Lord Jesus Christ, that were ever rejected; and for
43
this good reason, I have said mercy shall be built up forever."
And we will add, for this other very good reason: he or
she trusted alone in the Lord Jesus Christ, the very condi¬
tion the Bible requires, and without which we 6annot be
saved.
LETTER X.
In this letter our author makes an attempt to array the
purposes of God against the doctrine of conditional salva¬
tion. He sayst " By the purposes of God we understand
the pleasure of his will in the works of nature, providence
and grace, with the final end of all his works." Now what
•our author means by the pleasure of his will in the works
of nature, &c. is a little difficult to determine. The terms
he uses seem to mean, that God proposed or willed to please
his own will in the works of nature, &c. The doctrine,
however, is this: God purposed that all his works, wheth¬
er of nature, providence or grace, should tend to the accom¬
plishment of one great end; and that end is the uncondi¬
tional salvation of a part of the human family, and the un¬
conditional damnation of the rest; or, wjiich is the same
thing, that they should be left out of the covenant of re¬
demption, in which state they must of necessity be damn¬
ed. But our author considers the purposes of God in refe¬
rence to the manifestations of his grace. He quotes 2 Tim.
i. 9. u Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling,
not according to our works, [or certain conditions fulfilled
by us] but according to his own purpose and grace, which
was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." And
he comments: " Here the apostle takes notice of the pur¬
pose of God as concerned in tbe salvation of sinners. This
purpose must in the nature of things either depend on the
sovereign will of God, and so remain firm and unshaken,
or it must depend for the accomplishment of the design pro¬
posed on the will of frail creatures, fallen and depraved:
and then of consequence it must be quite uncertain and
44
xtoubtful. But we have shown already that with God noth¬
ing can be contingent; all events, in time and eternity are
with him as infallible as his own eternity, and as certain as-
the glories essential to his divine character. And whether ^
you suppose that his divine purposes depend on some fore¬
seen good thing which secures the salvation of one manr
while the want of those good things leaves others to perish,,
or whether you suppose the sovereign pleasure of God makes-
the distinction, it is quite the same as respects the certainty
of the thing proposed, [that is the salvation or damnation
of men] and stands equally opposed to the doctrine of uni¬
versal conditional salvation." Now that it is certain with
God as to who will be saved or lost we admit, but how con¬
ditional and unconditional salvation can.both alike be op¬
posed to conditional salvation we cannot tell; in fact it is
contradiction too plain not to be'seen. But that is not the
only contradiction found in this letter. The reader will
see a little above in this same quotation, that upon the sup¬
position that the purpose of God in the salvation of men
depends in any way upon the will of man, our author saysr
"It must be uncertain and doubtful;" and that he means
uncertain with God himself is plain from what immediate¬
ly follows: " But we have already shown that with God
there can be nothing contingent," &c. And again a little
further on her says, speaking of conditional salvation, uIt
represents God as acting without any purpose in the salva¬
tion of sinners • " and he adds, «It must remain even with
God himself uncertain whether one soul of the human fam¬
ily will ever get to glory." And the reader will remember
that Mr. M. often calls it that uncertain something, and the
like, representing it as quite uncertain whether one soul will
be saved if conditional salvation be true. But here he says
'" whether we suppose God's purpose in saving sinners (for it
is of that he is speaking) depends on some foreseen good
thing which secures the salvation of one man and leaves
others to perish for want of those good things, or whether
we suppose the sovereign pleasure of God makes the dis¬
tinction, it is quite the same as respects the certainty." And
again, "For while some are accepted under the condition
of some foreseen good qualities, the others are as fully re¬
jected for want of that which gave the preference to those
45
who staod on saving ground; and as the divine prescience
cannot be deceived the number of those who shall be saved,,
and the number of those who shall finally perish, are quite
as certain as if fixed by the most immutable decree that ev¬
er proceeded from the eternal throne." What then becomes
of all Mr. M's. arguments founded on the uncertainty which
•conditional salvation presents? Thus it will be seen that
our author has himself overturned one of the strongest ar¬
guments he has produced against conditional salvation. He
is like a man contending in battle who is unskilled in the
use of the implements he uses, and at every attack on the
enemy he is wounding himself. But again our author says
" Nor will it help the matter to say those who are rejected
might have had the acceptable qualifications if they would
have sought attentively, since it was foreseen they never
would seek, or have the things necessary for their salvation,
and according to Mr. Wesley 'are predestined to eternal
damnation according to the foreknowledge of God, for their
disobedience and unbelief;' and it will be very difficult, if
npt impossible to prove that God has or can make that or
this the condition of any thing coming to pass that his di¬
vine prescience has seen never will take place." Now this
argument is founded on a false assumption; that is, that
God cannot know a future event without causing it, for if
God can know that a future occurrence will come to pass
without creating a necessity,or causing the thing to come to
pass, then He may know that a sinner will go to destruction,
and that a Christian will go to heaven, without causing ei¬
ther unconditionally. Now we assume that God can know
without causing the thing known to come pass. If he can¬
not, either he did not know that the evils that do and will
exist would exist, or he caused them. But he did not cause
them, for they are contrary to his law, to his will, and to
his nature ; and yet it is admitted that he knew them all.
It follows, therefore, that Mr. M's argument in this place is
unfounded. But our author thinks it will be very difficult
to prove that God can make anything the condition of anoth¬
er thing coming to pass when he sees that thing never will
come to pass.
And who ever contended for such a thing? It will be
remembered, however, that there is some difference between
46
a condition upon which a man has a thing, and a condition®
upon which he might have it. In the one case he performs-
the condition, and has the thing: in the other h'e might per¬
form the condition but does not, and therefore does not
receive the thing proposed. A simple figure may illus¬
trate this. Suppose then you say to two of your neigh¬
bors come to my house at a certain time and you shall
enjoy a feast. Now the coming to your house at the time
appointed is the condition upon which each of those per¬
sons may enjoy the feast; yet it is not the condition up¬
on which either of them have enjoyed it. But suppose one
of them comes at the time and actually enjoys the feast;
then his coming is the condition on which he enjoys it;
but the other does not come, and is therefore without the
enjoyment promised. Nothing is the condition upon which
lie has this benefit, for he has it not; yet it is true, and
will forever remain true, that he might have come to your
house and enjoyed the feast, and then it would have bee®
■the condition upon which he would have enjoyed the feast..
We deny, therefore, that it will not help this business to*
say that the sinner who is cast off might have had the need¬
ed qualification. If he might have had it and would not
it is his own fault, and his condemnation) is just. But if he-
could be saved in no way, upon no terms,, then bis destruc¬
tion is unjust; for it cannot be that one can be punished,
upon any principle of justice or goodne&s, for what he can¬
not avoid. While, therefore, there lingers about the eter¬
nal throne a single fragment of justice or goodness, it is>
and will forever be impossible for one soul to be uncondi¬
tionally destroyed.
LETTER XI.
Mr. M. in this letter tries the doctrine of conditional sal¬
vation by the scriptures of truth. A good standard, be¬
yond doubt. He sets out by assuming that the Holy Scrip¬
tures are composed of two great leading principles—the
aw and the gospel; and these two great Leading, principles^.
47
*he says, "can never he brought together so as to incorporate
the one with the other.*' The reader will remember that
•our author makes about the same statement in his first let¬
ter, and that we have noticed what he has said there in our
remarks upon that letter* We need therefore add nothing
here, only to notice a contradiction which occurs in his
statement here. In connection with what we have just
quoted, our author says: It is acknowledged that the Scrip¬
tures cannot contradict themselves; but that they harmon¬
ize and agfee uniformly, without the least jar or confusion.""
Now how it can be that the Holy Scriptures harmonize so
•compel ely and uniformly as that there is not the least jar
or confusion, and yet that the two great cardinal features
of which they are composed, are so unlike, so dissimilar,
that they never can incorporate in any degree, is a mystery
which we leave for Mr. M. to exp'ain if he can. But he
says: " By the law we conclude that every binding princi¬
ple is established, and by the gospel the purpose of God in
the salvation of sinners is expressed ; nor docs the gospel
bring any binding principle with it when abstractly and
singly considered. It is true it sometimes points out the
manner in which duty ought to be performed; but all ob¬
ligations to the performance of duty grows out of the law."
According to Mr. M. the gospel requires nothing, imposes
no duty, brings no obligation; the law alone has binding
power. Now to this view we oppose a few plain texts of
scripture. The Savior says, Luke xiii. 5, " Except ye repent
ye shall all likewise perish." Here repentance is taught,
and perishing is declared to be the inevitable consequence
of neglect. Again, " If ye believe not that I am he, ye
shall die in your sins," John viii. 24; and again, Mark xvi.
16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he
that believeth not shall be damned." In both these texts
faith is taught and required under pain of dying in sin, and
of damnation. Now, have these texts no binding quality ?
Are they not gospel precepts—but texts teaching law prin¬
ciples? If so Christ was a preacher of the law and does
not belong to Mr. M's. school. But again St. Paul says,
<ial. vi. 8, "He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh
reap corruption; but he that soweth to the spirit, shall of
the spirit reap life everlasting." And again> Bom. viii. 13,
48
<« If ye live after the flesh ye shall die, but if ye through
the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye sha 1 live,
and again in the second chapter of the same epistle, 7—9,
" To them who by patient continuance in. well-doing seek
for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal lifej but un¬
to them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but
obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation
and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of
the Jew fifst and also of the Gentile." But we need not
multiply quotations j the New Testament Scriptures abound
with similar passages, requiring xhat we abandon sin and
perform religious duties under sanctions involving conse¬
quences no less serious and weighty than the final happi¬
ness or destruction of the immortal soul. Pity Mr. M. had'
not lived in the Apostle's day; then he might have taught
him the way of the Lord more perfectly. But what does
our author mean by considering the gospel abstractly, or
separate from th^e law ? We cannot see how that is to be'
done. The gospel is a proclamation of redemption pur¬
chased -by, and offered through the Lord Jesus Christ to a
perishing world : 1st In removing the guilt of original sin,
2nd In providing for the removal of the depravity and im¬
purities of man's nature entailed on him by the fall: 3rd
by providing for the forgiveness of actual sins, and there
fore it contemplates man as a transgressor of God's law in
a state of sin and condemnation, from which it was impossi¬
ble for him to extricate himself. Whether, therefore, we'
contemplate the gospel as proclaiming deliverance from1
original guilt, or proposing a remedy for the depravity of
man's nature, or providing for tbe forgiveness of sins, or
view it in all these aspects at the same time, it is all to se¬
cure the honor of G od's law | to maintain the purity of
the divine government, and make it possible for God to
forgive and save the sinjaer. How, then, the gospel is to
be considered singly and wholly separate from the law we
cannot see. If the law had not been transgressed there
would have been no redemption, for none would have been
needed. But the law being transgressed and a remedy pro¬
vided, that remedy must always be considered in connection
'with that law the demands of which it was intended to meet;
•and hence the gospel which publishes that provision must
-49
ptiblish it in reference to that fact. Again, our author says,
" the gospel, in some instances, points out the manner of
duty:; but the law gives it the-binding influence it holds."
Here he admits that the gospel has binding influence in
some cases; but he says that that binding influence comes
from the law. But in. all such cases there must be an insep¬
arable connection between the law and the gospel; the very
thing our author is battling against, so that his own admis¬
sion destroys his argument.
Again, Mr. M. says, u And should we suppose that the
gospel brings any obligation with it that was unknown to
the la>v,and the violation of that obligation will involve us in
guilt, then we must certainly perish, for there is nothing in
the Sacred Scriptures to justify our concluding that Christ
died for sins committed against the gospel, which grows out
of his dying love." Now that the law js not repealed, de¬
stroyed,or made void by the gospel,or by any gospel precept
is certain. See Rom. iii. 31, and Matt. v. 17. But that the
gospel does not bring obligations unknown to the law, or that
"when guilt is contracted by violating those obligations there
is no provision in the atonement to remove it, is not true.
That the relation man sustains to God under the economy
of his saving grace is different in some important particu¬
lars from what it was originally cannot be denied. When
man came from the hands of his Creator he was holy and
happy; he was placed under a law which was suited to his
nature and adapted to his capacity—a law which he might
have kept, and in so doing would have continued to be ho¬
ly and happy. But he did not keep God's law, he sinned
and fell; and now that he has been redeemed by Jesus
Christ, he sustains the relation of a redeemed sinner; he b
placed under a dispensation of mercy. This new relation
brings him under new obligations.—It cannot in the nature
of the case be otherwise. Formerly it was do, and live;
but now it is believe and be saved. Now that faith and re¬
pentance are gospel precepts, which could have no being
under the law as they are taught under the gospel, must be
plain to every one who will examine the subject. Faith
has for its object Christ and his atonement. It could not
therefore have existence till Christ was promised. The law
knew no forgiveness, and therefore could require no repent-
r
sa
ance. These, therefore, are purely gospel precepts. They
belong to God's economy of saving mercy, and could have
no existence until Christ was promised. Now law is a rule
of action, and it must always be accompanied with penal
sanctions, expressed or understood, otherwise it has no force
—it is a nullity. But St. Paul calls faith a law—see Rom.
iii. 27; and the Apostle James calls the whole gospel econ¬
omy a law: " Whoso loolceth into the perfect law of liber¬
ty," &c. See James i. 25. Repentance and faith are there¬
fore gospel precepts: they are the rule of action to be adopt¬
ed by the sinner in order to be saved; and we have as
much authority from the holy scriptures to deny the bind¬
ing force of any precept of the moral law, as we have for
denying the binding force of these or any other gospel pre¬
cepts. Men are as po&jtively commanded to repent as they
are not to steal; and it is asserted ivith equal force and au¬
thority, that he that believeth not shall be damned, as it is
that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. In fact,
the gospel comes to man with its doctrines, its precepts, its
warnings, its threatening?, and its promises, all of which we
are bound to heed; and we cannot treat them witli wanton
neglect without peril. They are God's commandments, and
no man can neglect them and be guiltless. Now then the
only question to be settled is, whether sins committed by
violating a gospel precept can be forgiven.
And First: If the view we have taken of this subject
be correct, a violation of a gospel precept is as much a vio¬
lation of God's law as is a transgression of any moral pre¬
cept. Both are God's commands, and they are alike enforc¬
ed by tfie most fearful penal sanctions. If, iherefore, the
atonement can avail in one case, as matter of course it can
in the other. This view of the subject is sustained by our
Lord, Mat. xii. 81: " Wherefore I say unto you, all man¬
ner of sins and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but^
the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost," &c. And the next
verse, " Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of
Man it shall be forgiven him," &c. Now according to this
passage we can conceive of no sin save one, possible for men
to commit, until they have pnssed the bounds of saving
mercy, that may not be forgiven. This, therefore, mast set¬
tle this question. But Mr. M. assumes that the advocates
51
of conditional salvation hold that the original of moral laW
has been repealed, and a new law introduced in its steads
This assumption, however, is unfounded. The advocates of
conditional salvation do not believe that; doctrine. u Do we
then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea,
we establish the law." Rom. iii 31. The doctrine of sal¬
vation by faith recognizes the claims of the law, and pleads
the merits of Christ as the only sacrifice adequate -to meet
its demands. The law is therefore established, magnified^
and made honorable. Its claims are met, and the sinnef
saved by faith iti the Lord Jesus Christ. But how the law
is established by faith in the salvation of a sinner, accord¬
ing to that system which excludes faith until the sinner is
regenerated, we cannot see. In fact, it is impossible. Faith
cannot establish the law so long as it is excluded. But Mr.
M. says, " If the law is done away, and some new principle
established, and the violation of this new principle will ex¬
pose us to the same final sufferings we were liable to by the
violation of the old law, I see no advantage gained by
the change." We deny that the old law is done away.—
We have just shown that faith establishes the law.
Nor is it true that the state of a sinner involved in guilt
an,d ruin, from which it is'impossible for him to extricate
himself, is not improved by a system that puts him upon
ground where he may be saved; because by refusing to avail-
himself of the blessing provided he will perish as before.-
He now is placed on ground where he may be saved; before
he could not. Is there no advantage gained then by this
change ? Surely there is. The fact that he will not avail
himself of the vantage ground on which he is placed, does
not prove that he is not in a better condition than he was
before. It only proves that by his own neglect he will in--
volve himself in ruin. Mr. M.'s argument is therefore a
sophism.
Now the point at which our author is aiming here is, that
conditional salvation is the same as salvation by the works
of the law; and iti order to reach this point he assumes, 1.
That the law and the gospel are so dissimilar that they nev¬
er can incorporate. 2. That the law holds every binding
principle, and the gospel no binding .principle of itself. 3.
That whatever binding principle the gospel has it receives'
52
from the law. 4. The conclusion ; that is, that the gospel
brings no new obligation to duty of any kind not known
to or found in the law. Now to us there is in tfese and
other kindred suggestions found in this letter, the strangest
•confusion of ideas—jarring and contradictory in themselves.
The law and the gospel, it is said, are so unlike that they
never can incorporate; and yet every binding gospel pre¬
cept receives its force from the law. The law and the gos¬
pel never can incorporate, and yet the gospel introduces no
new principle unknown to the law. Had our author in time
thought of the apostle's exhortation to Timothy, quoted at
the close of this letter, rightly to divide the word of truth,
and give to each his portion, &c. he might possibly have
been saved from much of the confusion and error thatj ap¬
pears in this letter. But it must be remembered that Mr.
M. is opposing the doctrine of conditional and vindicating
unconditional salvation; and therefore he understands the
expression, rightly to divide the word of truth, &c. to mean
quite a different thing from what a believer in conditional
salva.ti'»n would understand by it. Our author would un¬
derstand by rightly dividing the word of truth, to divide it
so that it should mean that a portion of the human family
shall be unconditionally saved, and the rest unconditional¬
ly damned ; and that giving to each his portion of meat ia
due season means, to publish this doctrine to the world,and
let all mankind know that neither law nor gospel, faith nor
works, has anything to do with salvation. One portion will
be saved, do or believe what they may; and the other lost,
do or believe what they will. It is true all men ouuht to
do right, say their prayers, &c.; but these duties have no
binding influence, or if they have they receive it from the
law,and therefore must not be obeyed; for if they are it will
be salvation by wo'rks, and God will nota'low that. No, it is
the sovereign purpose of Almighty God himself that has set¬
tled that forever in heaven, long before the world was, 01*
man was made, and therefore it is unnecessary to spend an
anxious thought on the subject. 'the gospel ought to be
preached; men are bound to preach; but it cannot be the
means of saving one soul that would otherwise be lost. Sal¬
vation does not depend on preaching the gospel, or any
thing else that man can do. It is very possible that Mr. M.
53
lias preached many a sermon that no one will thank him
for in the next world; and beyond donbt, if he had taken
second thought, he would never have given himself the
trouble to write seventeen letters to set up a doctrine which, if"
true, would prove that all his labor is perfectly worthless; for
if salvation is unconditional he may write betters till dooms¬
day, but they never can be the means of saving or dam¬
ning one soul. We are aware of the fact that those minis!-
ters who aie of Mr. M's. school often denounce those who
hold to conditional salvation as preachers of the law of works,
and chan e them with trying to get to heaven by works, &c.;
and often the subject is so obscured that it is difficult to tell
what they mean by the terms law, gospel, works, or any
thing else, only that salvation is unconditional, when in fact
if that be true one had just as well try to get to heaven by
the deeds of the law as in any other way, for neither law
nor gospel has any thing to do with it.
We will now close upon this letter by giving a very short
view of what we think to be the scripture doctrine upon this
subject. First, then, we assyime that the law given to Ad¬
am in the garden was the same in essence with the moral
law, though revealed in a different way. Secondly, that
when man sinned he not only became guilty, but lost the
power to keej!) the law; so that he could neither atone for
the past nor keep the law in future, and therefore that sal¬
vation by the deeds of the law was impossible. Thirdly,
that in the atonement the demands of the law are met, man
is redeemed from the guilt of Adamic transgression, and
provision made for the forgiveness of actual sins, and the
regeneration of man's nature. Fourthly, that redeemed,
pardoned, and regenerated, he is again prepared, by the
grace of God, to keep his .holy commandments. Fifthly,
that the gospel incorporates the whole moral law, and
therefore that men are, under the gospel dispensation, as
much bound to" keep God's law as ever before.
Now we may not stop to argue all these points at length,
nor is it neeessary that we should. In regard to the first two,
perhaps there would be no difference of opinion; and in
regard to the third perhaps the chief difficulty would be,
what we claim for all men Mr. M. would claim only for a
few. But the gospel proposes this salvation to men upon
54
terms or conditions. We argue this upon the ground 1st,
That the gospel is worthless, and the preaching of it a work
of foolishness, upon any other view of it. What cian the
gospel do if salvation is unconditional? It cannot be the
means of saving a soul: if so salvation is conditional. But
it may be that Mr. M., or some one else for him, would tell
you, God has ordained that the gospel should be preached.
This is one of the unconditional means or unconditional con¬
ditions to bring about this unconditional salvation. So then
men must hear unconditionally, repent and believe of ne¬
cessity, be converted irresistibly, and taken to heaven by
force, or which is the same thing, force him to be willing
and then take him to heaven willingly. Yerily this is go¬
ing k long way round to get at the thing; and in our turn
we would ask Mr. M. what is gained by all this going about?
If salvation is unconditional why not take the sinner right
along without all this.ado about it? We maintain, there¬
fore, that the fact that there is a gospel, and that that gos¬
pel is to be preached, carries with it the idea that it propo¬
ses salvation to men upon conditions. It comes with prop¬
ositions of mercy, and calls upon men to accept the bless¬
ing it proposes.
But 2ndly. The Bible teaches the doctrine " The gos¬
pel is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that
belieVeth." Rom. i. 16. Here tfye gospel is declared to be
the power of God unto salvation, and the condition upon
which it is made such is clearly stated; that is, faith:—ev¬
ery one that believeth. Repentance and faith, we have
shown before, are purely gospel precepts. The law knew
no forgiveness and therefore could require no repentance.
It presented no object of saving faith, and therefore could
require no faith; and yet they are as positively commanded
as any thing else in God's word, and consequently they are
as binding as any other command in the Bible. But we
have said the gospel incorporates the whole moral law: we
prove this 1st, from the fact that our Lord, who doubtless
understood his own gospel, and preached it correctly, in his
sermon on the mount introduced several precepts of the
moral law; explained and enforced them; and when the
young man came to our Lord desiring to know what he
must do to have eternal life, the Savior told him to keep
55
the commandments, and repeated several of them. Again,
our Lord declares, " The whole law is fulfilled in thisr thou
sha]t love ihe Lord thy God with all thy heart,"- &e. \ and
and this command, upon which it is said hang all the law and
the prophets, and in which all the law is fulfilled, is taught
everywhere in the New Testament, by our Lord and his A-
postles. But 2ridly, no man can be s^ved, living in wanton
neglect of the moral law. " Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the
kingdom of God." 1 Cor. vi. 10; see also Gal. v. 19—21 ;
and Rev. xxii. 15. But we need not multiply quotations.
It is plain that the whole moral law is incorporated in the
gospel, and that men are as much bound to keep it now as
ever,—not by their own strength, in a state of nature, but
by the grace of God. But here we remark, that the keep¬
ing of God's law is not the Condition of a sinner's justification
before God, for he cannot keep his law in that sinful state;
but faith, which trusts in the Lord Jesus Christ done, is the
condition; antj when the sinner is forgiven, his guilt re¬
moved, and his heart "renewed by the Holy Ghost, he is in
a condition to keep God's holy law, by the aid of his grace,
and he is required to keep it. We have been thus particu¬
lar on this subject, because, as we have said, it is often i o
obscured it is difficult to tell whether men are to keep God's
law, or to be saved living in violation of it, or whether the
gospel is to be obeyed, or its precepts disregarded.
LETTER XII.
Mr. M. commences this letter by saying that he has "sta¬
ted the impossibility of any conditions on which the salva*
tion of sinners can be proposed, except those that are rec¬
ognized by the law * * * and of consequence has proved
that conditional salvation is the same thing as salvation by
works of the law." But how Mr. M's bare statement proves
that conditional salvation is the same as salvation by the
works of the law We do not know- In fact, we question the
authority j we want some better proof before we believe it.
56
"But we maintain that we have proved that the precepts that
contain the conditions of the sinners salvation (that is repent¬
ance and faith) are purely gospel precepts, and have noth¬
ing to do with the law, only as they are the conditions up-
•on which the transgressor maybe forgiven and placed up¬
on ground where he may keep God's law by the aid of his
grace.
But our author proceeds : he says, " We will next pro¬
ceed to show that if the conditions of salvation contended
for by the advocates of this system, are not purely works
of the law, then the fallen sons and daughters of Adam
haveno capacity to fulfill the conditions." * * * "Repentance,'r
lie says, " implies a scriptural view of and deep compunc¬
tion for and on account of sin, as being a violation of the
divine law, and a dishonor done to God in all the glory of
his divine character, and as justly and righteously condem¬
ning the transgressor to eternal wrath; and as this canpot
be had but through a view of the law, which we are told
■is spiritual, * * * and it unavoidably follows as the law i&
/Spiritual, and the natural man cannot discern the things of
the spirit, that then the natural man cannot understand
the nature of the divine law." Our author he Ids that ie-
pentance and faith arc peculiar to a regenerated state, and
therefore that an unregenerate man cannot have them; and
this is the argument by which he attempts to prove the in¬
capacity of fallen men to perform those conditions. Now
the fallacy of his argument will appear, 1st, in that it rep¬
resents regeneration as producing no change in the state of
the sinner. Or 2nd, it represents the Holy Ghost as mak¬
ing false impressions, and producing false feelings. 3rd, In
that it sets the regenerated man to repenting for sins that
are forgiven.
1st, Then, Mr. M". describes repentance as being a deep
compunction for sin as committed against the divine law
which justly and righteously condemns the transgressor to
eternal wrath; and this repentance our author represents as
being produced by the Holy Ghost. Very Good. Now then
this feeling of compunction for sin, and sense of guilt, an(J
exposure to wrath on account of it, must either be true or
false: that is, the sin and guilt which he feels so keenly
must actually rest upon hita, in which case what he feels is
57
true, and in that case no change for the better is produced
by his regenei ation; he was a sinner, guilty and under
Wrath before and he is so still. But if he has been pardoned
and delivered from sin and wrath by regeneration, then
what he feels in his repentance is not true; and as the Holy
Ghost produces that repentance it follows that it produces
feelings which are false, and the man is deceived.
3rd, It sets the man repenting for sins that are already
forgiven. Now as the sinner has been regenerated, his sins
blotted out, created anew in Christ Jesus, &c., for what sins
does he then repent, and feel this deep compunction—this
sense of wrath? Certainly not for the sins of some other
person, nor for sins which he himself has not as yet commit¬
ted. The bitter pangs of repentance which he feels must
therefore be for the past, which are all forgiven, the guilt
removed, and wrath on account of them turned away. The
fact is the compunctious feelings of which Mr. M speaks,
and which belongs to true repentance, does not belong to a
regenerated state; they are such as are felt for sins for which
there is no sense of pardon. The Apostle says, " Being
justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ." Mr. M's whole argument is therefore absurd,
contradictory in itself, and contrary to the teachings of
God's word.
But our author proceeds to examine the doctrine of faith.
He tells us it is the gift of God, and the fruit of the Spirit.
Yery good. But he adds, " How this fruit can grow in a
carnal mind, which is enmity against God, is quite beyond
my comprehension, and flatly contradicts the principles of
reason, and the positive declarations of the Son of God, who
informs us that the tree is known by its fruits ; and if faith
is the fruit of the carnal mind, then all believers are incon-
testibly carnal." Now the argument presented here is, that
^if an unregenerate man can believe, then faith is the fruit
of a carnal mind; and hence all believers are inoontestibly
carnal. But it d,oes not follow that because an unregenerate
or carnal man may believe, that faith is the fruit of the car¬
nal mind, or that all believers are carnal. Regeneration is
said to be the work of the Holy Spirit, but it will be ad¬
mitted that a carnal man may be regenerated. Now sup¬
pose that we argue from that fact that regeneration is the
58
fruit of the carnal mind; every one would see the absurdity,
and yet the argument is the same with that used by our
author.
But there is another deceptive insinuation in this argument;
that is, that according to the-advocates of conditional salva¬
tion, faith in its saving power can dwell in a carnal heart; or
that faith and carnality can dwell together. But the advo¬
cates of conditional salvation do not hold that doctrine; nor
is it a necessary consequence of the doctrine of conditional
salvation; nor is it true in point of fact. We hold that by
faith the carnal mind is removed, changed and made spirit¬
ual; therefore faith and carnality do not dwell together;
one displaces the other; hence the insinuation is false. But
Mr. M. holds that the sinner is first regenerated and then
he repents and believes; repentance and faith follow as a
necessary consequence. We will uow make a few Scripture
quotations to show the contrast between Mr. M. and the
Bible upon this subject. The Apostle says, "Ye are the
children of God by faithbut Mr. M. says ye are the chil¬
dren of God without faith, and faith follows. St. Paul says
being justified by faith we have peace with God, &c.; but
Mr. M. says faith comes through, by, or in consequence of
justification. Again, the Apostle says, the gospel is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;,
but our author says, the gospel is the power of God unto
salvation to all who are saved before they believe, and faith
follows salvation. The Apostle says, "Repent and be con
verted, that your sins n;ay be blctted out," &c ; but our au¬
thor says, you must be converted, and your sins must be
blotted out before you can repent. The Apostle says, God
hath exalted him to be a prince and a Savior to give re¬
pentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins; but Mr. M. says
he gives forgiveness first and then repentance follows. We
might extend these quotations but these are sufficient-.
But again, Mr. M. holds that there is no medium, no pos¬
sible point, that can be occupied by a fallen sinner, between
an absolutely graceless state and regeneration ; no light, no
influence of the Holy Ghost; no quickening power, until
the Spirit comes unasked, unsought, and unconditionally
regenerates the sinner. This view of the subject is the
foundation of all his arguments here, and of much that he
69
has said elsewhere—an error' of no^mall magnitude. But
as we have, we think, fully refuted this error in another
part of this work, we will close upon this letter by asking
a few questions, and adding a few remarks. 1st. Had the
Philippian jailor any light or divine influence before he was
converted? Or was he converted when he fell down at the
Apostle's feet? If ^o why did he cry out in the bitterness
of his soul, What must I do to be saved? And what of
Saul of Tarsus, when he was smitten to the earth and saw
a light above the brightness of the sun at noon day ? Amf
during the three days in which he prayed,until Ananias came
to him: had he any influence of the Spirit ? And of the
threB thousand who were cut to trie heart on the day of
Pentecost: had they any divine influence? But what of
Felix, when he trembled while Paul reasoned of righteous¬
ness, temperance, and judgment to come? And what did!
St. Stephen mean, when he said to the Jews, " Ye do always
resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did so do ye." Was
there no divine influence in any of these cases ? And finally,
what of the thousands of cases we meet with all over the
land, of persons who are seen to weep and tremble undet
the preaching of the word: sometimes prostrate, sometimes
at the altar for prayer; many, very .many of whom go away
and live and die in sin ? Had they no light, no quickening
power of the Holy Spirit? Verily, one who can deny all
spiritual influence in all the above Cases can set aside any
evidence he may choose to set aside; evidence with him is
worthless if it does not prove what he may choose to be¬
lieve. But we think it quite possible that Mr. M. means
the same thing by regeneration that we mean by conviction,
or a state of penitence for sim He believes that the first work
the Holy Spirit does iij a sinner is to regenerate him; but
we believe the first work of the Spirit is to enlighten, con¬
vince, and convict the sinner. It follows then, as matter of
course, that what we call conviction Mr. M. would call regen¬
eration. We think we are warranted in this conclusion not
only because Mr. M's. argument indicates as much, but the
practice of his denomination, so far as our experience goes,
tends to confirm the opinion. We have often witnessed in
their congregations^ and especially on revival occasions,
when uersons are joining the churchy a teasing and auiz-
60
zing persons who are supposed to be concerned abont their
soul's salvation, to draw from them some expression of
desire, concern, or hope; any intimation of which would
be received as evidence of a regenerated state. And in
many cases they have pronounced persons converted, and
received them into the church as such, when there was noth¬
ing in the experience, or life, so far as we were capable of
judging, that indicated a regenerated state; nor would we
ever have thought them anything more than penitent souls
seeking pa: don. Now if we have not mistaken Mr. M's.
views, and the views of his denomination upon this subject
—and. we think we have not—the last error is worse than
the first, for it relates to experimental religion. It mistakes
the whole matter, and takes that for regeneration which is
only conviction. It takes that for religion, w hich in fact is
not religion, and therefore it can only delude and ruin the
subject. And now, with due respect Mr. M. and his de¬
nomination, we would suggest the propriety of being a lit¬
tle more particular how they urge persons to join their
chtfrch, with experience so flimsy as many of their members
have, lest some one should be induced to believe he has re¬
ligion when he has none, and so be ruined. The salvation,
of souls is too serious a matter to be trifled with after that
sort. God help ns to know the truth and to do it.
LETTER XIII.
The leading object of our author in this letter is manifest¬
ly to show that if conditional salvation be true, it makes ev¬
erything in the divine government and providence uncer¬
tain, especially the scripture prophecies, so that we could
not account for the fulfillment of the past, while the fu¬
ture would all be uncertain. His arguments, however,
as to their Substance, are but a repetition of what he
has advanced before, and what we have already refuted
more than once in the foregoing part of this work. But
as he here &] plies these arguments to somewhat different
objects, it may be necessary again briefly to notice them.
61
After a lengthy harangue on the scriptures, as the revealed
will of God, their clearness, and agreement, together with
the extraordinary events which they record, their being un¬
der the guidance of divine providence, &c., all of which are
true enough in themselves, our author comes at last to his
argument. He says, "Conditional salvation represents all
the divine purposes of God revealed in his sacred word
as suspended on the precarious will of fallen, polluted crea¬
tures; for there can be no^oubt that the grand design, in
subordination to the divine glory, was the salvation of sin¬
ners; and if this depends on the volition of the human
mind, of consequence every other subordinate event must
stand or fall on the samp principle." But we deny that the
purposes of God, according to conditional salvation, stand
suspended on the will of man for their final accomplish¬
ment, What then are the purposes of God in regard to the
salvation of sinners, according to the doctrine of condition¬
al salvation ? Manifestly that provision should be made for
the salvation of all men; and that those who accept of it,
or believe, shall be saved, and that those who believe not
shall be damned. It does not depend on the will of man
whether or not salvation shall be made possible to all men,
nor does it depend on the will of man whether a believer
shall be saved, or an unbeliever damned. The advocates
of unconditional salvation do not believe that God ever
purposed to save a rational man arbitrarily and uncondi¬
tionally—that is Mr. M's. view of the subject. It is not
true, therefore, that the doctrine of conditional salvation
frustrates the purposes of God, or makes them uncertain.
But our author adds, " And it is difficult to account for
the fulfillment of any one prediction contained in the sa¬
cred scriptures on this ground; nor will the supposition of
foreseen obedience afford the least relief in the case under
consideration, since it has been already shown that if the
divine prescience is admitted, it will destroy the doctrine of
universal conditional salvation altogether." But how has this
been shown. Our author has asserted it; but to prove it is
another matter; this he has not done. Now we maintain
that Infinite Wisdom can foresee a future event, for ages to
come, which depends for its accomj lishment on the will
and conduct of man, with as much pertainty as if it was
az
fixed by the most immutable decree1. If God cannot do
that, then he is.not omniscient. We maintain therefore,
that that system of docrine which teaches that God must
unconditionally decree or control the things that are to bring
about future events, in order to know them, destroys the om-
niscience of God. There is, therefore, no difficulty in un¬
derstanding how the predictions of the holy scriptures can
be fulfilled according to the doctrine of conditional salva¬
tion. ^
But our author says, " There is nothing in the nature of
things that can conspire at one time more than at another,
to bring those desirable events to pass. The Jews will re¬
tain their obstinacy till the deliverer comes to turn away
ungodliness from Jacob; and the man of sin will maintain
his throne till he is smitten with the breath of the Lord's
mouth and destroyed by the brightness of his coming."—
But may not means and in strum entalites be used to bring*
about these results? And when used will they not tend1
more to* bring them about than when they did not exist?1
The doctrine of our author here is, that it is not the will of
God that these events should come to pass now. It is there1-
fore his will that the Jews should for the present retain their
hardness, and that the man of sin should reign until he shall
see proper to dethrone him. Now if this be true, the Jews-
and the man. of sin are both doing the will of God, and
must therefore be pleasing in his sight, and must of course
be saved ; for they that do the will of God must be saved.
But we maintain that it is not the will of God, never was,
and never will be, that any of his creatures should sin or do-
wrong, until they have placed themselves in a condition
where mercy cannot reach them. God's nature is holy, he
cannot, therefore, will, or purpose that which is unholy.—
The question may possibly be asked, Why, if God is wil¬
ling for the Jews to be converted now, are they not con¬
verted ; has he not all power and can he not convert them
of he chooses to do so? We answer, so far as- the matter1 of
power is concerned, he has all power, and could in a mo¬
ment convert the world, or crush the universe; but God can¬
not employ his power to destroy his own moral government^
or the accountability of his creatures. He cannot, there-
furej fore®- men. to dew rights or wrong, and' then' reward or*
63
punish them for so doing, because it would destroy both
the accountability of man and the righteous government of
God. The reason, therefore, why the Jews are not convert¬
ed now is, not because God is not willing for them to be
converted, but because salvation is conditional, and the Jews
will not comply with the conditions. And yet God who
knows all things, sees that in future they will torn to him
and be s^ved; and therefore.it is so predicted in the holy
scriptures.
The doctrine of conditional salvation, therefore, explains
how the scripture prophecies in regard to the Jews and oth¬
er things can and will be fulfilled, and God's righteous
government maintained at the same time. But we are bold
to assert that Mr. M., nor any other Calvinist, can reconcile
the justice of God with the destruction of the Jews for their
hardness, if he himself has willed or caused that hardness.
But our author supposes that if conditional salvation be
true God himself may be deceived as to who will be saved,
or who lost. Now if he were a man who could not look
into the future, or if, as our author argue s, he cannot know
certainly without causing the thing known to come to pass,
then there would be possibility of mistake. But so long
as God is omniscient, and knows positively, without uncon¬
ditionally causing or bringing to pass the things known, he
cannot be mistaken.
Again, our author says, " It is not very easy to suppose
that God has made provision for the conditional salvation of
that man whom he knew never would be saved; " and to
illustrate, he supposes a family in a distant land, in a state
of starvation ; and however inclined one might feel to> send
relief, if he knew his bounty would never reach the suffer¬
er he would not send it. And so we suppose. But if the
sufferer were his s.ibject, and he intended to hold him to
account fur his neglect of his bounty, and if at the same
time he knew he could get the provisions to him in safety,
we suppose he would be very apt to send it, though he
knew he would not receive it rather than punish him for
starving under the pretext that he knew he would not have
received it if he had sent it. In fact, the foreknowledge
of God has nothing to do with fixing the sinner's guilt or
punishment. It is his sins that make him^guilty, and fits
him for destruction, and not the foreknowledge of God.
64
But there is another thing in this argument which is well
calculated to mislead the unwary reader. It represents the
Son of God as being under necessity of making extra pro¬
vision, and undergoing extra suffering to provide for the
salvation of those who are lost. But we have shown in
another part of this work that the same atonement that re¬
deemed one man, and made it possible for him to be saved,
was sufficient for all. In fact it could not in the nature of
the case be otherwise. And were it possible for a soul to
be sent to destruction who never had it in his power to be
saved, he could plead the injustice of his doom forever.—•
Such a plea, well founded as it would be, would shake the
throne of heaven, and quench the flames of hell.
LETTER XIV.
There is nothing remarkable in this letter; we shall there¬
fore dismiss it with a very few remarks.
Our author here proposes to examine the scriptures in
reference to experimental religion, and see how far condi¬
tional salvation will agree with that: he refers to one sin¬
gle case—the conversion of Paul—not a very good witness
for his cause after all, as it seems he prayed three days be¬
fore he was converted. He also quotes the text, "By grace
are ye saved through faith," &c.; another unfortunate quo¬
tation for him. Here the Apostle represents faith as the
medium through which saving grace is communicated. Mr.
M. says the gospel requires neither repentance nor faith;
so far from it that these are the blessings it brings in its
sweet bosom ; a rather singular mode of expression, peculiar
to our author, not quite orthodox either. Now if repent¬
ance and faith are the blessings the gospel brings in its sweet"
bosom, it is very careful to keep them in its bosom, so far
as most men are concerned, for the majority of those who
hear the gospel have neither. But it is not quite correct
that the gospel brings these blessings with it. It is true
the gospel brings an offer of salvation through Christ, and
teaches the necessity of repentance and faith: and as faith
65
comes by hearing it often happens that the gpspel, accom¬
panied by the Holy Ghost, is made the power of God unto
salvation through faith. The gospel is therefore often made
the means by which repentance and faith are produced;
and that is the only sense in which it can be said to bring
these blessings with it.
But our author asks what kind of faith is it that is the
condition of salvation. He supposes it cannot be the faith
of christians, of carnal men, nor of devils. "We answer, it
is just that sort of faith that believes in the Lord Jesus
Christ, and trusts in him alone fur salvation • such a faith
as the jailor had; such as Abraham had when his faith was
coanted to him for righteousness; and such as St. Paul de¬
scribes when he says, being justified by faith, &c.
LETTER XV.
In this letter our author proposes to examine the supe¬
rior claims of unconditional salvation to other modes of ex¬
plaining the scripures. He says, " It is admitted by both
parties, that all will not be saved * * and it becomes mat¬
ter of inquiry, whether those who perish have any advan¬
tage from Christ's death." We answer, So far as their final
end is concerned they have none; but that is their own fault;
they might have been saved, but would not. "Ye will not
come to me that ye might have life." John v. 40. But our
author explains. He says, " I once heard of a man who
was condemned to be hanged, and although the Governor
had actually reprieved him, was notwithstanding executed,
because the reprieve through some accident failed to reach
the hand of the executioner in time; and I never could
see that the situation of the unfortunate man was in any
degree bettered by the reprieve, and have sometimes thought
that if the Governor had known that the event would hava
been what it was he would scarcely have given himself the
trouble to sign and fix the seal of government to the re¬
prieve." Question if he had- But the figure does not rep¬
resent the true state of the case. Had the reprieve come
8
66
' to hand in time, and the criminal refused to accept the par¬
don, it would present the subject in quite a different light.
And if the criminal was under the sentence of death for a
crime committed by his father or grandfather, or for acts
committed by himself, which he could not avoid, then the
sentence itself would be unjust, and to execute it would be
cruel injustice. We maintain, then, that no man can be
righteously condemned for Adamic transgression, or for un¬
avoidable crime committed by himself. As well hang the
President of the United States because Cain slew Abel, or
because he does not make every man in the government
do or act right.
But again: the fact that God sees that the sinner will re¬
ject mercy when he has the offer of it, cannot make it just
to withhold mercy, and then send him .to destruction for
rejecting it. Nor can it be just to punish a sinner for com¬
mitting crimes that he could not avoid, because if he had
had it in his power to do otherwise he still would have com¬
mitted them. No ppetext can make ife right to punish a
man for what he did not do, nor for doing that he could
not avoid. A policy of this sort, were it once established,
would uproot the foundations of all just government. No
one could feel secure, however virtuous, because he would
be constantly liable to suffer for the crimes of others, or for
crimes he did not commit, because it was foreseen that, pla¬
ced under other circumstances than those he is under, he
would have committed them. And on the other hand, be¬
ing constantly liable to suffer for crimes he could not avoid
all motive to avoid crime would be cut off. When justice
and judgment cease to be the habitation of his throne, vice
and virtue, heaven and hell will be closely allied.
But again, Mr. M. says, " I cannot well see what they
[those that are lost] are redeemed from. If from the curse
of the law, he must have redeemed them as fully as those
who are brought home to glory." Just so. « And their
condemnation must have grown out of something different
from the law; * * and if sinning by rejecting Christ in the
gospel will finally doom any, it must have the same effect
upon all who have sinned against him at any time; and
then, as has been already shown, this catholic scheme con¬
tracts itself in such a manner as to damn all who have ever
67
heard one sermon and failed to obey the divine mandate."'
Not if they repent; but if they continue to reject Christ,
and disobey his gospel, they will one and all be damned.
So says the apostle, 2 Thes. i. 8. But Mr. M.'s argument
in this place is the same that he has presented several times ;
in the course of these letters; that is,if sinners are redeemed
from the curse of the law the law cannot condemn them; ,
and that it is impossible for condemnation to arise from any
other source, and therefore it is impossible for them to be r
condemned at all. Now Mr. M. admits here and elsewhere,,
that all Christians were in a state of sin and death, and of '
course in a state of condemnation previous to their regene¬
ration, and so the Bible teaches, Eph. ii. 1—3; and yet he
will admit that they were redeemed from the curse of the law. .
From whence, then, did their condemnation arise before
their conversion? When Mr. M. explains that, he will have
explained the true ground of every sinner's condemnation,
for they are precisely the same.
But our author proposes to view the subject in another
light. He says: " It is admitted that some will perish, and
all who do not hear the gospel and believe." Not quite, as
we shall see presently. " And yet we are told that faith
comes b) hearing, and that they cannot believe on him of
whom they have not heard; and that he that believeth not
shall be damned." Mr. M. quotes these texts' manifestly to
show that the doctrine of salvation by faith cuts off all
who have not the capacity or means of faith, as well as
those who hear and disbelieve the gospel; and therefore
that it is probable that more persons will be saved upon
his scheme of unconditional salvation than upon that scheme
which makes faith the condition. Now this broad, unqual¬
ified application of these texts to all men, is forced and ab¬
surd. That the apostle, in the first two texts quoted, intended
to show the great necessity of preaching the gospel, as well
as Of hearing and believing it, there can be no doubt; but that
therefore all who have not the capacity or means of faith
are consigned to destruction is not true. The gospel wa9
intended to apply to rational, accountable creatures, not to
those who have no capacity or means for understanding
and receiving it; therefore to suppose that such are requir¬
ed to believe and obey the gospel is absurd. But the text
68
itself is tortured and distorted by such an application of it.
The whole text reads, "Go ye into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature: he that believeth and is bap¬
tized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned."
The plain and obvious meaning of the text is, that he who>
hears the gospel' and believes not shall be damned; but it
does not follow, as Mr. M.'s argument indicates, that there¬
fore all who do not hear and believe the gospel shall be
damned.
But again, the term unbelief means more than a bare
•Want of capacity or means of faith. In fact, that is no part
o£ the meaning. It implies the existence of power to be¬
lieve, and of the means of faith, and an abuse of them:
hence unbelief is a rejection of the gospel, which could not
exist without the power and means of embracing it. In fact,
it would be no more absurd to require faith of a horse or
an ox, and punish him for want of it, than it would be to
require it of one who had no capacity to believe, or means1
of faith, and punish him for his destitution. Now there
are at least two classes of mankind who are not accounta¬
ble for their conduct: infants and idiots. And among those
who are accountable, there is every possible degree of re¬
sponsibility, which rises in proportion to capacity and means,
from the first daw mugs of reason to the most gigantic in¬
tellect ; and from the faint glimmerings of the light of na¬
ture to the noon-tide glories of the gospel dispensation. A
heathen, who never heard the gospel, cannot be condemned
for rejecting it. In fact, if he believes in God, and serves
Him according to the best light he has, he is not an unbe¬
liever, but a believer. A Jew was not required to live up
tt> the light and privileges of the gospel dispensation: and
why ?' Manifestly because he did not have them. And so the
apostle teaches. " For there is no respect of persons with
God. For as many as have sinned without law shall per¬
ish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law
shall be judged by the law." Rom. ii. 11, 12. It is not
true, therefore, that all those are cut off who have not the
means or power necessary to enable them to believe accord¬
ing to the doctrine of conditional salvation; nor does this
doctrine level the gospel with heathenism, as Mr. M. inti¬
mates, Wherever the gospel goes it requires that met*
69
® believe and embrace it, under pain of damnation if
t ey neglect. But it makes no such requisitions of those
who are destitute of the gospel, or of capacity to believe it.
Our author speaks of some who have died for the sake of
the gospel. He says, according to conditional salvation
they died as the fool dieth. Really, if Mr. M. had been
there and informed them that salvation is unconditional,
and therefore that neither law nor gospel, repentauce nor
faith had anything to do with it, he might have saved them
from so foolish a death.
But finally, the text itself is destruction to Mr. M.'s doc¬
trine. I care not whether the text be applied to converted
or unconverted persons. So long as it remains a truth that
he that betieveth shall be saved, and he that believeth not
shall be damned, it remains that salvation and damnation
are suspended on these terms, and therefore they are con¬
ditional. No proposition can be plainer.
But again, our author says, " But we shall be told thatf
waving every other consideration, there is this superlative
advantage attached to the plan: that is to say, that those
who perish, perish justly for their own faults." Fortunate
that he thought of that. But how does he meet that argu¬
ment ? He says: "It would seem by this that the infinite¬
ly wise God went a great way round to find how to con¬
demn poor sinners justly." This is quite a convenient way
of staving off an argument one cannot meet. But after all
we cannot see that it is going much further round to con¬
demn a sinner for his own sins, than it would be to con¬
demn him irrespective of any good or evil he had done, or
for crimes committed by some one else. The only argu¬
ment our author opposes to the one above suggested, and
in fact the only one I remember to have heard any Calvin-
ist present, that had even the semblance of truth or consis¬
tency is, that men were sinners, and justly condemned be¬
fore Christ died for them. Admit it, and then what fol¬
lows? Why, since Christ has died for them they are not
in that state of condemnation 5 if they are, then Christ s
death has effected nothing for them. But Mr. M. would
saJ> a Part kumari were that state of
condemnation. That, however, remains to be proved. If
God had cut off oar first parentis, and sentenced them to
70
/*
endless destruction at once, before they had propagated!
their species, it would have been just: the punishment
would have been proportioned to the crime. But to insti¬
tute a scheme of redemption that shall allow man to live
and propagate a numerous offspring, the larger part of which
is left outside its provisions, and then to condemn them to-
endless misery, can never be reconciled with divine justice.
Mr. M. and the Calvinist world to help him cannot do it.
It would seem as if the advocates of this system conclude
that God, just because he is God, can do the veriest wick¬
edness ever done by men or devils, and all is right andjust
in him; or that, however wrong and shocking to reason
the thing may appear, by some mysterious arrangement or
other, it is right after all; and thus madly and blindly em¬
brace a system which is alike opposed to reason, justice, and
the Word of God, rather than part with a cherished dogma
that will allow them to hope for salvation however bad their
lives may be.
LETTER X YI.
In this letter our author attempts a vindication of what
he calls particular redemption and infallible salvation—
which is but another name for particular unconditional sal¬
vation. He begins with the same false assumption with
which he closed his last; that is, that God could have left
the whole hu,man family to perish, and therefore he could
have left a part of them to perish justlyr without remedy.
The fallacy of this view we have already noticed, and need
not here repeat our arguments.
Our author next proceeds with quite a string of assump¬
tions, such as,—that almighty grace proposed the way of
reconciliation; that the plan of redemption contemplated
events far beyond the agency of creatures, &c.; not one of
which, with some slight qualifications, would be in the least
objectionable, until the following: "That in due time he
[that is God] calls them [those whom he intends to save}
out of darkness into light; gives them to see and feel their
71
guilty state ; gives tkem repentance unto life; [he should
have said life unto repentance, for he holds that the sinner
must be regenerated before he repents] and finally reveals to
them the way of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ,
and enables them to place their hope and confidence in him
for life and salvation, and enables them to persevere in
the paths of jv ~tv and holy obedience, and finally brings
them to glory.'' erily, this is going a great way round to
save a sinner unconditionally; and in our author's own
words again, we cannot see what is gained by all this going
about. The reader will remember that Mr. M. denied that
repentance, faith, or anything that man can do can be the
condition of salvation. In fact, he maintains that salvation
has no conditions—it is absolutely unconditional. Of what
use, then, is repentance, trust in God, or persevering obe¬
dience? If salvation depends in no way upon them, then
they can do no good, and it is foolish to insist on them. If
salvation depends in any way upon them, then it is condi¬
tional.
But the term " calls them out of darkness in due time !"
By this expression our author means that it is accrrding to
God's will and purpose that the sinner should live ^n,
say 20, SO, 40, or 50 years, and in somi nnvs even a longer
time, until God gets ready, or the time fumes that he is
willing to save him. No condition being required, there
is no reason why the sinner should not be saved, only that
God does not choose to have it so. It follows, then, that it
is God's will that he should live in sin up to that time.—
But what is in accordance with God's will cannot be sin;
therefore it is no sin to live in sin up to the time God sees
proper to call him out of darkness into light, if the reader
can understand such a contradiction. But besides repre¬
senting it to be the will of the Lord that many of those who
are finally converted should live in sin to a good old age,
this argument has the infelicity of representing the Al¬
mighty as a changeable being; for there being nothing re¬
quired of the sinner as a condition, his salvation is made to
rest entirely on the will of God in regard to time and eve¬
rything else. Now if salvation is unconditional God irust
be as willing to save the sinner at one tin e as anotlie >r
else his mind is different towards his creatures under the
72
same circumstances, and with the same reasons to operate.
But this reasoning will appear more forcible when we ap¬
ply it to the lost. For example : here are two sinners, both
equally lost and ruined without mercy: bowels of mercy
yearns over one and he is saved unconditionally, for no oth¬
er reason than that God chose to have it so. But no bow¬
els of mercy yearns over the other, but wrath burns hot
against him and he must be damned without mercy. If
God saves one sinner under a certain set of circumstances,
and damns another under the same ; if, in other words, his
will makes the difference, then in all such cases his will
changes; for to be unchangeable God mast be of the same
mind towards all his creatures at all times, under the same
circumstances. We leave the reader, then, to determine
whether God can be unchangeable if unconditional salva¬
tion be true. Conditional salvation not only maintains the
truth and harmony of the scriptures by maintaining that
their requirements must be complied with in order to salva¬
tion, but it accounts for one man's embracing religion ear¬
lier than another, and for some not embracing it at all while
others do, upon principles that vindicate the justice and un¬
changing character of God, which unconditional salvation
never can do. God is willing at all times to save one and
all sinners until they have sinned away their day of grace,
or gone from the land of probation. He offers his mercy
now, to-day one sinner accepts, complies with the terms and
is saved; another refuses, it may be for years, but at last
submits and is saved at the eleventh hour, while another
refuses altogether, and is lost. It is because men refuse to
comply with God's word that they are not saved—salva¬
tion is therefore conditional.
But our author says, " Now whether the plan of redemp¬
tion of sinners left in its final event to the choice of de¬
praved men, or one thus left wholly in the will of God him¬
self^ is most to be desired * * * and which will produce the
greatest good, remains to be determined." So it seems to be
matter of doubt with Mr. M. after all, which will do the
most good. We suppose he means which will save most
persons, for this he seems to regard as a proper test. We
have no doubt on that subject, but we think the glory of
God and the honor of his government is also to be regarded
73
in this matter, and we maintain that upon just and right¬
eous principles a rational, accountable creature can neither
be saved, nor damned unconditionally; for the moment thatj
is done accountability is destroyed. Men cannot be held
to account righteously where they have no choice.
Again, Mr. M. says, "It is acknowledged that all men
"will not be saved, and it must be that God never did pur¬
pose to save them." But the word of God gives another
reason; "Ye will not come to me that ye might have life."
u Sin is the meritorious cause of their condemnation, [not
so if unconditional salvation be true; it is the purpose of
God: sin has nothing to do with it; if it did it would be
conditional,] and why no provision is made for their sal¬
vation rests in the secret council of the Eternal Mind."—
So our author has got into the secret councils of heaven at
last. "Well, we would advise him to try to keep secrets.—
St. Paul was perhaps as highly honored as Mr. M. He was
caught up to the third heaven and heard things that were
not lawful to be told; but we think Paul kept the secrets
delivered to him. We are told that tho things that are re¬
vealed belong to us and our children; and it so turns out
that God's revealed word teaches another doctrine; that is
that provision is made in the atonement for all men. " He
is the propitiation for the sins of the whole whole world."
" lie tasted death for every man." " By the obedience of
one the free gift has come unto all men," &c. We prefer
to trust to what God has been pleased to reveal, rather than
to trust to a secret, hidden and unknown.
But again, speaking of the blood of Christ, Mr. M. says,
" To this dear refuge let me recommend your precious soul
to fly." But why fly to Christ if salvation is uncondition¬
al ? Salvation, our author says, does not depend on any¬
thing that the creature can do; it can therefore do no good
to fly to Christ. But he continues; " No terms, no condi¬
tions, but this. * * * The question will not be, Have you
believed, have you repented," &c. Our author is like a
man who would cut of both feet of an individual whom
lie sees in imminent danger, and then command him to fly for
life. He denies to the sinner the use of repentance and faith,
the means by which he is to come to Christ, and then bids
g0 to Christ, Our author supposes that the saints will
10
74
<j£Crry with them to the judgement seat the essence of all the
graces they have exercised here; but these will have noth¬
ing to db with their justification before God. He seems, in¬
deed,to be guarded in making these admissions,lest he should
-seem to give some countenance to the doctrine that some¬
thing iriight be received at the bar of God as a condition of
admittance into heaven. Now we can no more believe that
a christian will be justified in the day of judgment by faith
or repentance than Mr. M., or any one else. These are the
■conditions of a sinner's justification before God here, but at
"the bar of God hi§ justification will turn upon his obedience.
So the Bible teaches: " He will bring every word, and ev-
<ery work and every secret thing into judgment, whether it
be good or bad."
Why bring every word into judgment ? Manifestly that
men may receive according to them. Again, it is said that
every one may receive the things done in the body, 2 Cor.
v, 10; and again, Rev. xx. 12 "The dead were judged out
of the thiDgs written in the books according to their works.'*
See also Rom. ii. 6, and Math. xxv. from the 31st to the
end of the chapter. Nothing can therefore be more plain
than that obedience will be the final test with accountable
■creatures. Indeed we cannot see how the divine govern¬
ment can be maintained in any other way. If men may be
saved living in wanton neglect of God's law, then the di¬
vine government is not maintained, but if we are required
to keep the law in order to be saved, then salvation must in
some way depend upon it. The atonement was not intended
to abrogate or destroy God's law, or to do away the obligation
men are under to keep it, but to make it possible for men
by the grace of God to keep his law. By the death of Christ
man is redeemed from the curse of the law under which he
Was placed by transgression; and by grace his nature is re¬
newed, and he is enabled to keep God's law. All, there¬
fore, is of grace. Obedience is secured, the divine govern¬
ment maintained, and the sinner saved. Our author sup¬
poses that the advocates of conditional salvation will con¬
tend that all Who are sincere will be saved. Not quite. He
■sayS: "If so it must be good news to Deists, Atheists," &c.
A retort we think is a sufficient answer to this statement.
If TlnctiriditibJlal Salvation be true, it must be good news to
75
Deists, Atheists, &c. for it makes no difference whether they ,
ever hear the gospel, or hearing whether they believe
or not: no condition; believe or do what they may,
the result will be just the same. But Mr. M. says: " The
Lord Jesus Christ has determined this matter .long since;
he says, 'If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in
your sins, and if ye die in your sins where I am ye cannot
come." Now is it possible that our author is so bewildered
that he cannot see that these and other similar texts raze his
doctrine to its very foundation! Nothing can be plainer
than that salvation and damnation are suspended upon faith
or unbelief, according to these texts. If, therefore, there is
truth in these texts, unconditional salvation is false.
Finally, Mr. M. seems to be almost half convinced, or at
least that it is somewhat doubtful whether he is right. He
recommends the example of David in forming a judgment
on such subjects. " Let me' fall into the hands of the Lord,
for his mercies are great." This he thinks better than to
trust to our ovn weak judgments. Very good advice, and
suits the advocates of conditional salvation well. They be¬
lieve in trusting jn the Lord: that is the condition, the ve¬
ry thing: trust in God, without which we may not hope to
be saved. But why Mr. M. should trust in God, when he
denies that salvation depends in any degree upon it we can¬
not see.
LETTER XVII.
In this letter our author examines the offices held by the
three persons in the Godhead in regard to the economy of
salvation. Passing his broad, unfounded assumptions, we
come to examine his arguments. He says, " In the scheme
of redeeming grace a covenant transaction is represented
as established between the Father and the Holy Spirit
and refers to Mat. iii. 1, and Heb. xii. 24 for proof. "We
have often heard of a covenant between the Father and
the Son, leaving out the Holy Ghost; and once we heard
of a covenant between the Father, the Son and the Holy
'7 6
Ghost; but never before did we hear of a covenant be¬
tween the Father and the Holy Spirit, leaving out the Son.
This must be something new under the sun. But by turn¬
ing to the scriptures referred to, it will be seen that in one
place Christ is called the Messenger of the covenant, and
in the other the mediator of the new covenant; but not a
word about a covenant between the Father and the Holy
Spirit, or between the Father and the Son; nor does the
Bible anywhere speak of any such covenant.
But our author proceeds, and after stating the necessity
of divine influence to change the sinner, and atoning mer¬
it to remove guilt, &c., he says " It seems unreasonable to
suppose that in this sublime covenant, the final event should
be left to the will of depraved, sinful worms. And he il¬
lustrates, "It would be esteemed as extreme folly for three
merchants, who were all rich, to agree to put their whole
stock of wealth into one common fund, and at the same
time agree if a fourth, who was not present, and known to
be in a state of complete bankruptcy, did not put in his
equal proportion the whole stock should be forfeited." And
he adds, " The doctrine of universal conditional salvation
charges all this folly on the great eternal Three One." This
figure presents the subject in a false light. 1st, In that
it represents the sinner as equally concerned in devising
and executing the whole scheme of redemption ; whereas
conditional salvation represents the whole scheme as being
fully arranged and executed independent of man's efforts.
2nd, In that it supposes the whole scheme will be made
void if the sinner refuses to act his part; whereas the ad¬
vocates of conditional salvation hold that the scheme of re¬
demption is complete and will stand fast forever whether
one man or thousands refuse to accept of it. The sinner
who neglects this salvation shall not escape; Heb. ii. 3:
while he who believes shall be saved, Acts, xvi. 81. The
doctrine of conditional salvation does not therefore repre¬
sent the Triune God as acting foolishly in making provis¬
ions for the salvation of all men. But unconditional sal¬
vation does represent him as acting foolishly, in that it rep¬
resents him as leaving out the larger part of mankind, when
the satae price that redeemed one could have redeemed all;
and it also represents him as acting unjustly and cruelly, in
77
fiat it dooms the larger part of mankind to hopeless ruin,
the only reason for which being that God chose to have it
so- But Mr. M. argues that according to conditional salva¬
tion all that has been done to save mankind, has-been done
that those who g^t to heaven may be able to say, " Our own
will and the choice we were wise enough to make has brought
us hither; and those who welter in awful flames might now
be with us if they had only done as we did." This he says
" looks like boasting, notwithstanding the Apostle has said
boasting is excluded." We can scarcely believe Mr. M. to
be serious in these representations: it looks more like bur¬
lesque than honest argument. He says he has no desire to
misrepresent, but he thinks it "fair to say if our salvation
depends on anything to be done by us, that then the thing
is to be done by the voluntary act of our own mind, with¬
out anything influencing us thereto." Here our author con¬
founds coercion with influence. He also confounds an influ¬
ence which leads to make a choice with the choice itself.—
We care not how strong an influence may be, or from what
source it comes, if it does not coerce the man he still acts
upon the principle of choice; and though he may, under
certain influences, make a choice that he would not other¬
wise make, still the choice is his own voluntary act. A sim¬
ple figure may illustrate this subject. Suppose you and
your brother are both sick of the same disease, and a physi¬
cian calls in and tells you both that you are dangerously ill,
and ought by all means to take medicine. You are not
apprized of your danger, but the physician continues ta
explain the nature of the disease, its symptoms, &c. until
you become convinced, and therefore consent to take the*
medicine, and are restored, while your brother refuses and
dies. I suppose you would admit, in such a case, that you
owe your life to your physician, under God, and that the
difference in your condition and that of your brother is ow¬
ing to the difference in the choice you made. He chose not
to take medicine, though persuaded and urged to do so, and
he dies: you, under the same influence, consented to take
the means and are cured. Boasting is therefore excluded. By
what law: of works? Not so; but by the law of faith.—
Could the sinner by any course of obedience to the law
merit the divine favor, there would be ground for boasting;
74:
tut when he can do nothing but trust in him who justifies'
the ungodly, all occasion for boasting is excluded. Condi^
tidnal salvation therefore brings all the glory to God while
the benefit accrues to man.
But our author says, That every act of the human1
mind is free we do not pretend to deny.'* But how the hu¬
man mind acts free if unconditional salvation be true, we-
•cannot tell. I suppose we are to understand that man is
free to act in a certain direction—no other. Just like that
man who is chained to a tree is free to stand there. He says
"no act of the mind or choice of the will can make any change
in the actual physical man. If so we might as well become
angels as anything else by the choice of our wills.- Neither
can any act of the carnal mind create our souls anew." And
who ever contended for such a thing: but because no act
or choice of the human mind can change the heart does it
.follow that when the sinner trusts in the atoning merits of
•Christ, and in that alone, for salvation, that God cannot and
■will not change his heart ? Did ever any sane man argue
.after that sort before ?
Our author's last argument in this last letter is a desper¬
ate effort to prove that the Holy Spirit never operates on a
sinner's heart untill it regenerates him. No light, no influ¬
ence, no quickening power of the Spirit, until it is felt in
■changing the heart. He saysy "We have already stated
that there is no medium between the natural and the spir¬
itual man: nor is it possible that any measure of the Spir¬
it can dwell in the carnal mind." Now it is not contended
that a sinner is half pardonedy or half saved, occupying a
middle ground between sin and salvation j but every one
must see that there is a vast difference between the enlight¬
ening and quickening influence of the Holy Spirit,, by which
the sinner is made to feel the need of salvation, and that
state in which the Holy Ghost renews the heart and takes
up its abode there. -A sinner may have all the light and
means necessary to salvation while he is destitute of salva-
ation itself.
Again our author says, " But you will ask me is there
not something in the human mind that seems to teach the
way of righteousness, and that when the gospel is preached
inclines to give it credit, which certainly proves that man
79
man lias a degree of the Spirit whatever you. may say to»
the contrary." He answers, " That there is something in
the human mind which dictates the existence of good and
evil, I do not pretend to deny ; but that that is a measure
of the Divine Spirit remains to be examined." He says
<£ Philosophers tell us that everything tends towards the
center, of that body of which it makes a part. That the
Spirit of Divine Truth must ever direct those who are under
the guidance thereof towards truth, * * * and if the truth
is the same everywhere, it certainly cannot be otherwise
where the doctrine of revelation extends its rich blessings."
Our author argues that under the light of the Spirit all must
see alike; no diversity of opinion on the subject of religion
can exist. According to this doctrine but one denomina¬
tion can have the light of the Spirit, and in fact but few of
that one, that is those who see alike. But what must they
see alike in: Mr. M. would say in that salvation is uncon¬
ditional, of course. The reader will see Mr- M. has very
nearly argued the Holy Spirit out of the world, and, we
speak reverently, for any thing we can see it had as well be
quite out of the world if it has nothing else to reveal but
that salvation is unconditional.
But our author says, " Let us attend a little more to the
dictates of this spirit you mention, and inquire what kind
of a gospel it is that it so readily approves. Is it the gos¬
pel of tbe Lord Jesus Christ that proclaims salvation freely
through his blood ? or is it a gospel that comes fraught
with terms and conditions of salvation ? * * * Not the for¬
mer : this it treats with public contempt, as Ishmael did
the child of promise at his weaning feast, which gives suf¬
ficient evidence that it has a strong relation to the bond
woman." Now suppose we assume that because Mr. M's-
treats the doctrine of conditional salvation with public con¬
tempt, as Ishmael did the child of promise at his weaning
feast that that is evidence that it is akin to the bond-woman;
what would Mr. M. or any other sober, sensible man, think
of such an argument. And every one must see that this is
precisely his argument, only reversed. Such an argument
may excite a smile at its imbecility, and our pity for the
author, but it cannot satisfy an honest inquirer after truth
But our author says, " The plain fact is, that man was first
80
created under a law, although the darkness of his mind at
present is such that it cannot fully understand the true na¬
ture of the law; still there remains faint traces thereof in
his mind, * * * What therefore has been, and still is, called
a measure of the Spirit in every one, is nothiDg more or
less than the remaining glimmerings of the law on the hti-
man mind." According to this argument man is not total¬
ly depraved; he still has and always had some light from
the law be transgressed; and feeble though it be, yet it is
sufficient to teach what is right and what is wrong.
Now our authos says that when the divine spirit ope¬
rates upon the mind it teaches the man or woman to reject
forever what this former supposed light recommended."—
What! the Spirit teach us to reject the light and teachings
of the law! Is thk Spirit of God against his law? We
should like to know what sort of a light the Spirit brings
if it teaches us to reject a knowledge of right and wrong
which the law taught? What, then, does it teach ? In an¬
other place, when it suited his purpose, our author quo¬
ted the apostle, " The law is spiritual." If the law is spir¬
itual, and the Holy Spirit teaches to reject the light of the
law, then the Holy Spirit teaches to reject its own operations,
or that which is like itself, spiritual. Can any living man rec¬
oncile these warring, jarring elements ? Yerily, we think it
fortunate that Mr. M. closed his letters as he did. Had he have
written another it is difficult to tell where he would have
landed. But he says, " I shall make but one more remark
relative to the .subject before us; and that is, if the light of
the spirit you speak of is a measure of the spirit of Christ,
and disposed to receive the gospel when it is preached, it
certainly would have received the ministry of Christ him¬
self." Mr. M. holds that a gospel that proposes uncondi¬
tional salvation, is the true gospel; and he also holds that
the carnal man cannot understand the gospel, and therefore
that a gospel that a carnal man believes is not the true gos¬
pel. That a great many persons who have no religion,
were never born of the Spirit, believe in the doctrine of
unconditional salvation, no one will deny. It follows, then,
according to Mr. M.'s argument, either that that gospel
which teaches unconditional salvation is false, or that those
individuals have sufficient light of the Holy Spirit to un-
81
derstand what is truth; and in either case Mr. M.'s doc¬
trine falls to the ground. But the most objectionable fea¬
ture in this argument is, it is contrary to the plain teach
Jngs of God's word. We are told in the scriptures, that
this is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh
into the world ; and that the grace of God, that bringeth
salvation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us that deny¬
ing ungodliness and worldly lusts, &c. And again, that
the spirit shall reprove the world of righteousness, tempe¬
rance and judgment. John i. 9, Titus ii. 11, and John xvi.
8. These texts show clearly that the spirit and grace of
God operates upon the hearts of men generally. No lan¬
guage can be plainer. It is the true light; no false light,
no delusive glare, or faint glimmerings of the law, but the
true light that lighteth—Who ? Every man that cometh into
the world. A doctrine so plainly taught and so strongly
marked cannot be set aside. No argument can disprove
it, nor can sophistry weaken it.
We have now gone through with our examination of Mr.
M's. arguments, and we will close with a few remarks. Sup¬
pose, then, that the doctrine of particular unconditional
salvation is true. Then suppose I seek to go to heaven by
the deeds of the law; will that have any effect on my sal¬
vation ? If not, I had as well seek to be saved in that way
as any other: but if it will then salvation is conditional.
But suppose I seek to be saved by repentance and faith:
will that have any effect ? If it will salvation is condition¬
al ; but if not, then it makes no difference whether I do
them or not. Again ; suppose I strive to go to heaven by
living religiously, as the Bible directs, in the best way I
know; will that have any effect ? If not it is useless to try
to be religious; but if it will then salvation depends upon
it and is conditional. But suppose I essay to go to heaven
by breaking God's law, neglecting his gospel and contem¬
ning his word and its teachings: will that endanger my
salvation? If so my salvation depends on my avoiding
such a course, and consequently it is conditional. From
all of which it appears if salvation is unconditional, it makes
no difference what one does—the final result will be the
same. Again, the doctrine of unconditional salvation de¬
stroys accountability. That men should be held to account
8 2
for their doings, or for anything else, and still their final
state not depend upon it in some way, is a contradiction,
an absurdity too glaring to need exposure.
Finally, every command, every exhortation, every warn¬
ing, every threatening, and almost every promise in the Bi¬
ble is unmeaning and powerless if salvation is uncondition¬
al. Why any command, or exhortation to perform reli¬
gious duty if nothing depends on obedience ? But if any
thing pertaining to salvation depends on it, then salvation
is conditional. In fact, there is no sense in giving a com¬
mand on the subject of religion, if salvation depends in no
way upon it: and so of the rest.
And now, gentle reader, in bidding you adieu, as the
last word of advice, and the last interview till we meet in
judgment, do your whole duty, and depend alone on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and then you may feel that you are safe
though the world burns; but apart from that there is no
safety.