ligion from false, is avowedly discarded; and when the mere feeling of any one, that he is pardoned and made happy, is taken for confirmation strong as proofs from holy writ," that his heart is really changed, and his soul saved!

Why, on a subject of such inconceivable importance, the Ruler of all things has permitted such delusions to exist, we need not stop to inquire. The fact is unquestionable; and a conviction of it, is a matter of solemn and universal concern. Nor is it difficult to perceive, that it is wisely adapted to a state of probation. God has given us reason to be employed, and the scriptures to be studied; and it is wise, that the truth which concerns us, should be attainable by the sober use of these gifts, and not by a surrender of them to the government of an unbridled imagination. If the faculties which God has given us must be employed to distinguish between truth and error in relation to our temporal concerns, why should the well directed use of them be thought less necessary in relation to our eternal interests? The person who should receive all sorts of currency as genuine coin, merely because it glitters to the eye, or should take every person's name as good security, if it be only fairly written, would be scarcely pitied, were he to suffer the loss of all. Why, then, should we think it strange, that God, to make trial of our love to the truth, has rendered it just so plain, that those who are of an honest and good heart may find it, and, at the same time, has permitted it to be so liable to abuse, that those who prefer to "walk in the light of their own fire, and compass themselves about with sparks of their own kindling," may put darkness for light, and light for darkness?

We have been led to these remarks, by a part of the book, whose title we have placed at the head of this article. It is a book of no ordinary authority and influence. It consists chiefly of extracts from the writings of Wesley, and is addressed to the Methodist societies in the United States, by Francis Asbury and William M'Kendree, those fathers of the American Wesleyan church; and is adopted by its 420,000 members, as their acknowledged formulary of doctrine and discipline. Their discipline, as it is here prescribed, we have examined in a former number. We have shown it to be an unlimited SPIRITUAL ARISTOCRACY, at utter variance with the principles and habits of a free people. If any further proof of the fact were needed, we might appeal to the declaration of Wesley himself. "We are NO REPUBLICANS, and never intend to be. It would be better for those that are so minded to go quietly away." A multitude of churches in that communion, after a full trial of the system, are following this advice. In doing so, we would suggest to them the expediency of examining anew the doctrinal principles of Methodism. And to aid in such an inquiry, we would call the attention of our readers to some of those princi

ples, and to their influence on christian experience. We shall particularly consider the statements which are here made, in the chapter on predestination, election and reprobation.

God from the foundation of the world, foreknew all men's believing or not believing. And according to this his foreknowledge, he chose or elected all obedient believers as such, to salvation, and refused or reprobated unbelievers as such, to damnation. Thus the scripture teaches us to consider election and reprobation, according to the foreknowledge of God, from the foundation of the world.

Before we proceed to examine this scheme, we shall advert to a gross and obvious inconsistency in the statements of this work, respecting election and reprobation. In the passage before us, we are expressly told, that election and reprobation are past acts of God, ("elected," "reprobated,") resulting from his foreknowledge. And surely if they are so, they must have existed from eternity; since the divine foreknowledge, out of which they spring, must from eternity have presented all the reasons which could ever dictate such acts. Yet, in the very paragraph which precedes this statement, we are told, that election is not a past act, but one which takes place only "in the flesh," i. e. at the instant of conversion! And how is this proved? Let our readers look at the following passage.

God calleth Abraham "a father of many nations," although not so at that time. He calleth Christ, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," though not slain till he was a man in the flesh. Even so he calleth men, "elected from the foundation of the world;" though not elected till they were men in the flesh. Yet is it all so before God, who knowing all things from eternity, "calleth things that are not, as though they were."

This evasion is too palpable to mislead any one, whose mind is not already predisposed for the reception of error. It takes for granted the very thing to be proved.

In the case of Abraham and of Christ, we start from an acknowledged fact, and inquire why this fact is spoken of as existing before it actually took place. Thus, it is an acknowledged fact, that the death of Christ took place in time; and we see, at once, that he is spoken of as "slain from the foundation of the world," because he was so in the divine purpose or foreknowledge. But is it an acknowledged fact, that God's "election" of his people takes place only in time? Prove this to be the fact, and you may then draw a parallel between the language applied to the election of the believer, and the death of Christ-you may then account for the former's being called eternal as well as the latter, on the principle that, although neither is eternal in fact, they were so in the divine counsel and foreknowledge. But until you have first prov

ed, that God's election of his people does take place only in time, there is no room for explaining away the literal import of those passages, which declare it to be "from the foundation of the world," i. e. eternal. Your evasion is exactly that of the Unitarian, who sets aside Christ's express declaration of his pre-existence, "before Abraham was, I am," by saying, that Christ pre-existed only in the foreknowledge of God, who "called things that are not, as though they were." On this principle of interpretation, every declaration of God as to past events, may be instantly set aside. Though he speaks to men, and in the language of men, it may always be pretended that he is speaking, not in accordance with their modes of apprehension, but with his own-that he is "calling things that are not as though they were." The doctrine which cannot be supported without doing such violence to the scriptures, cannot be that gospel which was to be preached to the poor.

When God said to Abraham, "I have made thee a father of many nations," the meaning could not be mistaken. It was explained by the known facts of the case. The same is true of the description of Christ as a "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." But is there any thing in God's choice or election, of a seed to serve him, which compels any construction of the passage respecting it, different from the literal one? May not the purpose of God on this subject, have been before the foundation of the world, as well as from the time of their conversion? Must it not have been so, if "he is in one mind," if "with him there is no variableness neither shadow of turning?" But the apostle Paul has shown, beyond all doubt, in his epistle to the Ephesians, that the "election" of which he speaks, does not take place in time. He commences with the events of time. He dwells on the sonship and privileges of believers here, as conferred upon them by Him, "who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." But his grateful mind goes back in the next verse to the origin of these mercies. He finds it in the electing love of God, and declares that it existed from eternity. "According as he chose, elected (λaro) us in him before the foundation of the world." If such declarations as these are boldly set aside, what hope is there that any decisions of the word of God, will ever control the belief, or the consciences of men?

But, what, on Methodist principles, is that purpose of election, to which the apostle thus traces back the spiritual blessings of believers, with such adoring gratitude? Not justification, nor conversion, nor sanctification, but something distinct from all these. It is not even a purpose of God, after conversion, that we shall be saved; for for this would make our salvation just as certain, as an eternal purpose; and of course is equally abhorrent to the feelings of Methodists. What then is election on this scheme? Nothing stable, no

thing permanent, nothing as far as we can see, to awaken any extraordinary gratitude in the mind of the apostle. A man, in the exercise of his own free will, chooses to believe, and then God elects him to eternal life. Again he chooses not to believe in future, and thus sets aside God's purpose of election. Who then is it, that makes him "to differ?" To whom is he indebted for any blessings which may pertain to a state of election? To himself alone! How contrary to all this, were the views of the apostle Paul! "It is Nor of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God who showeth mercy." "Who maketh thee to differ from another? or what hast thou which thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?"

Let us now consider, somewhat more at large, the cardinal doctrine of Arminianism, as brought forward in our first extract from this work, viz. that election is dependent on foreseen FAITH. Faith is a holy act: for "he that believeth shall be saved," but "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." This scheme, then, represents a man as elected, on the ground of his being holy. But the apostle Paul contradicts this statement, in direct terms. He represents a man as elected, not as already "obedient" or holy, but that he should be made holy. "According as he chose elected, (λaro,) us that we should be holy." On the Arminian scheme, election or predestination is consequent and dependent on conversion or effectual calling. This the apostle directly contradicts, placing predestination first. "For whom he did predestinate, them he also called." According to the Arminian doctrine, a man first comes to Christ, and is then given by God to the Redeemer as purchased by his blood. Exactly the contrary is the fact, as stated by Christ. It is the Father's previous gift of sinners to him, which secures their coming. "All that the Father giveth me, come unto me." "This is the Father's will, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing." Now we ask, is it possible for language to declare more explicitly, that God's gift of a seed to Christ, his purpose, predestination, or election on this subject, are the origin or source of conversion, and not dependent on it? Accordingly, the apostle Paul expressly represents God, as "having predestinated us-not because we were his children-but, "unto the adoption of children;" i. e. to make us such. And, in the next verse, dwelling on the motive which led to this gracious predestination, he states it to have been-not "foreseen faith"-but "according to the good pleasure of his will." The apostle Peter, too, in his first epistle, says men are "elect, according to the foreknowledge of God--not as 'obedient,'--but UNTO obedience, and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus;" a mode of statement, which seems almost to have been fram

ed by the Holy Ghost beforehand, to preclude forever such evasions as abound in this book of doctrine and discipline, viz. that God "elected obedient believers, as such to salvation."

We say, then, that if language has any force or meaning, the principles of Arminianism, on this subject, are "another gospel," from that which was preached by Paul. Its object is to gratify that strongest passion of the unrenewed heart, a hatred of divine sovereignty, by robbing God of the high prerogative, which he asserts to himself, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Against this doctrine, it has poured forth reproach and blasphemy for ages; and for ages to come it will find eager and credulous and admiring listeners, till the commencement of that period when the earth shall be filled with the knowledge and the love of God. At that glorious era, with what astonishment will a redeemed world look back on the evasions and objections, by which men have endeavored to divide with their Maker, the honor of their eternal salvation. "Not unto us, but unto thy name give all the glory," will then be their united cry, which, begun on earth, will go down the long ages of eternity, as it opens before the redeemed.

The evasion which we have considered in the preceding remarks, is obvious to the weakest capacity. So much had been said by the apostles on the subject, that some doctrine of election must be admitted to exist in the sacred volume. It remained only to strip that doctrine of all its force and influence, by changing the object contemplated in the purpose of election. According to the apostles Paul and Peter, that object is, the making men holy and keeping them so, as a preparation for eternal life. Holiness is the indispensable condition of salvation. On this condition, eternal life is offered to all, through the blood of Christ; and all, as moral agents, have full power and ability to comply with this condition, without the slightest intervention of electing grace. But "ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life," is the melancholy Shall He character which Christ has given of our whole race. then have died in vain? No. In the counsels of eternal wisdom, a "seed" was "given" to him, in undertaking the mediatorial office, who should be made "willing in the day of his power." These are his "sheep," the "elect," the "predestinated;" and the object contemplated in their election, as stated by the apostle, is, "that they should be holy." "Whom he did predestinate, them he also called." But Arminianism changes the object. Men, on this scheme, are elected, not to holiness, but to salvation. They are predestinated, not to be called, but saved. And, as holiness is the acknowledged condition of salvation, a "conditional" election or predestination is thus made out.

This delusive scheme is instantly set aside, by coming back to the true nature of election as described in the scriptures-"electVOL. II.