44

SUPRALAPSARIANISM.

arisen, in the order of nature, previously to Jehovah's conception of man as a guilty and depraved being. I am not ignorant that the contrary of this has been affirmed. Supralapsarianism, for instance, teaches that the electing decree was passed without any reference to the fall;-that the human race were not contemplated by it as transgressors;—that not only were some members of that race appointed by it to endure everlasting torments, as well as others to enjoy eternal felicity, but that the appointment, in the case of the former as well as of the latter, was made without regard to character and desert; -that, in short, God determined to glorify his justice in the condemnation of some, as well as his mercy in the salvation of others; and, to effect this purpose, decreed the fall and ruin of the whole race.

Now it becomes every writer to speak of any sentiment on which he has occasion to treat, let it have been held by Calvin or Arminius, or any one else, just as he thinks of it. I feel myself accordingly constrained to add, that I know no term, either in any living or dead language, sufficiently strong to express my abhorrence of this doctrine. That it has never been held, and that it cannot be held, by a Christian, I should, indeed, be backward to affirm; but that it is deeply injurious in its tendency, as well as that it evinces a state of profound ignorance of the first principles of moral science, and great regardlessness of the word of God, I can have no doubt. How can any one contrive to persuade himself that a decree, emanating from a moral governor, (and such is God,) and appointing a considerable number of the subjects of his government to misery-eternal misery, which is not founded on their transgression, can be compatible with justice? Why what is justice? Is it not rendering to every individual that which is his due what he deserves? And how can any one but a transgressor deserve punishment? How then can any one who is not contemplated in the light of a transgressor-who is viewed merely as a creature--be destined to punishment? Besides, this notion of the Supralapsarians, incompatible as we have thus seen with equity, is inconsistent, and grossly absurd. If suffering were to be inflicted upon an innocent subject of

SUPRALAPSARIANISM, SUBLAPSARIANISM.

45

moral government-or, what is the same thing, upon one who was regarded as innocent-it would not be punishment to him. Punishment is not mere misery, but misery which is the result of transgression. Condemnation is a legal act— the act of the judge applying the general threatenings of the law to the case of the particular individual before him. An innocent man may, indeed, be unjustly condemned, i. e. he may be falsely assumed to be guilty; but, if he be held to be innocent, he cannot be condemned at all. No judge would dare to condemn him, or rather could condemn him. An order to imprison or hang him, would be brutal and bloody violence, but it could not be condemnation; since this latter is the formal declaration of the court, of the amount of suffering to which an individual has exposed himself by his transgression; or, which is the same thing to the argument, his assumed transgression; whereas, by supposition, he is held by the court to be innocent. And yet Supralapsarianism talks of God's decreeing certain individuals to condemnation and punishment, who are, at the very moment, held to be innocent. Never was there a notion more self-evidently absurd than this. It is something like imagining a man continuing a man, when bereft of reason; and a brute continuing a brute, when endowed with it.

Sublapsarianism affirms, that the reprobating decree (for it holds a reprobating decree distinct from the general law of the Divine government, that "the soul that sinneth shall die") is founded on foreseen transgression; and that it thus declares practically what is the due reward of transgression. There is, accordingly, the broadest and strongest possible line of demarcation between the two systems; and it is to me a subject of deep regret, that a man so justly eminent as the late Dr. Dick, should speak as if the difference were slight and immaterial. There may be difficulties, and there certainly are difficulties, when we proceed to inquire into the manner in which the whole race sank into condemnation; but they belong to another subject, and should not be considered in connexion with this. The radical difference between the two systems—a difference which should never be lost sight of, is

46

ELECTION PRE-SUPPOSES THE FALL.

this; viz. that the one system decrees guilty, and the other innocent, beings to punishment.

The electing decree then pre-supposes the fallen state of man. I argue this on two grounds.

First, on the ground of what that decree is in itself. We have seen that election, accurately speaking, is not the choice of any of the human race to salvation; but God's purpose or determination to visit the elect with that special and holy influence of his Spirit which, by certainly leading them to understand and believe and obey the gospel, secures their salvation. Now an influence which brings its subjects to the knowledge and faith of Divine truth, must of course find them unenlightened, and impenitent, i. e., in other words, fallen creatures; and, consequently, a decree to visit them with this influence must contemplate them in this point of view. I must not, however, forget that a certain class of theologians attempt to evade the force of this argument by affirming, that the preceding statements misstate the final end of election,— that the special influence of the Spirit, to which we have just referred, is exerted not to recover, but to confirm; not to rescue from ignorance, and guilt, and depravity, but to prevent a lapse into these evils. The elect, they tell us, never fell under condemnation; the object of the Saviour's interposition being to preserve them from this mighty mischief. I take, therefore, the next ground, and argue,

Secondly, that the electing decree contemplated men as fallen and condemned, is evident from the current phraseology of Scripture upon this subject. If the persons comprehended in that decree had been regarded as sinless, they must of course have been predestinated to remain in a state of integrity; and then the current phraseology of Divine revelation must also have been, not that the elect were appointed to be rescued from sin, and guilt, and misery, but to be preserved from falling into these evils. Such, however, is not the current phraseology of Scripture. "For whom he did foreknow," says the apostle, "he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." Now is this language which the apostle would have thought of using-which the Spirit of God

ITS CAUSE IS NOT IN THE ELECT.

47

would have prompted him to use-if, when the electing decree was passed, they had been contemplated as actually conformed to it? In that case, must not Paul have said, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate that, being conformed to the image of his Son," they might remain so? It is scarcely possible to conceive of any thing more self-evident than this. Still more conclusive, however, is the language he employs in his Epistle to the Ephesians: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; 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." Who can doubt, on reading these words, that the choice must have contemplated them as unholy? To the same effect, also, is the declaration that "God hath from the beginning chosen his people to salvation." The choice must then have regarded them as destitute of salvation; as being in fact the children of wrath, even as others.

3dly, The next general remark upon the great subject of election is, that the cause of the Divine purpose to save some of the fallen race is not to be found in the elect themselves.

They were not chosen to salvation on account of their foreseen repentance, and faith, and obedience; for faith and repentance, as we have seen, (and as I shall hereafter show more at large,) are the fruit, and not the root of predestination. We are "chosen in Christ," not because we were holy, or because we were contemplated as holy, but that we might become holy. 66 As many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

Nor were they selected from the mass of mankind, and chosen to become the recipients of special and saving influence, because their sins were less numerous and aggravated than those of others. Had this been the case, salvation would at least have appeared to be of works; whereas the apostle declares, that " God hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus,

48

ITS CAUSE IS NOT IN THE ELECT.

66

before the world began :" and, further, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy:" or, in other words, that the mercy of God, towards those who are ultimately brought to share in it, is uncaused by any thing in them. Further, to suppose that the elect were appointed to salvation because their amount of guilt was less than that of others, would lay for them a ground of boasting, in opposition to the revealed design of God in communicating the gospel to the world, viz. to bring down the lofty looks of man. Finally, the sentiment opposed is at variance with the facts of the case. I am well aware what extreme difficulty is involved in pronouncing a judgment upon the comparative amount of guilt with which different individuals are chargeable; yet it would be worse than absurd to deny that sometimes, yea, frequently, individuals are made the subjects of Divine grace, who had sunk to a lower degree in the scale of moral worthlessness and degradation, than others: and, by rendering them the monuments of his compassion, Jehovah shows that he has mercy on whom he will have mercy." Paul felt and declared that he was the chief of sinners, yet he obtained pardon; and his language is very memorable, Howbeit, for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first, Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” (1 Tim. i. 16.) It is especially in this aspect that the doctrine of election so strikingly displays and magnifies the Divine sovereignty. It affords an example of the communication of good to man-the highest good-spiritual goodeternal good, which was not attracted towards him by a manifestation on his part of moral excellence, nor even by a less full and obnoxious development of moral degradation; and which, therefore, can only have flowed from the fountain of Jehovah's infinite compassion. "Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" "Who hath given to him? and it shall be recompensed unto him again. For of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever, Amen."

66