who has brought them into existence only to be vessels of wrath?" There was some consistency at least, in those fanatics, who renounced matrimony for fear of such consequences. Are not such doctrines the source of those gloomy thoughts, which distract so many pious souls? Do they not deter many from cultivating or crediting religion, and harden them in infidelity and iniquity? May we not fear, that they impel many to hurry on their own fate, rather than endure the despondence, agitation and torment of mind, with which they are doomed to await it?

I hope, I have shewn that this doctrine, as commonly taught, has no foundation in the history of Moses, or the reasoning of Paul; that it is inconsistent with the moral character of God, and the moral sense or conscience of man, which God gave us as a law to ourselves; that it receives no countenance from the doctrine of Christ, but is directly opposed to it; that it encourages profligacy, infidelity, and hardness of heart; and tends to dissolve the relations and charities of social life. I shall conclude with proving, that it is also irreconcileable with reason, and the common sense of mankind.

I ask, then, in the first place, did this decree originate before, or after, the fall? This is a subject of controversy with Predestinarians themselves, who are accordingly divided between Sublapsarians and Supralapsarians. Calvin, whose

followers are at present most zealous for this doctrine, was a Supralapsarian. He maintains, "that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in it the ruin of his posterity; but that it was the dispensation of his will." "I confess, (says he) that this is a horrible decree: but no one can deny, that God foreknew the end of man before he formed him, and therefore foreknew it, because he had so ordained by his own decree.* "I confess this to be my doctrine, that Adam fell, not by the mere permission of God, but also by his secret counsel; and that by his fall, he drew all his posterity to eternal destruction; that the fall of Adam was not accidental, but ordained by the secret decree of God." Now, can any thing be more abhorrent from reason than this? It was, then, the secret will of God, that Adam should sin. By his sin, therefore, he complied with the will of God; and he, with all his posterity, was doomed to everlasting destruction for obeying the will of God: he first decreed the fall of Adam, then commanded him not to fall, and lastly consigned him and all his descendants to everlasting perdition, when he did fall. Suppose that he had not fallen, he would then have counteracted and disobeyed the decree of God, which would be a much more natural cause of punishment: so that whether he promoted the intention

* Calvin's Inst. iii. 23.

of the Almighty, or resisted it, he and his descendants must be damned.

Again, consider the case of us, his posterity. We are condemned, not for our own sins, but for the one sin of Adam, the guilt of which is imputed to us: and God is so far from relieving us from this miserable and undeserved sentence, that he withholds and withdraws from us all our means of grace; for thus says Calvin: "He directs his voice to them, but it is that they may become more deaf: he lights up a light, but it is that they may be made more blind; he proposes a doctrine, but it is that they may become more stupid by it: he applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be healed. He delivers his doctrines, involved in obscurities, to those whom he wishes not to be illuminated, that they may gain nothing from them, except the being delivered. up to greater stupidity:" and yet he says again: "That the reprobate do not obey the word of God, when explained to them, will be rightly imputed to the wickedness and maliciousness of their own hearts:" " and they are addicted to this wickedness, because they are raised up by the just but inscrutable judgment of God, to illustrate his glory by their damnation."* Man, left to his own nature, is a mass composed of sin." "We are so addicted to sin, that we can do nothing of

* Inst. iii, 24.

66

our own accord but sin." What can be more contradictory than these positions?

On the contrary, with respect to the elect favourites, he says, "Their sins, under the direction of God's providence, are so far from injuring saints, that they rather promote their salvation:" "the Lord, by adopting them, does not regard what sort of persons they are."* Can any thing be more strange, than that the great body of Protestants in these countries, should be seduced to maintain such opinions as these, so absurd, pernicious and blasphemous? These demoralizing doctrines are a bar to the reformation, and the conversion of Jews, Mahometans and Idolaters; and a just cause of reproach from the advocates of the Church of Rome.3

But let us bestow a moment's consideration on our own condition and prospects. Here we find ourselves in the same perplexing situation with Adam. If we sin in consequence of a divine decree, we are obedient and disobedient at the same time, and by the same act; obedient to the divine decree, and disobedient to the divine law of holiness. As to the consequences, if we be reprobate, no virtues can help us; if elect, no sins can injure us. In either case, our good deeds are worthless, our sins harmless, and the redemption by Christ null, and of no effect.*

* Calvin. in Rom. vi. vii. viii. Eph. i. 11.

It is agreed, that Adam's transgression and guilt became ours only by imputation. Let me ask, then, did this imputation find us sinners, or make us so? If it found us sinners, the imputation of Adam's sin was unnecessary: we might have perished by our own sins. If it found us innocent, and made us sinners, then it was the cause of our sins, and God was the author of them. Again: if it found us free from sin, the imputation was false, charging those with sin, whom it did not find sinners; and God condemns men on account of his own false imputation. Pardon the expression; for it is impossible to treat of these monstrous positions without contradiction and blasphemy.

But why should we be answerable for only one transgression? If our guilt arises from the guilt of Adam, it must be aggravated by all his of fences; and if we suffer the consequent corruption of his nature, the penalty of his transgressions, should we not also enjoy the benefit of his If we repentance and subsequent obedience? sinned in our federal head, we must also have repented with him. How strange and paradoxical is it, that while God is forgiving our own sins, he should condemn us for the offence of another!

But it has been asked, is not this doctrine necessary to account for the existence of sin? How else came it into the world? I answer by another question, How did the original sin take place?