The Watchman

FOR THE WATCHMAN.

THE ELECTION OF GRACE.

Mr. Editor.—What has become of the good old doctrine of election? In the time of Christ and of Paul, this doctrine was taught and applied to the awakening of sinners and the comfort of Christians; and it has been taught and applied by many of Christ's faithful servants in different ages of the church, with substantially the same happy effects.—But how is it now? I hear preachers who profess to preach the doctrines of the gospel and of grace, but seldom if ever do I hear a word concerning the election of grace, without which all other doctrines of grace are inoperative. I read periodicals, and those even which profess to be orthodox, but seldom if ever do I catch a glimpse of the good old comforting doctrine which has done so much for Zion in other ages. This I confess is to me a most inauspicious symptom of the times.

Instead of what I understand by the election of grace, I now hear or read the representation from certain quarters, that God elects to salvation all whom he foreknows he can make willing to be saved, and this is said to be the true scripture doctrine of election. But what election is this? There is no divine choice in the matter at all, according to this statement. State the doctrine in different terms, and the import of it will be manifest. God elects all that he can make willing to be saved. Here the limitation, if any there be, is made, not by any divine choice or determination, but simply by the character or feelings of the subjects, or by the inadequacy of divine power, the imbecility of Jehovah.—The term election is put in here, as would seem, merely to save appearances, and preserve the use of Scripture language. For to call this statement the doctrine of election, is supremely ridiculous. It is no more election than it would be if the fisherman should be said to elect all the fish in the river that he could induce to take his bait. Would it be proper to say that the fisherman elected any of the fish? The truth is, he elects them all so far as he elects any, and he takes what he can catch. And the only reason he does not take all is, either that they are too cautious, or he too unskilful. Now, can any rational man be justified with this meagre, incoherent, and ridiculous sentiment as amounting to the election of grace? Can any man take his Bible and read what Christ preached to the people of Nazareth concerning the electing love of God in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and the widow among the Gentiles, and what Paul preached and wrote to the Romans and the Ephesians, and admit for one moment that the above statement is the Scripture doctrine of election? Especially, can any Christian who has had the doctrine of the election of grace taught and explained to him in his own experience, believe that God chose him because he could make him willing and could not make others willing? I think not. Every Christian who attends intelligently to his own experience, knows this is not true. If it were how could he ever say—"Not unto us, not unto us, but to thy name give glory for thy mercy and thy truth's sake."

Is it consistent, or reverential, or Scriptural to say that God can make some willing and not others? Why not? Are not all hearts deceitful above all things and desperately wicked? Is there any difference in this respect? And are not all hearts in the hands of God, and as the rivers of water cannot he turn them whithersoever he will? Why then cannot God make all willing if he pleases, if it seems good in his sight? I cannot repress my sorrow, and scarcely can I restrain my indignation at this awful perversion of Scripture, and violence done to the gospel truth.

But not to dwell on this view of the subject, will you permit me, Mr. Editor, to state in a few plain terms what I understand by the election of grace, and a few reasons why it should be inculcated; and then perhaps I may answer some objections that are commonly put in against the doctrine.

By the election of grace, then, I do not understand that any are elected to salvation without including their regeneration and sanctification as a part of the purpose. I do not call repentance and faith, or regeneration and sanctification, conditions of election, but a part of it. God does not choose men on account of their repentance and faith, because then they would in effect make themselves to differ: but he chooses them to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. The plea, therefore, that if we are elected, we shall and must be saved, do what we may, has no foundation in this doctrine, but is a gross perversion of it.

By the election of grace, I do not understand that any are excluded from salvation, do what they can. The electing love of God, if I understand it, has no interference with the moral agency of men. God said to Cain, "If thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted;" and so he says to every sinner. And it is not until after the moral agency of men has spent itself, and their moral character is decided, that election comes in to rescue those who have destroyed themselves. This is clearly taught in the parable of the marriage supper. They all, with one accord, began to make excuse, and went their way, one to his farm and another to his merchandise. The idea, then, that election excludes any who would otherwise do right, or comply with the terms of the gospel, has no foundation in this doctrine, but is utterly inconsistent with it.

The election of grace I take to be as follows: All mankind having departed from God by transgressing his law, and manifesting an utter aversion to the gospel and the way of salvation it reveals, and a determination that they will not have Christ to reign over them; and having thereby shown that sin is their choice, and that after it they will go—divine grace interposes, according to the sovereign pleasure and eternal purpose of God, to save such a part of men as God sees best; and that in consequence of this interposition, the people of Christ are willing in the day of his power. This, if I can understand the Scriptures, is the account which they give of the subject, as I might show by numerous citations. But it will not be needful for me here to repeat the passages in point, as it is to be presumed and hoped that every one who feels an interest in knowing the truth on this subject, will search the Scriptures to see if these things are so.

It is to be observed, however, concerning this statement of the doctrine, it supposes that free agency has operated as far as it will before electing grace takes effect. The sinner has chosen his part, and he has begun to act in accordance with that choice—and if he is left to his choice he is forever undone.—The case has been illustrated by supposing a prison in which a number of men are confined for life. A benevolent man appears and pays their ransom, and orders the prison door to be set open, that they may come forth as soon as they please. He causes the proclamation to be made that their ransom is paid, and that as many as will may take their liberty freely. But the prisoners have become so assimilated to the prison, and so in love with its service and its company, that they are unwilling to leave it. They make light of the invitation, and all with one accord begin to make excuse.

What shall now be done? Common mercy and free agency have done their utmost—they have spent their strength, and yet no prisoner is set free. If any thing farther is done, it must be by special favor and extraordinary influence. The benevolent man may not deem it consistent, with a proper exhibition of his character, to make any farther effort for the whole body. But he may see it best to enter in and bring out a number according as his pleasure or judgment dictates. The question is, whether in doing this he would at all intrench on the liberty or free agency of those that are left—or whether they would have any just cause of complaint.

So in the case of sinners; they have brought themselves into the prison of sin by their disobedience, and Christ has come and paid their ransom: he preaches deliverance to the captives, and the opening of prison doors to them that are bound. This he does to all and every one indiscriminately; for he says, "Ho, every one that thirsteth come ye to the waters;" "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely;" "All things are now ready, come to the marriage." But sinners refuse. They love sin and will not forsake it. They therefore will not come to Christ that they may have life.

So far common grace and free agency go, and no farther. Now, if the human race were left at this point, who would be saved. But here the election of grace comes in. Christ interposes by his Spirit to subdue the hearts of those whom he thinks best to save. He does not see it consistent to extend this special operation of renewing power to the whole body of those who have refused his invitation. But he has power to take away the heart of stone and give the heart of flesh;—and he does it so far as he sees best—and thus a part are rescued, not only from the sin and misery which they had brought on themselves by rebellion, but also from the obstinacy of their own wills. They are plucked as brands out of the fire—they are a remnant according to the election of grace—they are monuments of the self-moving mercy of God, and will have occasion to all eternity to say—"To thy name give glory for thy mercy and thy truth's sake."

Such, I believe, to be the Scriptural doctrine of election, after all the glosses of modern improvement, or rather perversion.

I intend, Providence permitting, hereafter, to offer some reasons why this doctrine should be preached, as well as to answer some cavils.

BeTA.