who is openly immoral and profane, and living as thoughtless of death and eternity as the brutes.

Many important ends are answered by this mode of God's dealing with his rebellious creatures. Conviction of sin is a proper and necessary preparative for the sinner to become a recipient of regenerating grace. By it he is convinced of the pride and enmity of his, heart-his utter opposition to every thing morally good-his impotency, guilt and wretchedness, and hence of his perishing need of a divine righteousness, and his absolute dependence on sovereign mercy. When the sinner has tried every effort in vain--is driv en from the last plank of his own righteousness, and finds himself sinking and perishing without hope, unless the arm of sovereign mercy be extended for his salvation-then is the time for God to display his infinite mercy, and make bare his holy arm in plucking the sinner as a brand from the burning, and new moulding the carnal heart of enmity into the temper and the transports of heaven. Thus God will be the more highly exalted; the sinner the more deeply humbled, and prepared to unite in the song of Moses and the Lamb"Not unto us, but unto thy name give glo ry, for thy mercy and thy truth's sake."

Yours, with much respect,

LETTER X.

ARISTARCHUS.

DEAR SIR,

YOUR next objection to the doctrine of divine sovereignty, and your reasonings in support of it, I am sorry to say are as uncandid as they are misconceived.

I will first state the objection, in your own words, and then endeavour to analyze and examine it.

"The Calvinistic creed represents mankind as objects of the divine hatred only-not even through the Redeemer as a race of beings, the subjects of his compassion and mercy. This is inadmissible. I cannot conceive of the Most High as possessed of this vindictive spirit towards the natural state of men, and at the same time that he so far loved them as to send his only begotten Son to redeem them. "God so loved the world." Is not this spoken of the world in its natural state? If not, here is a text full to the purpose: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and gave his Son to be a propitiation for our sins." This speaks plainly, that he compassionated our natural, state, and made provision for escaping its consequences. That, one of its consequences, separate from his interposition is a continual opposition to him is readily granted. This state of ours is held up in scripture, as the very cause of his sending his Son into the world. And I am fully persuaded that the redemption of Christ is universal. From many scripture passages in proof of this, I shall refer you to two only" That Jesus by the grace of God might taste death for every man-Who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world." Now how do these declarations consist with the idea, that Christ died only for a part of mankind, and that he is a propitiation only for the sins of an elect number? That all do not receive the benefits of his redemption is no argument against it, upon the principles of scripture. "And through thy knowledge, says St. Paul, shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" If Christ be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, why are not the sins of the whole remittable? What impediment is there in the way, but only a voluntary abuse of the advantages which God hath put into our hands ?

In the first place, Sir, I must observe, that you have utterly mistaken the Calvinistic creed, and set down your own misconstruction of it as the object of controversy. This method, however unfair, is yet but too

common in sectarian disputes. It is an enemy to the candid investigation of truth, and therefore ought to be carefully guarded against. Is it just or candid for you to assert that the Calvinistic creed represents God as an enemy to the works of his hands; and that even as a race of beings, they are not the subjects of his compassion and mercy through the Redeemer? What is the Calvinistic Creed on this subject-for you need to be informed? Simply this, that God views sin with perfect disapprobation and abhorrence-that man, since the apostacy is naturally a sinner,--entirely destitute of holiness; and that, therefore, God has no complacency in his moral character, but views it with the utmost abhorrence. And what can you oppose to this? Does it imply that God is an enemy to the works of his hands? Because he abhors the moral characters of men, doth he therefore hate their persons, and is so opposed to their happiness, that they as a race of beings, are not the objects of his compassion and mercy through the Redeemer? This is a very wanton assumption. Does it argue the Most High void of compassion, and possessed of a revengeful spirit because he infinitely abhors all moral evil? In proving your God a being of compassion and mercy, would you be understood to mean that he is not a being of justice and purity, but loves the moral character of the sinner, and is pleased with the nature of sin? Certainly not. We are commanded to be Godlike in forgiving our enemies, and doing them good. "If thine enemy hunger, feed him if he thirst, give him drink, &c. If a vile ruffian should abuse your person, and murder your only son, you would not, in the exercise of a Godlike temper, have the smallest feeling of revenge towards him-but would forgive him for Christ's sake, wish him well,-pity him and pray for his pardon and salvation. The Saviour set the example when hanging upon the cross. But would this imply that you loved the character of the ruffian, and approved of his abominable wickedness? No:-but directly the contrary. The higher the degree of your pitty and benevolence towards the poor vile wretch, the greater would be your abhorrence of his atrocities.

In the same light are we to view the affections of the divine mind. God's hatred of moral evil is perfectly consistent with his love of moral being. They are clearly distinguishable and yet inseparably connected. They are jointly exercised, and in an equal degree. Man as a sinner God views with just abhorrence; as his creature and capable of enjoying happiness, God loves him ;-as a wretched ruined creature, the God of mercy pities him, gives his Son to die for his salvation, and through him offers pardon and eternal life to all and every one who will believe. It was therefore, quite unnecessary for you to prove that God is not a malevolent or revengeful being; or waste arguments to disprove, what no one believes, that God is an enemy to the happiness of his creatures. This must have been because you do not properly distinguish between the holy anger of God, which has no other object but sin, and is an exercise of love to the happiness of moral beings;-and the passionate revengeful anger of men, which is pointed at the very being of its object, and can be satisfied with nothing but its misery.

Neither do you make any distinction between the love of benevolence, and the love of complacence-or you could not have brought scriptural declarations of the divine compassion towards sinners, in proof of the divine complacency in the natural character of men, which you acknowledge to be opposed to God.

"This now," you say "speaks plainly that he compassionated our natural state, and made provision for escaping its consequences. That one of its consequences separate from his interposition is a continual opposition to him, is readily granted. This state of ours is held up in scripture, as the very cause of his sending his Son into the world."

All the ambiguity in this sentence, which leaves room for any difference between us, is in the use of the word, interposition. By this you mean only God's giving his Son, and the common influences of his Spirit, in exclusion of the idea of special and distinguishing grace towards any-but that God doth as much, and equally the same in every point of view, by the

influences of his Spirit,.for the salvation of all mankind, as for that of any part of the race. This undoubtedly is what you mean by universal Redemption. Here you are betrayed, my friend, into a sad inacuracy by not distinguishing between redemption and atonement. If by universal Redemption, you mean an all sufficient atonement, or an universal offer of mercy—we are agreed in the thing. But the word is mischosen to express this idea.-Redemption is atonement actually applied and if by universal redemption, be meant an universal application of Christ's atonement, (and the term is misapplied to express any other idea) it is then, but another word for universal salvation. For if the design of Christ's death was equally to benefit all mankind without distinction; all mankind would certainly be saved, as an infallible consequence; or the design of Christ's death would be frustrated.

But I can readily see, that in solving this difficulty, you may again object to irresistable grace as repugnant to free agency :-if so I would only refer you to my arguments upon that subject, and then to your own concession, that one of the consequences of our natu ral state, separate from God's interposition, is a continual opposition to him. Does not this sentiment necessarily imply irresistable grace, in the sinner's change of heart from opposition to conformity.-Whether this change be effected by power or by light -with means, or without-by all or by none of these, but by something else, is perfectly immaterial to the present question, The only point is, whether any interposition short of irresistable could be sufficient to destroy the sinner's opposition? If the divine interposition be resistable, the sinner can resist it--and if he can resist it, he certainly wants not the will to resist for to resist is his natural, disposition, and a continual opposition, unless, or until overcome by divine interposition, is one of the allowed consequences of our natural state. The doctrine of irresistable grace thus conceded, effectually oversets your whole scheme.. For if this divine interposition be sufficient to destroy the opposition of one sinner, it is equally sufficient to destroy the opposition of any other; and if extended