Conditional Election. then they are not yet converted. How, then, can it be known for whom to pray? and till this is ascertained what meaning is there in the exhortation? When the patient dies of exhaustion under the lancet, it is time to enquire whether the treatment is the very best that could have been adopted. We still think it a very repulsive feature of any system if it represent the gospel so that it cannot be ascertained that it is the will of God that a single soul should be saved by it. We are told, this is nothing extraordinary in a system of probation. If we are not mistaken, when a system of probation is introduced in the common affairs of life, it may generally be known by its terms whether any substantial benefit is or is not intended. A father, at immense expense, bas secured the nomination to a position of trust, and honour, and profit, and he puts his son upon trial to ascertain his capability and fitness. It is evident that the father means something more than placing him upon a ground of conditional hope. The serpent was lifted up in the wilderness by divine command. Was it not the design of God that some, at least, of the Israelites should be healed? When Christ declares, 'Even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life,' John iii. 14-15; ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Me,' John xii. 32; are we to understand that the will of God would be perfectly accomplished if not a single soul should believe and be saved? This can hardly be consistent with the assurance that universal redemp tion was the primary design of God, and the salvation of the elect only secondary, (page 28) Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God,' 2 Cor. x. 20. In this beseeching love is there no proof of the divine fatherhood, no proof of a desire to save? Are we to believe that the Father of mercies would be just as well pleased whether the world be saved or lost? 'God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that who 207 soever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life,' John iii. 16. The probationary system is proclaimed plainly and intelligibly in this verse alone. In the 17th verse, an ulterior and gracious purpose is as plainly and intelligibly revealed. If it had been the mind of the Spirit, by whom all Scripture is inspired, to make known that the purpose of God in the gift of His Son was the salvation of the world, we ask was it possible for inspiration to suggest or dictate any words by which this truth could have been expressed more exactly or deci sively? If there is one text in the Bible to which may be traced, more than to any other, the first dawning of the sinner's hope, and the holiest emotions of the saint's experience, this is it. We are not prepared for a system which evaporates from the gospel all that is most gracious, and necessitates an interpretation of all such texts on the principle of depletion. If the doctrine of conditional election be a doctrine of Scripture, it will go far towards harmonizing different texts, which otherwise appear to be contradictory; viz., texts which assert the probation of all men, and the elec tion of some; texts which are held to assert the will of God to bestow salvation upon all men, and texts which are held to restrict its actual bestowment to some only, by the will of God. We are aware that this doctrine is very distasteful to Mr. Hinton, so distasteful that he will not condescend to any reasoning about it, unless, indeed, what be says at page 45 can be called reason. ing. How can that be, when, if it had not been for their election and its consequences, not one of them (that is of the elect) would have believed?" We cannot deny that if it is so, it is so; but at present our respected friend has begged the question and proved nothing. There is one point on which we hope that we may not be misunderstood. We have not intended to say a single word in favour of universal salvation. We hold, that just in proportion to the love of God, manifested in the gospel, is the guilt of rejecting it. We hold, that the sin of unbelief is greater than all others; and one of our strongest objections to the Calvinistic theories is, that they appear to us to diminish, if not to disprove, the guilt of the unbeliever. We have been considering the assertion that the gospel was not given to man with a purpose to save, we have now to look at another assertion, connected with the former, viz., that there is an eternal, unconditional purpose to confer salvation on the elect, and that its accomplishment is secured by the bestowment of the Holy Spirit upon them alone. To the statement made in our former article, that according to the Lectures, the probational system is succeeded or supplemented by another system in favour of the elect, (in which they are no longer probationers,) but beneficiaries, that is, the dispensation of the Spirit, by the bestowment of which the will of God is infallibly carried out and consummated in their salvation, no objection is made. We suppose, therefore, that it is admitted. To us this is a very questionable assertion. We have lived to see Dr. Candlish protesting against any man being required to believe that Christ died for him personally, and then urging men to close with the gospel offer. (Far be it from us to insinuate that Mr. Hinton has any sympathy with such teaching. He brands with insincerity the kind of gospel preached by those who, holding a limited provision, address unlimited invitations.) After this and its kindred doctrines, which are called by way of distinction 'the doctrines of grace,' we are prepared for almost anything, however strange. The dogma that the elect do not receive the gift of eternal life as probationers, gratefully and humbly, and under divine influence embracing the gospel, is not a modern invention; but we cannot hear it repeated in so many words, or find it implied as the basis of a system, without the conviction that it indicates a proceeding without a parallel in all that we know of the history of heaven and earth, of angels and men. The angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, are reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.' Adam sinned, and in Adam all die.' It is true that after the fall another system of probation was instituted, but it was probation still. We read of angelic probation, Adamic probation, evangelical probation; are all succeeded by another dispensation, proceeding on principles entirely opposite; whose issues in the case of each of its subjects are to be decided by the sovereign will of God, without any reference to the character or conduct of the creature? God is no respecter of persons. The gospel is proposed to all mankind in precisely the same terms; but here are men as obstinately rebellious, as proudly unbelieving, as men can be, even to the very end of their term of probation. When they become children of God through faith in Christ, a solemn protest is entered against the act of believing being their own act, even with divine aid granted to them, yet they are accepted as believers, and are inevitably saved. We do not say it is not so; we only ask for proof to justify our belief as rational, if we admit it. Every part of the superstructure must have its bearing upon the foundation.' Where is the basis broad enough and firm enough for a superstructure like this? We affirmed in our former article that God has expressed his gracious design in the end and purpose of the gospel in reference to the world, as strongly as he has expressed it in reference to the church, and we quoted several texts to prove our affirmation. The reply to all was this, I suppose, however, that eternal life through Christ is given to mankind only through faith in his name, or on coudition of believing in him.' In what ever way faith may be produced, we suppose it will not be said, that to the church, or the elect, eternal life is given without faith, or without the condition of believing on the name of Christ. If faith is indispensable in both cases, if neither the church nor the world will be saved without faith, this truth can be no answer to us. It cannot prove that there is no purpose to save in one case more than in the other. The weight then of the texts we have quoted is in no measure abated in the comparison we are about to submit. God has expressed the Mr. Hinton denies the Gift of the Spirit to Mankind. same gracious design towards the world as towards the church. That design is salvation. We deny sameness in the gift, with difference in the design. Let us turn to the record. 'I lay down my life for the sheep.' We reply, Jesus was made a little lower than the angels that he by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.' Heb. ii. 9. Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Ephes. v. 25. 26. We reply, God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. John iii. 17. 'I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.' John xii. 47. He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life in his Son.' 1 John v. 19. 11. On a comparison of these texts, is it as evident as some persons would have us believe that the gracious purpose of God towards the church is absolute, so that every member must be saved, and that towards the world it is conditional, in such a sense that it would not be frustrated if every man were to be lost, as upon the authority of Mr. Hinton every man will be lost? 209 anything less than an ability in man to be his own saviour, we have to apologize for the use of the phrase. Certainly we do not see what absolute necessity there can be for either a Sacrifice or a Sanctifier. We infer that if the lecturer is right, Paul was wrong when he wrote, If there had been a law which could have given life, verily righteousness had been by the law.' No proclamation of the gospel was made to man until there was no hope from the covenant of works. God has not given us two senses for the same purpose; he does not give divine influence to supercede the faculties of man in the management of his temporal affairs, why should he give the Holy Spirit if man is able to take care of his eternal interests as he is of bis temporal interests? What needed all that contrivance of infinite wisdom and grace, for the reparation of our nature by Jesus Christ, if holiness, wherein it doth consist, be in our own power, and educed out of the natural faculties of our souls? . . . . for what we can do ourselves, there is neither necessity nor reason why God should promise to work in us by his grace.' (Owen, on Sanctification) And Mr. Hinton asserts, at page 18, that moral corruption, or bias to evil, was inflicted by God as part of the punishment of Adam's sin, and as such it fell on the whole human race. in his lectures, page 19, he says, 'an unholy heart may be said to be itself a hell. To maintain his position, that man is as able to take care of his eternal interests, as of his temporal interests, he must shew either that with this moral corruption man may be admitted to the presence of God and the joys of heaven, or that he is able to deliver himself from so much of the punishment of Adam's sin. We come again to the question, is the Holy Spirit given in irresistible measure to the elect, so that their salvation is secured, and is he not given in any mode or measure to the world, to awaken or quicken a sense of responsibility, and guilt, and danger, to excite attention to the word of God, and give light, or influence, or assistance, in the way to heaven?-What we have written we are content to Except a man be born again, he canleave, with the reply at page 51, to the not see the kingdom of God.' He judgment of our readers. The lecturer must shew either that this is untrue, has asserted that man is as able to take or that man may be the originator of care of his eternal interests, as of his his own spiritual life. Until this point temporal interests; that he is able to is cleared up his system is not only do all that God requires of him; that incomplete, it is wanting in fundamental he is able of himself to repent and and essential truth. He denies the gift turn to God. If all these expressions of the Holy Spirit to mankind, asserttaken together are intended to meaning that man has power of himself to do all that God requires of him, that otherwise he would have a claim in equity upon his Maker for the bestowment of this gift. If, therefore, man has no such power, the gospel according to his theory is a dispensation not of grace but of injustice to mankind. men When we assert that man has no such power, it is contended that we establish for man a claim upon his Maker. Dr. Payne, as well as Mr. Hinton, makes this charge. We have already given what to our convictions is a satisfactory reply, viz: that the gift of the Holy Spirit would be no more a matter of equity, than the gift of Christ is a matter of equity, because are commanded to believe on him. There is a sense in which both these gifts may be said to be equitable, but the weight of the charge rests upon the assertion that they would be equitable and not gracious. This we deny. Nevertheless and none the less for all that has been said, they would be, and they are, matters of richest grace and love. God has promised eternal life to believers; the bestowment is an act of divine faithfulness, to which believers may be said, in a certain sense, to have a claim, but it is also an act of overflowing grace, or why should heaven resound with the grateful songs of the redeemed? At page 47, it is said, the reviewer enters on an argument to show that the fulfilment by a sinner, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, of the condition on which salvation is suspended, implies no merit. We never entertained such an idea as that of a sinner believing without the aid of the Holy Spirit. We have all along contended against it. We thought we had made our sentiments on this point so plain as to be beyond all misunderstanding. That such a thing is possible, is the lecturer's assertion and not our's. We need not wonder he is so ready to grant that there is no merit in it. But what his definition of merit may be we cannot tell, if there is no merit in the spontaneous production of a holy state of heart, something honourable to the sinner, something good which he did not owe to God.' (page 47.) At page 77, of the lectures, the restrictive phrases of scripture and the actual differences in human experience, are alleged as proof of the particularity of redemption. In reply we quoted Matt. xi. 23, 24, Luke x. 13, to show that with the same advantages with which some are lost, others would be saved; to prove that actual differences in human experience exist under the same dispensation. Who ever doubted it,' says Mr. Hinton, or who, besides this reviewer, would have thought of adducing two passages of scripture to prove it?' This is rather too bad, when the proof, which is to carry conviction, depends, not upon the doubt, but upon the denial of this fact. If it be granted that Chorasin and Bethsaida, being without the dispensation of the Spirit, will be condemned in the judgment for not having repented; but that Tyre and Sidon, being also without the dispensation of the Spirit, would have repented, where is his proof from the difference in their actual experience? If all are without the Spirit and some repent and others do not, the gift of the Spirit cannot be the sole cause of difference. If it be contended that the Father's drawing, supposed to be given in one case, and withheld in the other, is the sole cause of difference, where is the ground of comparison or contrast in the Saviour's denunciation? If it be admitted, as it is, that there may be actual differences in human experience under the same dispensation, so much of the proof of particular redemption is surrendered. We quoted Luke xi. 13, and Romans viii. 32, as assurances of God's willingness to bestow the Holy Spirit upon all men. This extent of meaning is denied: they speak only of the privileges of the elect. If ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?' It is true this verse is part of an address to the disciples, but he must be a bold critic who would confine the application of all the address contains to them only. Is the Lord's prayer to be used by none but Christian men? Is a man to wait till he has the evidence of his interest in Christ before he is at liberty to take encouragement to importunate prayer? Do none but the elect need Apology for Misapprehension. 211 their daily bread? Are none but the, of God; but that if the universal reelect warranted to ask for the Holy jection of redeeming mercy had been Spirit? We suppose this offer to those remedied by the universal gift of the who ask, is like the offer of an interest Holy Spirit, the system of moral in the great sacrifice to those who be- government would have been wanting lieve, that is without a purpose to be- in a principle of genuine equity. We stow it; or on condition of asking as hope the originality of the thought no man will ask until the blessing may be some excuse for us that we did asked for has been previously bestowed not catch it. If but a single text of -'He that spared not his own Son, scripture had been quoted in support but delivered him up for us all, how or elucidation it might perhaps have shall be not with him also freely give opened our eyes, but none was given. us all things?' We do not dispute Where none could be found, none the tenor of the passage; but we con- could be produced. We cannot stay tend that there is here laid down a to remark upon the subdued tone in principle of universal application, in- which this discovery is repeated, or upon troduced incidentally, and so foreibly the light it sheds upon the doctrines expressed that all doubt of its truth of God's sovereignty, and the infinite and applicability should be for ever sufficiency of the atonement. We excluded. The lecturer having ad. wish to give all due weight to Mr. mitted the premises, that Christ died Hinton's remarks, at page 62, upon for all men, it is too late to deny the our charges against his system, but we conclusion. Romans xiv. 10; We cannot accept them as an answer. On shall all stand before the judgment the premises of sovereign predestinaseat of Christ.' This also is addressed tion, unconditional election, and irreto the saints at Rome, but we do sistible grace, no practical proof would not understand by it, that no others satisfy in that God is infinitely willing than they shall stand before the judg- to forgive, short of the actual salvation ment seat of Christ. We hold that of the whole human race. The stubthe assurance in Romans viii. 32, re- born fact remains, that some of those fers to all for whom Christ died. An whom God has redeemed with the assurance given with all the authority blood of his Son are suffered to perish. of inspiration, that God having given in their sins; and we repeat the charge, the greatest possible proof of his love that these premises establish the conin the gift of his Son, he will with him clusion that it is for want of love in also freely bestow every other blessing, the Father's heart. God cannot be on the principle that the greater in- said to be infinitely willing to forgive all, cludes the less; and we hold it to be if he is more willing to forgive some a positive exclusion of every dispen- than others. sation of grace richer than the gospel. 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.' Verily there are systems which deny to the world not only the influence of God's Spirit, but a large portion of God's truth. We confess that we misunderstood the quotations we made from pages 111, 154, of the lectures, and therefore, all our remarks founded upon that misapprehension fall to the ground. We assure Mr. Hinton we did not wilfully misrepresent his meaning in this or in any other particular. It appears that he never said that if all men had been saved under the probational system of the gospel, an imputation would have been cast upon the moral government The first reply to this charge is the bare refusal to acknowledge its justice. The reviewer may proceed to shut himself (not me) up to this conclusion.' There is nothing convincing in this. We are told else where, 'If by accepting his invitation all men had been saved, it would doubtless have been to his (God's) untarnished glory; it is possible, however, that it might not have been so, when his mercy had been universally rejected, to have saved all men by the further vouchsafement of his Holy Spirit." The most that this can amount to is, that it is possible it may be an answer. We are thankful that our faith in the universal benevolence of God does not rest on such a conjecture. It is replied again 'benovolence is |