049. CHAPTER 22 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - PREDESTINATION, ELECTION, FOREKNOWLEDGE, AND SOVER...

CHAPTER 22 - THE ATONEMENT - ITS EXTENT - PREDESTINATION, ELECTION, FOREKNOWLEDGE, AND SOVEREIGNTY. IN the preceding chapter, we endeavored to prove, by a direct appeal to the Scriptures, that the atonement so extends to all men as to make salvation possible for them. That there are no texts of a direct and positive character in the Bible to disprove this position, has, by Calvinists themselves, generally been admitted. Yet, by inferential evidence from Scripture, as well as by a train of philosophical reasoning, they have endeavored to build up and sustain a system of doctrine exhibiting a partial atonement, or, at least, an atonement which does not make salvation possible for all mankind. In order to sustain this system, Calvinists argue from the subject of the divine prescience, predestination, election, the divine sovereignty, etc., as they conceive them to be taught in the Bible. A particular examination of those subjects, so as to show that, according to the true interpretation of Scripture, no good reason can be deduced from that source in opposition to the general position which we have endeavored to sustain, is the matter now claiming our attention. That the doctrines of the divine prescience and divine sovereignty, of predestination and election, are taught in the Bible, is admitted by Arminians as well as Calvinists. None who admit the truth of revelation can deny them. Yet, with regard to their true import, there has been much controversy; nor is it likely that, on these difficult questions, a unity of sentiment among professed Christians is soon to be realized. The Arminian understands these subjects, as presented in the Scriptures, in perfect consistency with the great doctrine of general redemption, which provides, according to the proposition established in our last chapter, a possible salvation for all men; whereas the Calvinist understands them in such sense as to deduce from them arguments, satisfactory to his mind, for the establishment of his peculiar views of particular redemption, and a special provision for the salvation of the elect, to the exclusion of any possibility of salvation to the rest of mankind.

Whether the Calvinists can really establish their peculiar views upon these subjects from the Scriptures, we shall presently consider. But, in order that we may proceed with as much fairness as possible, we choose, first, briefly to state the leading features of their system, in the language of their own acknowledged standards. As the “Westminster Confession of Faith” is not only in doctrine the standard of the Church of Scotland, but also of the English and American Presbyterians, we quote from that volume, Chapter III., as follows:

“3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

“4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

“5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

“6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

“7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.” To complete more fully the account of this doctrine, we also quote from the “Larger Catechism,” adopted by the Church of Scotland, the answers to the twelfth and thirteenth questions:

“God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will; whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men.

“God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace to be manifested in due time hath elected some angels to glory; and, in Christ, hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice.” As a comment upon the foregoing articles, and as a brief and comprehensive summary of the principal features in the Calvinistic scheme, we subjoin the following from Dr. Hill:

“These quotations suggest the following propositions, which may be considered as constituting the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, and in which there is an explication of most of the terms:

“1. God chose out of the whole body of mankind, whom he viewed in his eternal decree as involved in guilt and misery, certain persons who are called the elect, whose names are known to him, and whose number, being unchangeably fixed by his decree, can neither be increased nor diminished; so that the whole extent of the remedy offered in the gospel is conceived to have been determined beforehand by the divine decree.

“2. As all the children of Adam were involved in the same guilt and misery, the persons thus chosen had nothing in themselves to render them more worthy of being elected than any others; and therefore the decree of election is called in the Calvinistic system absolute, by which word is meant that it arises entirely from the good pleasure of God, because all the circumstances which distinguish the elect from others are the fruit of their election.

“3. For the persons thus chosen, God from the beginning appointed the means of their being delivered from corruption and guilt; and by these means, effectually applied in due season, he conducts them at length to everlasting life.

“4. Jesus Christ was ordained by God to be the Saviour of these persons, and God gave them to him to be redeemed by his blood, to be called by his Spirit, and finally to be glorified with him. All that Christ did in the character of Mediator, was in consequence of this original appointment of the Father, which has received from many divines the name of the covenant of redemption - a phrase which suggests the idea of a mutual stipulation between Christ and the Father, in which Christ undertook all that work which he executed in his human nature, and which he continues to execute in heaven in order to save the elect - and the Father promised that the persons for whom Christ died should be saved by his death. According to the tenor of this covenant of redemption, the merits of Christ are not considered as the cause of the decree of election, but as a part of that decree - in other words, God was not moved by the mediation of Christ to choose certain persons out of the great body of mankind to be saved, but having chosen them, he conveys all the means of salvation through the channel of this mediation.

“5. From the election of certain persons, it necessarily follows that all the rest of the race of Adam are left in guilt and misery. The exercise of the divine sovereignty in regard to those who are not elected, is called reprobation; and the condition of all having been originally the same, reprobation is called absolute in the same sense with election. In reprobation there are two acts, which the Calvinists are careful to distinguish. The one is called preterition, the passing by those who are not elected, and withholding from them those means of grace which are provided for the elect. The other is called condemnation, the act of condemning those who have been passed by, for the sins which they commit. In the former act, God exercises his good pleasure, dispensing his benefits as he will; in the latter act, he appears as a judge, inflicting upon men that sentence which their sins deserve. If he had bestowed upon them the same assistance which he prepared for others, they would have been preserved from that sentence; but as their sins proceeded from their own corruption, they are thereby rendered worthy of punishment, and the justice of the Supreme Ruler is manifested in condemning them, as his mercy is manifested in saving the elect.” (Hill’s Lectures, Book IV., Chap. 7., Sec. 3.) According to the foregoing account, it appears that the following are leading tenets in the Calvinistic scheme, viz.:

1. That by predestination, foreordination, or the decrees of God, all things, whether great or small, whether good or evil, whether they relate to the physical or moral universe, whether they relate to the history of angels or to the actions of men, were, from all eternity, or before time began, firmly and unalterably fixed and determined, according to the will of God.

2. That by this predestination, or foreordination, “some men and angels” were elected or chosen to everlasting life, and others reprobated or set apart to everlasting death.

3. That the election of some, and the reprobation of others, had no regard to faith and obedience on the one hand, or unbelief and disobedience on the other, as foreseen conditions, or causes leading thereunto.

4. That this election and reprobation are personal, unconditional, and absolute, insomuch that the “number of the elect” or of the reprobate can “neither be increased nor diminished.”

5. That the election of some, and the reprobation of others, is the sole originating cause of the faith and obedience of the elect, on the one hand, and of the lack of faith and obedience of the reprobate on the other. To sustain the peculiarities of the system which we have thus briefly sketched, the Calvinists appeal to the scriptures in which the doctrines of predestination and election are taught, and institute a course of reasoning founded mainly on the divine prescience and sovereignty. That we may have a clear view of the subject, and understand the nature of their arguments, we now proceed particularly to the investigation of the Scripture doctrine of election, predestination, etc.

I. GENERAL IMPORT OF ELECTION. The term election, in the Greek Testament, is eklogh, a choice, from the verb eklegw, to choose; hence the signification of the verb to elect is to choose, and the noun election signifies a choice. According to this definition of the term, we may easily perceive that, upon principles of rationality, several things are indispensable to constitute election.

1. There must be an intelligent agent to choose. As the act of choosing can only be performed by an intelligent being, to suppose an election to exist without such an agent would be absurd.

2. This intelligent being must be possessed of the principle of free moral agency. Choice necessarily implies freedom; hence, if the supposed agent be not morally free or unnecessitated in the act, he cannot, in the proper sense, be an agent at all, but is only an instrument, wielded by impelling forces; and in such case, as there could be no choice, in the true import of the term, so there could be no election.

3. In the next place, there must be objects presented to the mind of this intelligent agent, in order that he may make the choice, or selection. To suppose an election to exist where there are no objects in reference to which to make the choice, would be as absurd as to suppose that there could be color, division, or figure, without something colored, divided, or figured.

4. Next, there must be a difference, real or imaginary, in the objects, in reference to which the choice is made. Where there is no difference, in the proper sense, there can be no choice. It is true, that two or more objects may be presented to the mind, and the one may be taken, and the others left, merely because it is not convenient or proper to take all; but in this case, there cannot properly be any rational choice. A choice or election implies a reason on which it is founded; and this reason, or ground of choice, must be supposed to exist in the objects in reference to which the choice is made.

5. There must be a time in which the act of choosing takes place. To suppose that an act has been performed, and yet to suppose that there was no time in which it was performed, is manifestly absurd. Hence, we must either deny that to choose or elect is an act at all, or we must admit a time for its performance.

Now, we think it must be so plain that all the above specified particulars are essential to constitute election, that farther illustration or proof would be needless. Wherever the five particulars above enumerated are found to unite, an election must exist; but if any one of the five be lacking, an election cannot, on rational principles, exist. With these remarks upon the general definition of election, we proceed to examine the Scripture illustration of this doctrine.

II. SPECIFIC KINDS OF ELECTION. In opening the Bible upon this subject, we find that there are several different kinds of election presented to our view.

1. There is a personal election of individuals to a special office or work. Christ was chosen, or elected, to the great office of Mediator and Redeemer, that he might enter upon the great work of saving an apostate world. In reference to this election, we read, in Isaiah 42:1 : “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth.”

King Cyrus was also chosen, or elected, for the special work of rebuilding the temple. In reference to this work, he was “called” by the Lord, and designated as his “shepherd” and “his anointed.” The “twelve apostles” were elected to their peculiar office by the Saviour; and St. Paul was specially chosen, or elected, to be the “apostle of the Gentiles.” In reference to this species of election, a little reflection will evince that it perfectly accords with the general definition of the subject given above. All the five requisites to constitute election may readily be seen to meet in each case specified. And although it is personal, individual, and, in a certain sense, absolute, yet it has no reference whatever to the fixing of the eternal destinies of men. The Saviour was chosen as the great Redeemer of the world, because he was the only proper and adequate Being for the accomplishment of the exalted work.

Cyrus was selected as a suitable character for the instrumental accomplishment of the divine purpose in the rebuilding of the temple; but this election neither secured nor prevented the eternal salvation of the Persian monarch. The “twelve apostles” were chosen by our Lord, as suitable persons to accompany him in his itinerant ministry, to be witnesses of his miracles and of his resurrection, and to be the first ministers of his religion; but this election did not absolutely secure their eternal salvation, for one of their number grievously apostatized and went to perdition.

St. Paul was elected as a suitable minister to bear the gospel message to the learned Gentiles; but this election did not absolutely secure his eternal salvation, for we hear him strongly expressing his fears “lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” So that it is clear that, from this personal and individual election to a peculiar office or work, no countenance is given to the Calvinistic notion of personal and unconditional election, from all eternity, to everlasting life.

2. The second species of election presented in Scripture is that of NATIONS, or BODIES OF PEOPLE, to the participation of peculiar privileges and blessings, conferred upon them for the accomplishment of some great object of divine benevolence, in reference to others as well as to themselves.

(1) Thus, Abraham and his descendants were anciently chosen as the peculiar people of God, to receive the divine law, to become conservators of the true worship, and to be the means of illumination, and of great and numerous blessings, to the world at large. In reference to this election, we read, Amos 3:2 : “You only have I known of all the families of the earth.” 1 Chronicles 16:13 : “Ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.”

Acts 13:17 : “The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Deuteronomy 10:15 : “The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you, above all people.”

Deuteronomy 14:2 : “The Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.”

Thus we discover that the Jews, as a nation, were, in a certain sense, an elect, chosen, and peculiar people; but this election, as all must admit, did not absolutely secure their eternal salvation. Their election, as a nation, had no such design, as we may see from the fact that many of them were not saved. This truth the Apostle Paul abundantly teaches. He says that “with many of them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” He specifies that some of them were “idolaters,” some were “fornicators,” some “tempted Christ,” and that God “sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his rest.” These were the “chosen, elected,” and “peculiar people” of God. How vastly different is this from the Calvinistic, eternal, and unconditional election and reprobation, by which the everlasting destiny of “men and angels” is said to be unalterably fixed! In this national election of the Jews there is also implied a corresponding national rejection, or reprobation, of the Gentiles. Election and reprobation are inseparable: the one necessarily, implies the other. In the same sense in which the Jews were elected, the Gentiles were reprobated. As the former were elected to the enjoyment of peculiar privileges, so the latter were reprobated in reference to those privileges - that is, they were not called to their enjoyment, or placed in their possession. This national election, though we may admit that it conferred peculiar blessings upon one nation, which were denied to all others, yet it appears to present nothing in the divine administration revolting to the most pleasing and exalted view that can be taken of the principles of justice, equity, and benevolence. For be it remembered, that in proportion as the Jews were exalted above the Gentiles in point of privilege, even so, on that very account, more was required at their hands.

It is one of the unalterable principles of the divine government, that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required,” and vice versa. The man to whom “five talents” had been given, was required to improve all that he had received, while he to whom but “one talent” had been given, was only required to improve the same. Thus, while the Jews, to whom had been “committed the oracles of God,” and to whom “pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises,” were required to serve God with a fidelity and devotedness proportionate to their superior light and privileges, the Gentiles were only required to improve the privileges which had been conferred upon them, and to live up to the degree of light they possessed. Notwithstanding this election of the Jews to privileges so exalted, yet, as we have seen, they were liable to mis-improve them, and many of them did so mis-improve and abuse them as to perish everlastingly; and finally, this chosen, elect, and peculiar people, for their wickedness and idolatry, their unbelief and rebellion, were severed and overthrown as a nation, their civil polity uprooted, their ecclesiastical establishment demolished, and the once favored tribes of Abraham doomed to wander in degradation and groan for centuries beneath the ban of Heaven. But how was it with the Gentiles? Did this national election and reprobation, according to the Calvinistic interpretation of this doctrine consign them to inevitable and eternal destruction? By no means. The supposition is not only repugnant to reason, and revolting to the feelings, but destitute of the least shadow of support from Scripture. In allusion to God’s method of dealing with the ancient Gentiles, St. Paul says: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at” - that is, sent them no prophets to instruct them better, and consequently, in judging them, only required of them according to what they had.

St. Paul, in the second chapter to the Romans, clearly shows that “there is no respect of persons with God;” and that “the Gentiles, which have not the law,” may “do by nature (that is, by the assistance which God affords them, independent of the written law) the things contained in the law,” act up to the requirements of “their conscience,” and be esteemed as “just before God.” That those whom God saw proper to leave for a season in a state of Gentile darkness - destitute of written revelation - were not thereby precluded from all possibility of eternal salvation, is farther evident from several instances recorded in Scripture of pious heathen - such as Melchizedek, Job, and Cornelius; but the language of St. Peter must set this question at rest: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

Since, then, it is obvious from what has been said, that the national election of the Jews, and reprobation of the Gentiles, did not absolutely secure the salvation of the former, or the damnation of the latter, it is plain that from this election Calvinism can derive no aid. Indeed, so far was the calling of Abraham, and the establishment of the Church in his family, from implying the absolute dereliction of the Gentiles to eternal ruin, that it was designed as a means of illumination, and an unspeakable blessing, even to them. The establishment of the true worship in the family of Abraham was designed to counteract the prevalence of idolatry among the surrounding nations; and the entire Jewish system of jurisprudence and religion was indeed a “light shining in a dark place.” The peculiar position of their country, their intercourse with surrounding nations, both through commerce and by reason of their frequent captivities, with many concurring circumstances, tended to diffuse abroad the lights and blessings of Judaism. Even at their temple, there was found “the court of the Gentiles,” where the “stranger from a far country” might join in the worship of the true God. How plain then must it be, that this election of one nation to peculiar privileges was designed also to “bless,” though in a less degree, “all the families of the earth.”

(2) A second example of this species of election is presented in the calling of both Jews and Gentiles to the privileges of the gospel Church.

There is a reference to this election in the following passages: - 1 Peter 5:13 : “The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you.”

1 Peter 2:9 : “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.” 1 Thessalonians 1:4 : “Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.” That we may the better understand this election, be it remembered that the Jews, in many respects, were a typical people. Their calling and election to the peculiar privileges of the Mosaic dispensation were typical of the calling and election of both Jews and Gentiles to the superior privileges of the gospel. In the days of the apostles, the old dispensation gave place to the new. The Mosaic institution received its fulfillment; and vast multitudes of both Jews and Gentiles were called and elected to the glorious privileges of the gospel Church; not by virtue of natural descent from Abraham, but through the medium of “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” The privileges to which they were here elected were both external - embracing all the means of grace, and outward blessings of Christianity; and internal - embracing the spiritual enjoyments and blessings of pure and heart-felt religion. Many were externally embraced in the Church, and in that sense elected to its privileges, who were not elected to the full enjoyment of the spiritual blessings of the gospel. The cause of this distinction is obvious. The condition upon which they could be elected to the external privileges was that of a formal profession; but the condition of election to the full privileges of the Church, both external and internal, both temporal and spiritual, was that of faith in God’s Messiah. Many, no doubt, enjoyed the privileges of the former, who never attained unto the privileges of the latter, election. In reference to this, it may be said that “all were not Israel who were of Israel” - all were not elected to the spiritual who shared the external privileges of the gospel; but election in the external sense was in order to, or designed to promote, election in the more proper sense, to the full enjoyment of the blessings of the gospel. But let us inquire, in the next place, how this election to the privileges of the gospel Church, both external and spiritual, comports with the Calvinistic scheme. The election taught in that system is, 1.Eternal - “from all eternity.”

2. It is unconditional - “without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto.”

3. It absolutely secures their eternal salvation - “their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased nor diminished.”

Now, it can easily be proved that the election under consideration contains not one of the attributes of Calvinistic election as just presented.

(1) It is not eternal. Jews and Gentiles are called and elected to the privileges of the gospel, not “from all eternity,” but in time. They are called by the gospel and elected, as the apostle has said, “through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience.”

(2) It is not unconditional. “Repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ,” are everywhere presented as the condition upon which the privileges of the gospel Church are to be enjoyed.

(3) It does not absolutely secure the eternal salvation of those thus elected. That this is true so far as it is applied to the election to the external privileges of the gospel, Calvinists themselves will admit; and that it is also true as applied to the election of true believers to the spiritual, as well as the outward, privileges of the gospel, is evident from the numerous warnings given to such characters against “turning back to perdition,” making “shipwreck of the faith,” or “departing from the living God;” and especially is it evident from the language of St. Peter, where he exhorts believers to “give diligence to make their calling and election sure.” Now, if it had been made sure “from all eternity,” their “diligence” could not possibly have any tendency to make it sure. Again: the Calvinistic view of election absolutely precludes the non-elect from all possibility of salvation; but this election of collections of persons to gospel privileges has no such bearing whatever. Thousands who were not thus elected, or who were not of the Church in the apostles’ days, have been brought in in subsequent times; and the gospel is still spreading more widely its influence, and swelling the number of its elected members. This Calvinists cannot deny.

Again, this election of Christians to Church privileges, so far from being an evidence that others, not yet thus elected, are thereby excluded from the favor of God, has a direct tendency, and is really designed, to extend to them the same blessing of gospel fellowship. The Church is styled “the light of the world,” and “the salt of the earth.” This necessarily implies that those beyond its pale may become partakers of the same “light,” and be purified by the same preservative grace, of which the actual members of the Church are now possessed. Hence we may arrive fairly at the conclusion that this election of nations, or large bodies of people, to the enjoyment of peculiar privileges affords no support to Calvinistic election.

3. The third and last species of election which we shall notice, as presented in the Bible, is that of individuals chosen, or elected, to eternal life. This is brought to view in the following passages of Scripture: - Matthew 22:14 : “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Ephesians 1:4 : “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love.” 1 Peter 1:2 : “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” Colossians 3:12 : “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,” etc.

These, and many other passages, although they may apply to that “collective” election already described, yet we admit that they also express the peculiar favor by which God calls and elects to eternal life all the finally faithful. That election of this personal and individual kind is frequently alluded to in the Scriptures, is admitted by Arminians as well as Calvinists; but the great matter of dispute relates to the sense in which the subject is to be understood. Calvinists say that this election is “from all eternity;” this Arminians deny, except so far as the foreknowledge or purpose of God to elect may be termed election.

Upon this question, then, concerning the eternity of personal and individual election, we remark, first, that to suppose that actual election can be “from all eternity,” appears manifestly absurd, and inconsistent with the import of the term to elect. It signifies to choose: this implies an act of the mind, and every act implies a time in which it took place, and consequently a time before it took place. Hence it would appear that, unless we make the act of election an essential part of the divine nature, (which is absurd,) it cannot be eternal; for that attribute will apply properly to the divine essence only.

Again, the eternity of actual election is not only absurd, as we have seen, but it is also unscriptural.

St. Peter calls the saints, “elect, through sanctification of the Spirit,” etc. Now, if they are elected “through sanctification of the Spirit,” they could not have been elected till they were sanctified by the Spirit, unless we say that the end precedes the means leading to that end, or that the effect precedes the cause, which is absurd. St. Paul styles the saints, “chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” Now, according to the same reasoning, they could not have been actually chosen before they believed the truth; consequently their actual election cannot be “from all eternity.” We know that St. Paul, in the passage quoted, says’ “God hath from the beginning chosen you,” etc. But this cannot prove the eternity of actual election, without, as we have seen, contradicting what immediately follows; and we may be sure that the apostle did not mean to contradict himself. The meaning of St. Paul may be explained by the language of St. Peter, when he styles the saints “elect according to the foreknowledge of God”

- that is, in the purpose of God. So, St. Paul may mean that “God hath from the beginning (according to his foreknowledge, or in his purpose) chosen you,” etc. But even if we take the phrase “from the beginning” to refer to the commencement of the world, when God first laid the plan of salvation through Christ, it will not follow that the personal election of the Thessalonians was unconditional. The words may merely imply that God. from the very first institution of the covenant of grace, determined, from a foresight that they would believe and embrace the gospel, through that means to save them from their sins, and admit them to the heavenly felicity. So, then, we perceive that, whether we understand the texts in question to refer to the unconditional election of the believing character, according to the settled principles of the gospel, or to the conditional election of individual persons, according to the same divinely established condition of faith, in either case, there can be nothing derived from this source to justify the Calvinistic scheme of eternal, unconditional, and personal election to everlasting life. That the Calvinistic view upon this subject is self-contradictory and absurd, may easily be shown by adverting to the true definition of election and calling to mind the several indispensable requisites for its existence, according to what has already been shown. In view of these principles, then, we will briefly consider this personal election to eternal life.

1. Before an election can exist, according to the principles of rationality, there must be an intelligent agent to perform the act of choosing. In reference to the election in question, God is this agent. St. Paul says: “According as he (God) hath chosen us in him,” etc. On this point there can be no controversy. All agree that God is the great intelligent agent who chooses, or elects, whom he will to eternal life.

2. The second requisite to an election is, that the agent who performs the act of choosing be possessed of moral freedom. Here, also, there can be no controversy. All must agree that the Divine Being possesses moral freedom in the highest possible acceptation. He doeth “his good pleasure,” and “worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”

3. The third thing requisite to constitute election is, that objects be presented to the mind of the intelligent agent, in reference to which he may make the choice. Here the Calvinistic scheme begins to limp; for if election be “from all eternity,” it took place before the objects or persons existed concerning whom it was made. But if it be said that it took place in the purpose of God, who, looking forward into futurity, “seeth the end from the beginning,” then it will follow that it was not actual election at all, but only a determination to elect in futurity, and Calvinism falls to the ground. The former position is absurd, the latter gives up the question; and Calvinists may elect either horn of the dilemma.

4. The fourth thing requisite to constitute election is, that there be a real or imaginary difference in the objects in reference to which the choice is made. The word imaginary is here inserted in order to make the definition apply to election universally, whether fallible man or the Infinite Mind be the agent in the choice; but as God is infinite in knowledge, it is clear that the term can have no application when the choice is performed by him; therefore, before the election in question can exist, there must be a real difference in the objects or persons concerning whom the choice is made. Even an intelligent creature can make no rational choice where no supposed difference exists; and can we suppose that the infinite God will act in a manner that would be justly deemed blind and irrational in man? The thought is inadmissible. However far beyond the ken of the puny intellect of man the principles may lie which sway the divine determinations, yet we may be well assured that every act of Deity is based upon a sufficient and infallible reason. If God selects, or chooses, some men to eternal life, and rejects others, as all admit to be the fact, there must be a good and sufficient reason for this election.

It will not do for Calvinists piously to tell us that “the Judge of all the earth will do right,” and to think that this will put out of sight the difficulty which their doctrine here involves. That God will “do right,” all admit; but the question is, How can he do right if Calvinism be true? Nor will it do for them to tell us that this election is “according to the good pleasure of God’s will.” This we admit; but the question is, How can the Calvinistic presentation of this subject be reconciled with the declarations of Scripture in reference to the divine will? Does not Calvinism, by telling us that this election of some men to eternal life is “without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto,” render this election perfectly irreconcilable with the divine character?

If, as Calvinism teaches, this choice of some men and rejection of others is made without any reference whatever to moral character, but according to the “good pleasure of God,” we might perhaps still suppose that there was a sufficient reason to justify it, though concealed from our view; were it not that we are immediately informed that the moral character of the elect and reprobate, as contemplated by the Almighty in his electing love, was precisely the same. This tenet of Calvinism not only puts the reason of the choice beyond our reach, but it does more - it puts it out of existence; for if the reason be not founded on moral character, there is no consideration left, according to the Scriptures, upon which it can be founded. Agreeably to the Bible, in the awards of the judgment-day, moral character alone is taken into the account; and this is the only ground of distinction by which God can be influenced, in determining one person for glory and another for perdition. As Calvinism disavows this distinction as having any influence in election, it deprives the Divine Being of any possible reason worthy of his character for the personal election of men to everlasting life.

If it be said, Calvinists themselves declare that God always acts rationally, and has an infinite reason for all his acts, we reply, that this only proves that their system is self-contradictory; for, as we have already shown, their scheme discards any difference in the moral character of men as influencing election; and the Scriptures everywhere show that God, in his dealings with men in reference to eternity, can be swayed by no other consideration.

We arrive at the conclusion, therefore, that however different the teachings of Calvinism, if one man is elected to everlasting life and another consigned to perdition, it is not the result of an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable partiality, but accords with reason, equity, and justice, and is a glorious display of the harmonious perfections of God. It is because the one is good and the other bad; the one is righteous and the other unrighteous; the one is a believer and the other an unbeliever; or the one is obedient and the other rebellious. These are the distinctions which reason, justice, and Scripture recognize; and we may rest assured they are the only distinctions which God regards in electing his people to glory, and sentencing the wicked to perdition.

5. The last thing, requisite to constitute election is, that there be a time at which the act of choosing takes place. As has already been shown, the election of individuals to eternal life may be considered as existing only in the foreknowledge or purpose of God, or it may be viewed as actual. There is no possible middle ground between these positions. If we adopt the former, and say that election is only “from all eternity” when viewed as the divine purpose to elect, we renounce one of the favorite dogmas of Calvinism, which holds that election is absolute from all eternity, and in no sense dependent on, or resulting from, foreknowledge. If we adopt the latter, we are involved in the absurdity of saying that an actual choice has been made, and yet that there was no time in which the act took place. And more than this, we also contradict the Scripture, which plainly teaches that men are actually chosen to eternal life when they accede to the conditions of the gospel; their election is “through faith” - “sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.” From what has been said, we think it evident that neither the election of individuals to a particular office or work, nor the election of nations, or bodies of people, to peculiar privileges, nor that of individuals to eternal life, gives the least sanction to the Calvinistic scheme.