Page images
PDF
EPUB

the death of the cross. That he was a voluntary sacrifice is evident, and it is no less evident, that wicked men were the instruments of his death-nor is it any less evident, that in doing this, they did what the hand and counsel of God before determined to be done.

Now if we can show that wicked men did put Christ to death, and that God's plan of saving sinners could not have been accomplished without it, the doctrine of divine decrees will need no other support. In proof of Christ's dying by violent means, I shall make a few quotations. "Being put to death in the flesh :" 1 Pet. iii.18. This text is phrased in such a manner as to give the idea of the passivity of his death, or that " his life was taken from the earth." Peter says, Acts, ii. 23. "Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." In chap. v. 30, he says, "Whom ye sleav and hanged on a tree :" and chap. iii. 15. "And killed the prince of life." These passages all give us the idea, that wicked men were as much the cause of the death of Jesus, as they were of the death of Stephen. One of the arguments used by Mr. B. in favor of the miraculous death of our Lord, by the dismission of his spirit, viz. this, that he was dead sooner than was expected, has been commonly made use of to prove the greatness of his sufferings above common sufferers. And notwithstanding all which my antagonist has said, I see no cause to turn the argument out of the old channel.

Two or three things will now be suggested to show, that God did not only predict, what wicked men would do to his son; but that, all things considered, it was his choice, and the fixed purpose of his heart, to bring these dreadful sufferings upon him. How can this text imply any thing less: Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him? And this; Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the Shepherd ? Zech. xiii, 7. What was the sword with which God designed to smite the Shepherd? It was undoubtedly the very sword which was used. See Psal. xvii. 15, 14; Deliver my soul from the wicked which is thy sword: from men, which are thy hand, O Lord. By comparing the passage from Zechariah, with this from the Psalms; and comparing both

with the history of our Saviour's death, it seems as if nothing could, or need be clearer than this, That the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ designed to make use of wicked men to be his sword, to smite, and put to death the man who was his fellow, i. e. his well beloved Son. Thus Jesus viewed the matter himself long be fore the Roman band were put in array against him. "From that time forth Jesus began to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed.” Mat. xvi. 23. Peter thought there was no must be to such dreadful sufferings, as were in fact about to come upon his Master. But we all remember the rebuke which his Master gave him. It was not so strange that the disciples should not see the necessity of these dreadful sufferings beforehand, as that we should not see their necessity and utility, who live so long after they have taken place, and who have actually seen so much of the glory which was to follow. What instruction are we to learn from such passages as these? "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life: Joh. iii. 14. 15. "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer." Luke xxiv. 26, 46.

Mr. B. has sought to do away my explanation of other passages adduced to support the doctrine of divine purposes, but I do not see any thing material to detain me in making further remarks on these texts. I must make a great effort to be concise, or the vindication which is now attempted will exceed its proper bounds. I hasten,

[ocr errors]

III. To assign another reason why I cannot change my views of the import of the text, which stands at the head of the first sermon, and come into the views of the Arminians: It is this, the doctrine which we drew from the text, still appears honorable to God, and not in the least opposed to any of his glorious perfections, or to any of the truths of his blessed word. He who has read Mr. Bangs' book will see, that it is eminently his strong hold, to disprove the divine dècrees, by show

ing how dishonorable they are to God, and how incon.. sistent they are with the doctrines of his word. Не does not pretend to bring much direct proof from the scriptures, to show that God has not a purpose about every event. He strives hard by learned criticisms, and other means, to invalidate our direct proof; but his direct proof against us is very slender. I recollect scarcely any text introduced with a design directly to confront our doctrine, except Jer. xix. 5; "Which I commanded them not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind." And if there were not a great want of direct proof against the decrees, it is certain, this text would not have been used for this purpose; for if it contain any direct argument against foreordination, it is by its denying the foreknowledge of God: But Mr. B. is equally concerned with myself to defend the text from such an interpretation. Our opponents cannot but see that we have much scripture, which seems naturally to support the doctrine of a divine plan of creation, provi dence and grace: therefore, they choose to meet us in the field of reason, rather than in that of revelation. Here they feel as if they had no difficulty in confronting us. They think they can make our doctrine appear amazingly absurd, and even ridiculous. Now they display a great zeal for the honor of God. They cannot bear the thought, that he should, according to our sense of scripture, work all things after the counsel of his own will; because if he does, what, say they, will he do to his great name? It is good to be jealous for the honor of God; but it becomes us to be very careful, lest we think that we are more competent than he is himself, to tell what will be for his honor, and what will not. If he has expressed himself in his word in such a manner as clearly to convey the idea, that his hand and counsel are concerned in determining and bringing to pass what men, and even what wicked men do, we ought to conclude, that he does not view this as bringing any blot upon his holy character. And do we not act the more consistent part, when we set ourselves to work to reconcile this with his holiness, than when we undertake to show, that it is inconsistent with holiness, and therefore it must be that God did not mean as he said. If it were a solitary passage, which appeared to contain the

doctrine before us, it would not be so strange that it should be confronted by reason; but the passages are many, and some of them are exceedingly explicit. But I do not refuse to follow my antagonist into his castle. He says, "From the perfections of God's character it is impossible for him to foreordain whatsoever comes to pass." p. 18. He endeavors to show that this doctrine militates against the justice, wisdom, holiness, goodness,` truth, and immutability of God.

There appear to be certain leading objections in the mind of the author of the Letters, running through this part of his subject, and indeed through his whole work, which if they could be removed, there is reason to hope the way would be prepared for a greater union in our religious sentiments. Let us not despair but that so desirable an object may yet be obtained. I shall not follow my antagonist from page to page; but shall endeavor to remove his leading objections, and shall be as particular as my plan of conciseness will admit.

1. It is evident, that one of the most capital objec. tions which Mr. B. and all the Arminians, urge against the Calvinistic scheme of doctrine, and against the doctrine of a fixed decree, in particular, is, that it destroys the free agency of creatures. In the preface of his book, Mr. B. says, " any system which eclipses the glory of the divine attributes, and exculpates man from blame in his wicked conduct, must be unfriendly to the interests of religion. If man be not free, he is not responsible, nor a subject of moral government, neither rewardable nor punishable, upon the principles of justice and goodness." It is here supposed, that the Calvinistic system destroys free agency. p. 6. And in p. 16, it is asserted: "But according to your doctrine, they are no more the actions of men, than the moving of my pen are its actions; and in this case it would be as absurd to find fault with my pen for bad writing, as to find fault with men for their inconsistent conduct." Much to this effect runs through his whole book. This, it will be acknowledged, is a capital objection against the Calvinistic system, if it can be substantiated. But how do they attempt to do this? It will not be pretended that we say, men are not free agents. We go further in asserting free agency than Arminians them

selves do. Mr. B. manifestly implies it in what he says p. 7, that fallen creatures cease to be free agents, unless they be in some measure restored by grace. But Calvinists carry the doctrine of free agency much further. They hold that all rational beings are free agents, however great, and however confirmed their depravity. We believe that neither the entire deprav ity of wicked men, nor the entire depravity of devils, destroys their free agency. Our opposition to the free agency of man, is not then taken from our concessions, but is, by our opponents, supposed to be inferrable from the other doctrines which we hold. But what are the doctrines that we hold, which stand in opposition to free agency? The Arminian will say, You hold to the doctrine of man's entire dependence on God when considered as a moral agent; and you hold that God has determined all his actions before he does them. It is acknowledged, that we hold to these doctrines, and it is believed that we may continue to hold to them, and yet not renounce the doctrine of man's free agency.

What is a free agent? Is it not a rational being who has faculties to discern between good and evil, and who « Exercises choice, and who is accountable for his conduct? Here I will shew in a word by what arguments I would prove, that we are free agents; and then how I would prove, that we are perfectly dependent agents.

As to free agency, I would say, 1st. We are conscious of a different freedom from the pen with which we write. Consciousness belongs to the first kind of proof. I know that I choose to write, but I know that my pen has no choice about it. This makes as much as a small shade of difference between me and my pen. See p. 24. 2dly. My conscience either accuses, or else excuses my actions, and passes judgment even upon the thoughts of my heart. This is another proof that I am not a machine. 3dly. We treat one another as free agents. This appears by all the regulations of society; such as having laws, and judges, prisons, &c. 4thly. The Supreme Being treats us as free and accountable agents, by giving us a moral law, and by rewarding and punishing according to the character which we pos

« PreviousContinue »