A calvinistic divine says, "There can be no decree which frustrates, or makes void the Divine promises." This is well, hold fast here.— It is evident that the promises are to the whole world of mankind, to all nations, which will be clearly proved from the numerous texts that will soon be presented.

Can any person believe that an infinitely wise, good, and unchangeable being would make unconditional promises, and obligate himself by an oath to perform them, and then leave the event, and that of such vast importance as the eternal state of man, to such poor, weak, ignorant, fallible creatures as mankind are? What should we think of the man who should promise, on eath, the performance of something of consequence, (and he abundantly able to fulfil his promise,) and afterwards make the final event depend upon the conduct of a fool? The difference between the most learned and wise, and a natural fool or idiot, can be calculated; but who can draw the line, and tell the difference between the wise man and the great Creator?

A writer truly says, that "We may challenge all men in the world to prove the promise of Jehovah, sworn by himself, (the greatest and most important oath that ever was or ever can be taken,) that in the seed of Abraham (Christ) all the nations shall be blessed, contains any thing conditional, and binding on the part of man, in default of which God would absolve himself and abrogate his promises." Read the following, (Is. Iv. 10, 11,)" For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh

it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return to me void, but shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the things whereunto I sent it."

Sin, or transgression, will have no effect with one soul to hinder the fulfilment of those promises. Nay, for we are told positively, that "He will have compassion upon us: He will forgive our iniquities: And will cast all their sins in the depth of the sea. Thou wilt perform the oath to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old." (Mic. vii. 19, 20.)

There are numerous other passages, both in the Old and New Testaments, that refer to these gracious promises, considering them as the fundamental evidences of his unlimited grace, they being the only promises (or any thing else) that ever the Almighty condescended to confirm by an oath. I think they are of as much, if not of more importance to us, than any thing else in the scriptures. And this, with the promise to Adam. that the head of the serpent should be bruised. may with propriety be called the gospel preached by Jehovah, and so the apostle calls it "the gospel which was preached unto Abraham:" and therefore it is the foundation on which is built all that relates to man's salvation; and nothing in the scriptures should be understood contrary thereto. Every passage of scripture should be understood in conformity to these first, great, and glorious promises. These should be the key-texts to all others, and any passage that may

appear contrary thereto, should be so understood as to correspond therewith. If God ever did reveal any thing to man, we have as much reason to believe this to be a revelation, as any thing else in the scriptures; for there is nothing more worthy of a God, and more probable that a good God, the supreme, infinitely good Parent. would reveal, than that he would bless his children. This is becoming in all good parentsthere is hardly any thing looks better in the patriarchs, than their blessing their children. And if I really believe in those promises, and believe them to be as they were, universal, unlimited, positive, and unconditional, and delivered in such plain words I cannot misunderstand, I can believe nothing that expresses any thing contrary thereto. And if any other passage or text in the scriptures appears to the contrary, I [should rather conclude it was a mistranslation, or an interpolation, or that I did not understand it, or that it was by some means a mistake, than to think for a moment, that the Almighty, who is declared to be unchangeable, would contradict himself, or declare one thing at one time, and of such importance, and so vastly interesting to mankind as the declaration in question, and at another time, something the reverse of it. This is impossible, as we read it "is impossible for God to lie:" and the apostle says this in reference to those very promises. (Heb. vi. 18.)

Wesley says, that " Predestination represents God worse than the devil. But you say you will prove it by scripture. Hold! What will you prove by scripture? That God is worse than Satan? It cannot be. Let the scripture mean

what it will, it cannot mean that the judge of all the world is unjust. No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his tender mercies are not over all his works: that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove predestination."

Now I would improve upon this a little. Arminianism "represents God worse than the devil," in creating millions of millions of intelligent creatures, knowing that they would be eternally Iniserable. (A man would be called worse than the devil, if he had power to make a creature, and at the same time know that it would be eternally miserable: deny this who can.) "But you say, you will prove it by scripture," (i. e. that many will be miserable.) "Hold! What will you prove by scripture ?" That God will not fulfil his promises? "It cannot be. Let the scripture mean what it will, it cannot mean that the judge of all the world is so unjust," as to promise that all his children should be blessed, and yet let Satan have millions of them in everfasting torment. "There is no love in this, and no scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his tender mercy is not over all his works: that is, whatever it prove beside, no scripture can prove" Arminianism, or the eternal misery of any creature; for if that be true, the promises, that the head of the serpent should be bruised, and all nations, families, and kindreds of the earth should be blessed, cannot be true. So it is certainly much more reasonable, yea, infinitely, if possible, more reasonable to believe that Arminianism is a lie, than to believe what is imposible: that is, that God will lie. I should like ask friend Wesley, or any of his Arminian fol

lowers, how "God's tender mercies," of which he speaks, "can be over all his works," and millions, almost the whole, or the greatest and best part of his works-"man, the noblest work of God," can be suffered by him to lie bound eternally in the most intolerable and inconceivable torment of fire and brimstone, and the Almighty, with his wrath, and the devil tormenting them besides? And this Wesley calls "God's tender mercies over all his works." The Lord have mercy upon poor erring Arminians.

Wesley says, "No scriptures can prove predestination." If he had been asked why? He would have answered, because Christ died, not only for the elect, but for the whole world. Το which the Calvinists say, "If he died for the whole world, or for all, all will be saved." And they are perfectly right. It is a most absurd and inconsistent story, that Christ should die for all, and the efficacy of his death lost upon 99 out of 100, by the means of a poor, miserable devil.I would be ashamed to let any body know I had such a faith, or that I believed such contradictory absurdities.

The apostle says, "When God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself-wherein God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel," (what was his counsel, or determination? Ans. That all men should be saved, or blessed, both words meaning the same,) "confirmed it by an oath. That by two immutable things," (himself unchangeable, and his oath the same,)" in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a