CHAPTER V.

CALVINISM IS OPPOSED TO, THE ATTRIBUTES

GOD REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE, AND TO THE HAPPINESS OF MAN, WHICH IT IS THE OBJECT OF DIVINE REVELATION TO PROMOTE.

OF

The Calvinistic doctrines having been we trust satisfactorily proved, to be not only underived from, but absolutely opposed to the word of God, we proceed to shew them inharmonious with the divine character as revealed in Scripture, which assertion if true, mustimply, that they could not have originated from Him. God is there represented as a "God of love," as "LOVE" (Exodus,xxxiv. 6, 7)-(1 John, iv. 8), and equally as a God of justice, (Psalm lxxxix. 14); no "respecter of persons," but 'rendering to every man according to his works." Now the Calvinistic notion of Election is, we aver, inconsistent with either of these attributes, and even more opposed to their perfect and unclashing union; it would degrade the divine love to a

weak and arbitrary fondness, swayed in its choice by no principles of rational esteem, and solely guided by wayward favouritism; determining alone to bestow its benefits, and to confer eternal happiness upon a few as undeserving, or even more so than their fellows; themselves unwilling to accept the proffered blessing, "in vain striving (as a modern predestinarian tells us)* to resist the resistless grace of God." But reprobation would absolutely annihilate this divine attribute: to suppose indeed that God who is love, would create the greater part of mankind, that they might by their damnation glorify his power, would decree their eternal ruin from all eternity without any respect to their foreseen conduct, or even if for sin, without affording them an opportunity to avoid it; is an idea so monstrous and revolting, so contrary to every natural perception of benignity, that to state it merely, is to refute it. But Election is not accordant with the divine justice, since it appears not just and impartial, if our view of those qualities be a true criterion, and God be it remembered frequently appeals to man to judge of the equity of his dealings with him,-when all are equally deserving of condemnation to select some and leave others to destruction. But our

* Rowland Hill's Sermon on Sunday Schools, p. 26.

Creator it is replied is a Sovereign, and has a right to dispose of his rebellious creatures as he thinks fit; now though the right or rather power of acting thus be indisputable, yet I see not how its exercise would be consistent with the divine attribute of justice; since if all be equally culpable, and some are pardoned, and others left to destruction, I aver that the latter are unfairly or at least not impartially dealt with, since mercy extended to one is a sufficient reason for all no more culpable than the pardoned, to expect the same.

When a number of criminals are left for execution, does the monarch without respect to accusation or previous character, reprieve some, and leave the rest to their fate. No! he pardons only those for whom good conduct previous to their crime, or some alleviating circumstance attending the crime itself procure this favour. The above remarks I would urge on the plea of strict justice; now if we take into consideration that mercy is equally an attribute of Divinity, our assertion that all might expect a participation in the divine mercy, if it be vouchsafed to any, is not merely probable but clearly evident, since it is certain that if mercy and justice conjoined, be not violated in electing any one to salvation, they would not be in electing all.

But what shall we say of reprobation; will any principles of justice sanction the condemnation of a man on the charge of involuntarily belonging to the nature of Adam, or of crimes which he could not avoid? The great error of the Calvinists in reasoning on this subject, seems to be an irreverent comparison of the conduct of the Supreme, with that of earthly kings; they frequently see the latter to gratify the raging impulses of passion, commit acts of wanton tyranny, displaying their sovereignty without any regard to the dictates of mercy or justice; and knowing God to be far super-eminent in power, they appear to suppose that he takes pleasure in displaying his authority, almost in the same manner, though to a much greater extent; not considering that the exercise of arbitrary power, without reregard to abstract principles of right and wrong would be equally unjust, whether done by a Supreme or created being; and though superior power might silence or crush the murmerer, it could not alter the nature of the act. Further, when we think or read of the supremacy of God, we almost naturally are inclined to explain it by attending to the impulses of our own minds, which lead us to suppose that the Divine Sovereignty is, and must be displayed, in such a manner as ourselves would

act if possessed of unlimited power; which notion is not merely erroneous but the greatest absurdity and impiety, unless the action of a fallen and finite creature mirror the perfect attributes of its infinite Creator. God's sovereignty is unquestionably uuder the guidance of the most rigid equity; umbiassed equally by the indecision and weakness, or the arbitrary tyranny and wanton cruelty, so frequently exhibited in the acts of his creatures; and notwithstanding the bold assertion of a famed defender of Predestinarianism, who represents God as displaying his sovereignty "by sometimes winking at crimes and sometimes punishing them," and compares his conduct "with some sovereigns of dust, who will give no account of their actions, except their good pleasure."* I leave to the readers judgment whether this representation be not equally dishonourable to, and inconsistent with God's revealed attributes, as I can after, I trust, an impartial examination attest it to be unwarranted by any tenable interpretation of the sacred volume.

Having thus shewn Calvinism to be contrary to the love and justice of God, we shall briefly speak of its inconsistency with another of his attributes, "TRUTH." "God is not a man that he

* Elisha Coles on God's Sovereignty, pp. 25, 40. (Recommended by W. Romaine,) New edition, 1835.