New Testament represents the ultimate doom of every individual as depending on, and following the deliberate choice that individual has made; and this when the prescience of God has been most clearly shown by delivering prophecies most important and distinct. Thus our Lord declares, "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day."* This might seem to imply, that the conduct of every individual connected with this event was so predestined as to exclude all choice and free will: yet our Lord immediately warns his followers, in terms which appear equally clear to imply both. He said unto them all, "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me; for whosoever will save his life, (i. e. is willing to save his life in preference to following me,) shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake, and the Gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels." Surely this implies, that God offers salvation to man in such a manner, that he cannot profit by the offer, except he complies with the conditions on which alone it can be received or enjoyed. Nothing can be more contrary to the idea of irrespective election or reprobation than the statement which this passage so clearly expresses, and the warning which it so awfully impresses on every Christian heart. It thus seems undeniable that no irresistible Divine power or influence is employed to determine the conduct of men, even in their most important concern, the acceptance or rejection of the Gospel of Christ. But it is here indispensably necessary to remark, that the power of rejection, and the power of acceptance, though equally real, and equally universal, yet are derived to men from different sources, and depend on different causes. *Mark, viii. 31. To reject the Divine † Mark, viii. 34, to the end. counsels, to doubt or deny the truths revealed by Divine wisdom, and to disobey the Divine commands, is easy to every descendant of Adam. Thus to feel and act, all are prone, who partake of that fallen and corrupt nature, transmitted by the first parents of the human race to all their posterity. And the very same corruption of nature, if its blindness be not enlightened, and its evil propensities checked, by the powerful, though perhaps secret and undistinguishable influence of the Holy Spirit, unfits us for profiting by the instructions of holy writ, prevents us from discerning and admiring the perfections of the Divine nature, or the wisdom and mercy of the Christian scheme of redemption, and impedes us from cherishing in our hearts the love of God and man; from feeling the beauty of holiness, and following the example of Christ. This natural corruption of man, and its consequence, his indisposition and unfitness for embracing cordially faith in Christ, with all its practical principles of repentance, humility, charity, and holiness, until enlightened, changed, and purified by the influence of God's Holy Spiritthese are truths clearly declared in Scripture, and distinctly recognized by the truly primitive and apostolic Church of England in her Articles and her Liturgy. But, hazardous and alarming as this state of human nature undoubtedly is, yet the abundant proofs which Scripture supplies of the infinite mercy and impartial justice of God,* (mercy and justice understood as human reason and human feelings lead us to understand these attributes,) these proofs assure us, that the Moral Governor of the world never promulgates a law, which he requires his moral creatures should obey, without conferring on them a power to obey it. Now, the case of fallen man is such, "that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works, to faith and calling upon God; and therefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will." It follows, therefore, that wherever God, by preaching the gospel, requires such faith, and such good works, he will not withhold the aid of that preventing and co-operating grace, without * Vid. supra, Discourses I. II. III. IV. + Article X. which they cannot be attained. We are assured of this by our Redeemer's gracious call, "Come unto me all ye that are in labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."* "God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world: but that the world through him might be saved." "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?" These, and a variety of other passages establishing this consolatory truth, have been already adduced, and they prove (as seems to me) beyond doubt, that such aid of God's Holy Spirit ever attends the gracious call of the Gospel, as will enable those who hear that call to believe and be saved, if they do not wilfully, obstinately, and criminally, "close their ears and harden their hearts, that they should not believe."§ But this they may do if they will, and thus perish, yet solely by their own fault. Thus, they are not irresistibly compelled or restrained; the power to reject salvation is in themselves; the power to believe and be saved is the gift of God alone-but not less real, or universally attainable by all to whom Christianity is offered, than the power to reject it. In this sense it is, I affirm, that freedom to accept or reject the gospel, and thus to choose between good and evil, between life and death, exists in every individual to whom that gospel is proposed. In this sense I affirm that salvation is connected with, and dependent on the individual's free choice, embracing that "faith which worketh by love," or contumaciously despising it, and not coming to the light because his deeds are evil." But condemnation thus merited, or salvation thus conferred, cannot, as appears to me, be connected with the ideas of irrespective reprobation, or election, or man's being passed over by an eternal decree of predestination, before the individual was born, and unalterable by any effort in his power to make. This freedom of choice in man, this conditionality of the Gospel promises on the part of God, appear to me to be abundantly confirmed by many passages in the New Testament besides those already adduced. Thus our Saviour declares of the apostles, "who had forsaken all things for him, and followed • Vid. Matt. xi. 28, quoted supra, p. 220. Luke, xi. 13, quoted supra p. 220. † John iii. 17, quoted supra p. 217. § Matt. xiii. 15. T him in the regeneration; that when he should sit in the throne of his glory, they should also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."* And he adds, as a general law of his moral government, "every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Is not this inheritance connected with and dependent on the individual's free choice; a choice influenced by sincere and heartfelt faith, and sacrificing "worldly enjoyments, from zeal to promote the glory, and obey the will of the Lord? Can we reconcile this with the tenet of irrespective election? Undoubtedly the reward conferred, inconceivably exceeds the service rendered, and is in this sense an unmerited reward from the free and transcendent mercy of Godbut surely it is not irrespective or unconditional. How conspicuous is the same principle of the divine conduct, in the instructions given to the apostles. "Into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till ye go thence. And when ye come into an house salute it, and if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it, but if it be not worthy let your peace return to you; and whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust off your feet; verily, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." Surely this shows, that the acceptance or rejection of the Gospel did not entirely depend on some of its hearers being predestined to receive, and others to reject it, by an eternal decree which was unalterable by any thing in their power; but on the contrary, that it depended on the right or wrong use they made of the instructions offered, and the means of grace afforded them; and that for this they were morally responsible : that in proportion as the evidence exhibited to them, and the means of conversion employed were clear and powerful, would be the greatness of their guilt and the severity of their punishment in despising or resisting them. But surely all this is totally repugnant to the predestinarian scheme of irrespective election and irresistible grace. * Matt. xix. 28, 29. + Matt. x. 11 to 15. The same connexion of religious improvement and advancement, with the use which men of their own free choice make of the means of grace placed in their power, is illustrated in the sacred records of the New Testament by many remarkable facts. Thus of the sisters Martha and Mary: the former was "cumbered with much serving,"* and confining her thoughts to temporal affairs, neglected the invaluable opportunity presented to her of receiving instruction from the great Teacher of truth, while "Mary sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word," Martha, with a jealousy and peevishness which that word would have corrected, expostulated, "Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. Jesus answered, and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful, and troubled about many things. But one thing is needful, and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her." Surely this shows that free choice not predestinarian necessity, led to this remarkable difference between the two sisters, who had exactly the same opportunity of hearing the divine word. Thus of the ten lepers, who were all equally healed by our Lord's miraculous interposition, one only "turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, and fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks, and he was a Samaritan; and Jesus, answering, said, Were there not ten cleansed; but where are the nine? there are not found that returned to give glory to God save this stranger; and he said unto him, Arise, go thy way, thy faith hath made thee whole."+ Is there any hint here given that this remarkable difference was to be traced solely to the pre-determining power of irrespective election, not to the free choice of the individual improving the means (afforded him by the ever-present aid of divine grace,) of discovering, believing, and glorifying the power and mercy of God. Observe also the account given of the crime of Ananias and Sapphira; Peter said, "Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not Luke, xvii. 12 to 19, *Luke, x. 38, to the end. |