CHAPTER IV.

CALVINISTIC ELECTION JUDGED BY THE REASON.

THE reason is supposed to affirm the doctrine that G.o.d has chosen some men to get saving grace, and some men only. The question is asked, "Is G.o.d the cause or author of man's salvation, or is man the author of his own salvation?" It is maintained that G.o.d being entirely the author of man's salvation, and that as man is brought into a state of safety by infallible grace, and as G.o.d exercises this grace, He must have determined to do it in eternity. The doctrine of election is thus supposed to be affirmed by the reason.

But this is a very summary process of settling the question. How stands the case? If by "salvation" is meant the _meritorious ground_ of salvation, then the question about its authorship is very single.

G.o.d is the sole author. He devised the plan, He wrought it out, and He applies it to the hearts of men. To Him belongs all the glory.

But the question of merit being settled, there is another. It is this--Are there _immeritorious_ grounds of salvation, and are men required to be active in their moral regeneration? We must distinguish between G.o.d's action and that of man. To confound them is a grand mistake. In the Bible we find certain moral conditions insisted upon in order to moral deliverance. There is a human side in the matter. Are not men called upon "to look?" "to hear?" "to come?" "to eat?" "to repent?" "to choose?" these terms represent acts which men are called upon to perform. G.o.d does not "look" or "choose" or "repent" for men. They must "choose" or die. The Spirit comes to them, points out their sinful state, and places Christ before them as their Saviour. When they give ear unto him, and put their trust in Jesus, they become saved. They have no more merit in the matter than a beggar has when he accepts alms, or a prisoner when he accepts a pardon.

Salvation, then, as regards merit, is entirely of G.o.d, but men are required to be active in their own deliverance. But why do some yield, and some not? This question has often been asked, and it is supposed that it stops all further argument. Let us look, however, at the saved man. G.o.d has wrought out the remedy, the Holy Spirit plies the sinner with motives for accepting the Saviour, and under His persuasion he yields himself up unto G.o.d, and gives Him all the glory of His salvation. Both scripturally and philosophically the man's saved condition is accounted for. And can anything be said against it? Look now at the unsaved man: why has he not believed? To press for an answer to this question is just to press for an answer to another--viz., why do men sin? Can any one give a reason for it that will stand scrutiny? No one, not even G.o.d; and to demand an answer in these circ.u.mstances is unphilosophical and impertinent.

The one believes through grace, and the other resists and dies. We submit that this is a fair explanation of the case. The believer acts in harmony with the reason, the unbeliever is guilty of sin; and no reason can be given for sin.

The view thus advocated has been held as a denial of the Spirit's work. If by the Spirit's work is understood a faith-necessitating and will-overpowering work, then certainly the Spirit's work is thus denied. But this is to cut before the point. There are, for instance, different views of inspiration, as the inspiration of direction, superintendency, elevation, and suggestion. Suppose I were asked what theory of inspiration I held regarding any portion of the Bible, and I answered that I had none, but took the Scriptures as G.o.d's message to men, would it be fair argument to a.s.sert that I denied inspiration? Manifestly not. But neither is it fair to raise the cry that the Spirit's work is denied because a particular theory regarding that work is denied, the theory, namely, which makes it to be physical or mechanical.

Incorrect views of the Spirit's work have been entertained by theologians in consequence of erroneous conceptions regarding the degeneracy of human nature. Augustine held that man can do nothing which will at all contribute to His spiritual recovery. He is like a lump of clay, or a statue without life or activity. In consequence of these views, he held that grace in its operation on the heart was irresistible,--sometimes through the word, at other times without it. Dr. Knapp says, "G.o.d does not act in such a way as to infringe upon the free will of man, or to interfere with the use of his powers" (Phil. ii. 12, 13). Consequently, G.o.d does not act on men immediately, producing ideas in their souls without the preaching or reading of the scriptures, or influencing their will in any other way than by the understanding. Did G.o.d act in any other way than through the understanding, he would operate miraculously and irresistibly, and the practice of virtue under such an influence would have no intrinsic worth; it would be compelled, and consequently incapable of reward (_Theo_., p. 408). He says again, "The doctrine of the Protestant church has always been that G.o.d does not act immediately on the heart in conversion, or, in other words, that He does not produce ideas in the understanding, and effects in the will, by His absolute Divine power without the employment of external means. This would be such an immediate conversion and illumination as fanatics contend for, who regard their own imaginations and thoughts as effects of the Spirit" (p. 400). If our creed on this subject is to be based on the Bible, it leaves us in no doubt upon the matter. In speaking of the new birth it is written, "Of His own will begat He us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures" (Jas. i. 18). Here the truth is used as the medium in conversion, and not a syllable about irresistible influence. The apostle Peter states the same thing: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of G.o.d, which liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Peter i. 23). Our Lord, in explaining the parable of the sower said--"The seed is the word of G.o.d," and seed, in order to germination, must have an appropriate soil.

CALVINISTIC ELECTION UNCONDITIONAL:--The followers of Calvin, however they differ among themselves regarding certain standpoints, agree in this, that evangelical election is unconditional. The Confession of Faith declares that election 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 (G.o.d) thereunto" (_Confess_., Chap. III.) Dr. Payne says of the elect, "They were not chosen to salvation on account of their foreseen repentance, and faith, and obedience, for faith and repentance are the fruit, not the root of predestination" (p. 47.) And again, "The electing decree, which is unconditional" (p. 38).

The Bible has been appealed to as supporting this view, that election is eternal and unconditional, and we shall consider certain of the pa.s.sages thus appealed to.

CHAPTER V.

BIBLE TEXTS IN PROOF OF CALVINISTIC ELECTION CONSIDERED.

IN Matthew xx. 16 it is written: "For many are called, but few are chosen." These words occur at the conclusion of the parable of the marriage of the king's son. A great feast had been provided and parties invited. A second invitation was sent out, in harmony with oriental usage; but those first invited made excuses, and refused to come. The servants were then commissioned to go out and give an invitation to all and sundry, and the wedding was furnished with guests. When the king came in to see the guests, he found a man without a wedding garment, and asked him how he had come in not having on one. The man remained speechless. It is then added, "many are called, but few are chosen." Now, the election which Calvinists contend for is eternal and unconditional. Does the above pa.s.sage prove this? We think it proves the reverse. There was a rejection and a choosing, but each was based on state or personal condition.

The man was rejected because he had not on the wedding garment; the others were chosen because they had it on. Suppose that there was no robe for the man, would he or should he have been speechless? Might he not have risen up in the midst of the a.s.sembly, and said, "Sire, I received the invitation in the highway. I was pressed to come to the feast. When I came there was no robe for me, and even if there had been one, there was no one to help me to put it on; and by a fatal accident in childhood I lost an arm, and was unable to do it myself. Yet I received the invitation, and that is the reason why I am here." Would not such a speech have been perfectly satisfactory?

And where the justice of condemning the man to be cast, in these circ.u.mstance, into outer darkness? But the punishment meted out to the man, showed that there was a robe for him, and that he might have put it on. The choice, therefore, of sitting at the marriage feast was conditional, and not, as Calvinists contend, unconditional.

The choice, moreover, was after the calling, and is _yet_ to take place, and as a consequence the pa.s.sage does not prove that election is eternal. No doubt, whatever G.o.d does in time He purposed to do in eternity, but we should distinguish between a purpose to choose and the choice itself.

There is nothing, then, in this pa.s.sage to perplex any one. G.o.d, the infinite Father and heavenly King, has provided a feast of love for all men, and therefore for you, O reader, whosoever you are. Christ has wrought out a robe of righteousness for all, and therefore for you. The Holy Spirit prays you to be clothed with it--that is, to depend on Christ and Christ only, and not upon your doings or upon your feelings. When you cease to depend on self and to rest entirely on Jesus, there springs up in the heart an aspiration to be Christ -like, and to be wholly His. By being clothed with Christ's righteousness you will have, by G.o.d's grace, a t.i.tle to sit down at the heavenly feast, and a moral meetness for heavenly society.

THE ELECT FOREKNOWN.--In Romans viii. 29, 30, it is written: "For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified." This pa.s.sage is one of the strongholds of the view we contend against; but if it prove eternal election, it will also prove much more than this. If the persons spoken of were eternally elected, then they were also eternally called, and eternally justified, and eternally glorified. They would thus be justified before they sinned, and glorified before they had a being.

The verbs are all in the aorist tense, and what is true of one verb is true of all the others. An interpretation burdened with such consequences cannot be true.

Dr. Payne has very few remarks on the pa.s.sage, but they are emphatic enough. "The pa.s.sage is so conclusive," he says, "that it scarcely seems to require or even to admit of many remarks," and he does not give many. The simple question is this: does this pa.s.sage prove unconditional election? Is there anything in the context to prove the reverse? We think that there is. In the twenty-eighth verse the apostle says, "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love G.o.d, to them that are the called according to His purpose." He is thus writing of a certain cla.s.s of persons, or of persons in a certain moral state, that moral state being that they were lovers of G.o.d, as he expressly states in verse 28. He does not say that they were visited by a special and irresistible influence bestowed on them and withheld from others. He simply a.s.serts that those lovers of G.o.d had all things working for their good; that they were called or invited to glory, as (in 1 Peter v. 10) it is said, "But the G.o.d of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by Christ Jesus." And having intimated their call, Paul goes on to show what was the destiny awaiting the believer. He says, "For whom He did foreknow," and when he said this he could not mean the mere knowledge of ent.i.ties, or of persons, for this reason, that G.o.d knows the finally lost as well as the finally saved. The apostle therefore could only mean that G.o.d, knowing beforehand those who would love him, fore-appointed or decreed in eternity that those who possessed this moral state should be conformed to the image of His Son, or personal appearance of Christ (1 John iii. 2). Those lovers of G.o.d thus predestinated are invited to heavenly bliss, and will be ultimately justified before the world, and glorified. The twenty -eighth verse, then, lays down the condition upon which the whole pa.s.sage rests; and to bring forward the text as a proof of unconditional election, is simply to ignore the context. As far as this portion of the Bible is concerned, there is nothing to perplex the most simple. Become a lover of G.o.d, and the destiny sketched by the apostle awaits you. We become lovers of G.o.d by believing in His love to us. "We love Him," says John, "because He first loved us" (1 John iv. 19).

THE UNBORN CHILDREN.--Romans ix. 11, is appealed to. It reads thus: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of G.o.d according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth." This verse is parenthetical, lying between the tenth and twelfth verses. They read thus, verse 10: "And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;" verse 12: "It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger." It is the eleventh verse which is taken as proving Calvinistic election. It is supposed to refer to the spiritual and eternal condition of the respective parties. But how stands the case? The original statement is found in Genesis xxv.

22, 23: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger." Now, if we take the pa.s.sage in the Calvinistic sense, that it refers to salvation, what will follow? This, namely, that all the descendants of Jacob would be saved, and all the descendants of Esau utterly lost. If this were so, then why should Paul have been so troubled about the spiritual state of his countrymen, as he says he was, in the preamble of this very chapter? The hypothesis, makes the apostle to stultify himself as a logician.

The Calvinistic interpretation will not stand looking at, there being, in fact, no reference to salvation in the pa.s.sage. The apostle quotes the text, the purport of which is that in a certain respect the people of Esau would be inferior to the people of Jacob.

The Jews held that, being Abraham's seed, they were safe for eternity. The apostle's argument, then, is this: The people of Esau were as truly descended from Abraham as you, my countrymen, are, and yet this descent did not ent.i.tle them to be the Messianic people; and if mere descent did not ent.i.tle to this, how much less would it ent.i.tle to heavenly glory? The text, then, has really no bearing upon evangelical election, but simply to the election of the Jews to theocratic privileges.

CHOSEN BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.--Ephesians i. 4, is appealed to. It reads thus: "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." This is an old favourite text in support of eternal and unconditional election. But does it prove it?

Those Christians to whom Paul wrote were chosen before the foundation of the world. True, but what does this mean? Does it prove eternal election? To elect is to "pick out," "to select." But the parties spoken of could not be _actually_ elected or chosen before they existed. Before you can take a pebble from an urn, it must first be in the urn. So before man can be _actually picked_ out of the world, he must _first_ be in it: hence election must be a work of time. Paul speaks of his kinsmen who were in Christ before him (Rom. xvi. 7); but if election is eternal, then the one could not be in Christ before the other. The language then in Eph. i. 14, can only refer to the _purpose_ of G.o.d to select certain persons in time--BELIEVERS--to be "holy and without blame." The bearing of the pa.s.sage, then, is the same as many others, and is simply this, that whatever G.o.d does in time, He determined to do in eternity. His purpose was formed before the foundation of the world, or in eternity.

Neither is there any countenance given to the idea that the election was _unconditional_. This is clearly shown by the words "IN HIM."

The Catechism asks the question, "Did G.o.d leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?" and the answer is, "G.o.d having out of His mere good pleasure from all eternity elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into a state of salvation by a Redeemer." If this is a true version of the case, then the saved were elected first when they were _out of_ Christ. But the pa.s.sage in Ephesians says the reverse of this. They were elected being IN CHRIST. To be in Christ is just to be united to Him by faith--a believer in Christ as the great High Priest of humanity.

CHOSEN TO SALVATION.--2 Thess. ii. 13, is appealed to. It reads thus: "But we are bound to give thanks alway to G.o.d for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because G.o.d hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." The question then is, does this pa.s.sage prove eternal and unconditional election? As to its being eternal, the only portion of the verse that bears on this is the phrase "from the beginning." Barnes says the words mean "from eternity." But the words themselves do not prove this. When the Jews asked Jesus who He was, He answered, "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning." It clearly does not mean "eternity" here. Again, in 1 John ii. 7, it is written: "The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning." Here, also, it is evident that the words cannot mean from "eternity," since they did not exist in eternity. But supposing the words did refer to eternity, then their meaning could only denote the purpose of G.o.d, since they had in eternity no real existence. We take the words to signify the commencement of the Christian cause in Thessalonica. Whedon's paraphrase is: "From the first founding of the Thessalonian church."

Watson takes them to denote, "The very first reception of the Gospel in Thessalonica." Whatever view is taken of the words, the idea of an _actual_ eternal election is excluded.

Dr. Payne depends upon the verse as supporting his view of unconditional election. In concluding his criticism of the pa.s.sage he says, "The election, then, here spoken of is not an election of future glory founded on foreseen faith and obedience; but an election to faith and obedience as necessary pre-requisites to the enjoyment of this glory, or perhaps, more correctly speaking, as partly const.i.tuting it" (pp. 84, 85.) Unfortunately for this argument the apostle uses the word "_through_" (en), not "_to_"

(eis). He says that they were chosen to salvation or glory through sanctification of the Spirit on G.o.d's part and belief of the truth on theirs; or, in other words, he contemplates the Christians at Thessalonica as objects of future glory, and they had come to occupy this position by G.o.d's gracious Spirit dealing with them through the truth, and by their believing the truth thus brought to them. The pa.s.sage shows the means by which they had become chosen or elected persons. They believed the TRUTH, and you may do the same.

ELECTION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE.--1 Peter i. 1, is appealed to in support of Calvinistic election. It reads thus: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of G.o.d the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

But this cannot prove that the election spoken of was eternal, because the Spirit's work takes place in time, and not in eternity.

Neither does it prove that it was unconditional. It is through the Spirit that men are convicted of sin, and led by His gracious influences to trust in Jesus. The epistle was written to believers, to those who had been "born again" (1 Peter i. 23), and he says that they were elected, choice ones, according to G.o.d's foreknowledge, who knew from eternity that they would believe under His grace; and they were, being believers, chosen unto obedience, and also to a justified state, or "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus." To contend that if a man believes under what is termed "common grace,"

this is to make himself to "differ," and to take the praise of salvation to himself, is in our opinion entirely wrong. Does the patient who takes the medicine under the persuasion of a kind physician, and is cured, have whereof to boast? Because the blind beggar takes an alms, has he whereof to glory? Neither do we see that a poor guilty sinner has any reason for boasting when, under the persuasion of the Divine Spirit, he accepts a full pardon of all his sins. Were a prisoner who has been condemned to be visited by the sovereign, and a pardon put into his hands, to go afterwards through the streets shouting, "I have saved myself--I have saved myself," we should say the man was crazed. Why will not theologians look at things from a commonsense point of view? There is nothing in the pa.s.sage to prevent you at once entering among the elect.

MAKING ELECTION SURE.--In 2 Peter i. 10, it is written thus: "Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall."

But the pa.s.sage says nothing about the _time_ when they were elected, nor whether they were elected to get a peculiar influence to necessitate faith. It implies the negative of the Calvinistic opinion. The Christians were exhorted to make their election sure.

But if they were elected by an infallible decree, how could they make it sure? It was, by the theory, sure, independent of them. The exhortation shows that Peter did not know anything of the dogma, and that he held that men had to do with watching over their spiritual life, so that their calling to glory and their election might not fail.

A REMNANT ACCORDING TO ELECTION.--In Romans xi. 5, it is written thus: "Even so at the present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace." It is true that the words "election" and "grace" occur in this pa.s.sage; but the simple question is, what is their meaning? The apostle had asked, in the first verse, "Hath G.o.d cast off His people?" And he repudiates the idea, and refers to the state of matters in the time of Elijah. The prophet had thought that he was the solitary worshipper of G.o.d; but in this he was mistaken.

Seven thousand men were yet true to the Lord, and had not bowed the knee to Baal. So at the time the apostle wrote there was a few, a "remnant" of the nation who had believed through grace, and were chosen, elected, to receive the blessings of pardon and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. G.o.d had not, therefore, cast off His people, since He was saving all of them who believed. In the exercise of His sovereign wisdom He has made, however, _faith_ to be the condition of salvation both for Jew and Gentile. And there is nothing arbitrary in this. In our everyday life we are required to exercise, and are constantly exercising, faith. If we wish to cross the Atlantic, we must exercise faith in regard to the seaworthiness of the ship. We marry, lend money, take medicine, and a thousand other things, upon the principle of faith. We will not allow a man into our family circle who holds us to be liars. Should he take that position we exclude him from friendly fellowship. If he would get good from us in a certain sphere of things, faith in us is absolutely requisite. It is the same with G.o.d. If we would be blessed with the sweet peace of pardon, we can only have it by believing in the testimony that G.o.d has given regarding the Son, that He tasted death for every man--died, therefore, for us.

The pa.s.sages of Scripture we have thus considered are those mainly depended on in support of the Calvinistic doctrine of election. The doctrine, like the chameleon, has different shades, according to the school. The high predestinarians, or, as they are called, "_supra -lapsarians_," maintain, as we have seen, that G.o.d created a certain number to be saved, and a certain number to be lost. The _infra_- or _sublap_-_sarians_, maintain that G.o.d contemplated the race as fallen, and determined to save a given number, and a given number only, and to reprobate a given number. Regarding the former a Saviour has been provided for them and irresistible grace. The modern Calvinists differ, as we have also seen, from both of these schools, and hold that G.o.d loves all, and has provided a Saviour for all, but that converting grace is given only to some. There is a consistency, a grim consistency, in the two former views; but the latter limps, it divides the Trinity. It makes G.o.d's love to be world-wide, Christ's death to be for all, but the gracious or converting work of the Spirit is limited. But however these systems differ from each other, they all agree in this, that G.o.d is not earnestly desirous of saving all men. And this, as we hold, is the d.a.m.ning fact against them all.

There are certain specific objections, however, to which we now beg attention.

CHAPTER VI.

OBJECTIONS TO THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE OF ELECTION.

(1.) WE object, in the _first_ place, to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, because it is absurd to call it election. The advocates of the three views of election mentioned stoutly maintain that the persons chosen are chosen unconditionally; in other words, they are chosen not on account of any mental or moral quality in them. It is on this account designated _unconditional_. There is nothing whatever in the persons chosen on which to ground the choice.

Supposing this to be the case, can there be any choice, election?

Mr. Robinson has put the case thus: "What is election? Is it possible to choose one of two things, excepting for reasons to be found in the things themselves? Ask a friend which of a number of oranges he will take. If he sees nothing in them to determine selection, he says, 'I have no choice.' Ask a blind man which of two oranges, that are out of his reach, he prefers, and you mock him by proposing an impossibility. If they are put near him, that he may feel them or smell them, or if by any other means he can judge between them, he can choose, otherwise he cannot choose. If they lie far from him, he may say, 'Give me the one that lies to the east, or the west;' but that is a lottery, an accident, chance, certainly no choice. Therefore, to a.s.sert that the cause of election is not in anything in the person chosen, is really to deny that there is any election. And it is a curious fact that the most vehement predestinarians, while they flatter themselves that they are the honoured advocates of the Divine decrees, by sequence set aside election altogether. Their hypothesis annihilates the very doctrine for which they are most zealous, and, if it may be said without irreverence, introduces the dice box into the counsels of heaven"

(_Bible Studies_, p. 192). If we look into life, we always find that when we elect or choose, we do so because of something in the person or thing elected. It is so as regards food, drink, dress, houses, pictures, statues, books; it is so, too, as regards members of Parliament, ministers for pastorates, and in marriage. We are, indeed, so const.i.tuted that we cannot conceive of choice or election except upon the grounds of freedom in the elector, and something to differentiate the object chosen from others of like nature. The Confession of Faith says, however, that those who are predestinated unto life are chosen "without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creation, as conditions or causes moving Him thereunto, and all to the praise of His glorious grace" (_Con_., chap. iii.) Yet the Bible says expressly, "But know that the Lord hath set apart him that is G.o.dly for himself" (Ps. iv. 3); "Hath not G.o.d chosen the poor in this world rich in faith?" (Jas. ii. 5.) There is a setting apart, or choosing, but it is not unconditional, as these verses show.

No doubt, the _motive_ of those who hold unconditional election is good, arising from a desire to give all the glory of salvation to G.o.d, and from the frequency of the term "grace" in regard to our deliverance. But the great object of giving all the glory to G.o.d may be, and is accomplished, without doing violence to Scripture, or trampling upon common sense. The principle or system of Syenergism does this. It simply means that man is active in his own conversion.

It was advocated in his later years by Melancthon. We have not, however, to do with the _motive_ of our friends, but with the philosophy of the subject; and to a.s.sert that men are chosen to salvation apart from condition, is only a.s.sertion, and an absurd a.s.sertion, too. Try it in regard to anything, and its folly will be apparent. Why, then, insist upon it in religion? Are we to throw reason to the dogs when we speak on scriptural subjects?

(2.) In the _second_ place, we object to the Calvinistic theory of election, because it ignores and tramples upon a primary principle of philosophy. The principle is this: "That a plurality of principles are not to be a.s.sumed when the phenomena can possibly be explained by one" (Hamilton's _Reid_, p. 751).

It is what is known as the law of parsimony. The three views of election referred to have bound up with them, as an integral portion of the system, the theory of _irresistible_ grace. Take this away, and they fall to pieces as a rope of sand. A man who has. .h.i.therto lived an unG.o.dly life becomes converted, and the question arises --how are we to account for this moral phenomenon? Our friends from whom we differ account for it in this way: In the past eternity G.o.d saw that the man would come upon the stage of time, and determined to visit his soul with an irresistible influence, under the operation of which he became converted. Now this is to them a very satisfactory way of accounting for the conversion. But may not this change in the man take place without this _tertiam quid_, or third something? If it may, then to import it into the controversy is to violate the law of parsimony or maxim of philosophy, that it is wrong to multiply causes beyond what are necessary. But let us look at life: let us enter the sphere of human experience. We find men, for instance, who in politics were at one period p.r.o.nounced Radicals, like Burdett, becoming Conservative in their opinions; and men, like the Peelites, changing from the Conservative side to that of the Liberals. In accounting for this we do not call in a mysterious and occult influence to solve the matter. It is explainable without this. Take the case of medicine. We find men educated in the allopathic system changing, and becoming disciples of Habnemann. Ask them how it came about, and they answer at once, that it was by considering the results. Take a case of intemperance, An old inebriate attends a temperance lecture, listens attentively, becomes persuaded of the value of abstinence, signs the pledge, and spends the remainder of his life a sober man. He loved the drink, and now he hates it. Ask him how it came about? He tells you at once that the facts and arguments of the lecture convinced him of the evil of the drink, and led him to abandon it for ever. A great change has been effected, but in perfect harmony with the known laws of mind. Let us now look at religion. Paul arrives at Corinth, and preaches the Gospel to the inhabitants of that degenerate city. They listened to the wondrous story of redeeming love, and became changed through means of it. Was there anything in the nature of the truth preached to them and believed by them fitted to do this? We think that there was. They had sins--were guilty. Paul told them of a Saviour who died for them. This met their case. They were degraded, foul; the religion Paul preached appealed to their sense of right, to their grat.i.tude, to their fears and their hopes; and believing it, they became regenerated in their moral nature. They had been won to G.o.d by the "Gospel" (1 Cor. iv. 15). As temperance truth revolutionises the drunkard, so does Gospel truth the sinner (1 Peter i. 23, 25). The apostle was the agent employed by the Holy Spirit, and believing the message he brought, they were believing the Spirit (See 1 Samuel viii. 7). Since, then, the truth believed is a sufficient reason for the change, why introduce the theory of irresistible grace? It may be replied that this kind of grace is used to get the sinner to attend to the message.

But attention to any subject is brought about by considering motives. Man has the power over his attention. It is the possession of this power which is a main item in const.i.tuting him a responsible being. He may or may not attend to the voice of G.o.d. If he attends to it he lives; if not, he dies. If G.o.d used force in this matter, why reason with men and appeal to them as He does?

We appeal to Christian consciousness. Let any Christian give a reason of the hope that is in him--and it is all perfectly reasonable. All through, in the great matter of conversion, he acted freely. He attended to the Divine message--but there was no compulsion. Why, then, insist upon irresistibility when it is repudiated by Christian consciousness? We know no reason for it but the exigencies of the system. If you are waiting for it you are being deceived.