THE TRIAL.
At last, the Circuit Court met. Three or four days were consumed with other business, and the case of the State against Xerxes Comston was called.
“Are you ready for trial?” asked the Judge.
“Ready,” replied the Prosecutor.
“Ready,” promptly answered the Counsel for the defence, to the surprise of every one. For obvious reasons, it is generally the practice to postpone murder cases as long as possible.
“Proceed then,” said His Honor.
The impanelling of the Jury was the first step to be taken. This was quickly done, too, for, to general surprise, Mr. Greenlee, who had undertaken to defend Comston, offered no objection to any juror, if he only had a fair measure of common sense. He did not, evidently, care for the character of the jury, and did not appear to manifest the leastuneasiness or anxiety. He was calm and collected, as though he had no fears as to the final result. People looked at him in astonishment, but the lawyer paid no attention to their amazement. Blicker cast suspicious glances at him. Clara was sitting in the bar near her husband, seemingly in deep distress. But when she occasionally looked at Greenlee’s calm face, her hope revived. Ernest was also present, and did not seem to be anxious. Greenlee, instead of trying to retard the progress of the case, manifested a willingness to hasten it forward. His whole manner was surprising to the District Attorney, who was under the impression that a verdict of condemnation must be the inevitable result.
At length, the indictment was read, and then followed the examination of witnesses. The first was Blicker, who stated the circumstances that were favorable to his own case, with which the reader is acquainted. The two men were then introduced who had seen Comston dragging the dead man under the trees. They also stated the language which the criminal had employed. This united testimony appeared to be conclusive. The spectators, who were generally in sympathywith the accused, looked solemn. All had hoped that the trial itself would develop something that would be favorable to Comston. No one wanted him punished. But how could he escape in the face of such overwhelming evidence?
A long-drawn sigh was heard at Comston’s side. It came from Clara, who seemed suddenly to give way to despair. Again, she turned her head, and looked at Ernest. Could she be mistaken? Was there not a perceptible smile upon his face? She then glanced at Greenlee. His countenance wore the same serene, imperturbable expression. There was a short pause in the proceedings when the Prosecutor said:
“We have no more witnesses. I do not know,” he continued with an air of triumph, “why Mr. Greenlee foregoes his privilege of cross-examining the witnesses for the State. He can do so yet, if he wishes. I would prefer that he should do it.”
“Their testimony,” replied Greenlee, “can go to the jury for what it is worth.”
“Do you mean to insinuate that it is worth nothing?” asked the District Attorney.
“Has the counsel for the defense,” interrupted His Honor, “no witnesses?”
Every one expected to hear a sorrowful “no.” But what was the universal astonishment and joy, when Greenlee quietly replied:
“We have one.”
Then mouths and eyes were opened with curiosity. The spectators seemed to hold their breath lest they should lose the name of the unexpected witness, or as if the only chance for Comston had wings, and might be frightened away by heavy respiration. Comston and Clara looked up, leaned forward, and subjected Greenlee’s tranquil face to a quick, close search.
“Call your witness,” said the Court.
“Let Rev. Mr. Edgefield be sworn,” said Greenlee mildly and quietly.
Ernest rose from his chair, and deliberately stepped to the Clerk’s desk, where he was sworn, and then placed himself in the witness’ seat. It was one of those strange, unexpected scenes, which sometimes occur in gloomy court-rooms, and which change the entire aspect of the case. Clara now understood that smile on the preacher’s face. Ernest knew all about it, she thought. And who, but God, had sent him? She was awe-struck by the thought, and felt as one who had justwitnessed, or rather was about to witness, a miracle. Comston had similar feelings. Both could have cast themselves upon the floor, and kissed the witness’ feet. What a friend he was! How good, and kind, and merciful was God, in raising up such a noble witness at the moment when it seemed that hope was about to wing a returnless flight! How both their hearts were melted to tenderness toward their Creator! for it was the firm conviction of both that God had sent His own messenger to see justice done. Ernest had not spoken a word, but they felt that his testimony, whatever it was, would be conclusive.
“Tell what you know about this case,” said Mr. Greenlee.
Ernest spoke in a firm, emphatic tone, that carried conviction to every heart:
“On the morning of the —— day, of ——, I rose earlier than usual. The day before I had remained with Comston, and kept him away from the saloon. He had promised to reform. But, I confess, I had little hope of any reformation, if he was left alone, and I determined to watch him another day; and this accounts for my early rising on that particular morning. I started toward the saloon, and whenI had nearly reached there, I saw Comston coming out of his gate. I then concealed myself in the rear of the saloon, waiting for Comston to come, intending to persuade him to return home. When I had hidden myself, I heard two men quarreling inside, both of whose voices I instantly recognized. Presently, I heard Jones exclaim:
“‘I won’t stand it any longer.’
“Then I heard a rush over the floor. There was a scuffle for only a few seconds, and I heard Jones cry out:
“‘You have stabbed me—, you have killed me!’
“He employed some other words which I did not hear distinctly. Then I heard a body fall heavily to the floor, and all was still. A moment afterwards, I heard Comston enter the room, and beg for a drink, stating that he had no money. I heard the rattling of glasses; then there was silence. In a short time I heard Blicker say:
“‘I will give you another drink, if you will drag that drunken man under the tree.’
“‘I will do it’, said Comston. He seemed to be lifting the man, and I heard him exclaim:
“‘Jones is dead, ain’t he?’
“‘No,’ replied Blicker, ‘He is dead drunk; he fell on the bench, and cut himself, and he is bleeding.’
“I then heard a sound as of one man dragging another over the floor. At this moment I heard footsteps approaching and I left.”
“That is the God’s truth!” cried Comston in a voice trembling with emotion.
“Silence!” cried the Sheriff.
Clara could scarcely restrain her deeply agitated feelings. How she wanted to fall on her knees, and thank Ernest for this strange interference. The District Attorney was astounded. Blicker, as pale as death, had started out of the room at a rapid pace.
“Sheriff!” exclaimed the Judge, “arrest Mr. Blicker, if you please.”
“I am not running,” said Blicker, who suddenly seemed to recollect that flight was an evidence of guilt. “I was only changing my seat. That preacher has made up that lie.”
“How came you never to have said anything about this before?” said the District Attorney angrily, turning to Ernest, “Why did you not give in this testimony in the committing court, and save the expense and trouble of this trial?”
“I had a very good reason for it,” said Ernest, “I was anxious for the reformation of Mr. Comston, and I believed that nothing but imprisonment for several months would ever cure him of his evil habits. Surely, the salvation of a human soul is worth the few dollars that it may cost the county.”
“You have pursued a very strange course, it seems to me,” said the District Attorney. “Suppose you had taken sick and died before the trial came off, you would have left your friend in a sad predicament.”
“Not at all, sir,” replied Ernest. “I made provision for contingencies of that sort. You may ask Mr. Greenlee.”
“I will state,” said Mr. Greenlee, “that a few days after this killing, Mr. Edgefield made his deposition to the facts he has just stated, and signed it in the presence of two witnesses. However, that is perfectly irrelevant. We have no use whatever for the deposition.”
“Will your Honor permit such a proceeding as this?” asked the District Attorney.
“Certainly,” answered the Court, “Mr. Edgefield was never summoned as a witness in the committing court.”
“But still,” said the District Attorney, “ought he not to have appeared anyhow?”
“Mr. Edgefield,” said the Court, “has given his reason for not doing so. The jury can take his testimony for what it is worth.”
The jury, at once, retired, but they returned in about ten minutes, and moved slowly up to the Judge’s stand.
“Are you agreed, gentlemen?” said the Court.
“We are,” replied the foreman. The Clerk then took a paper from the hands of the foreman, and read the following in substance:
“We, the jury in the case of the State against Xerxes Comston, find that the defendant is not guilty.”
Immediately there was a great shout which shook the building.
“Silence! silence!” cried the Sheriff; but he might as well have spoken to a cyclone. Nothing could be heard but shouts of gladness, thus showing what a deep interest the public had felt in this trial. Comston rose from his seat and tottered toward Ernest, around whose neck he threw his arms, and wept like a child.
Clara exclaimed aloud:
“Praised be God! I shall serve Him the remainder of my days.”
There were few dry eyes in the room. It resembled some of the scenes of an old-fashioned camp-meeting. The crowd looked at Ernest with a species of awe. They could not have felt more reverence if Abraham himself had come back from the dead and testified in the case.
Comston and his wife immediately left the court-room amid the plaudits of the crowd that the terror of the law could not control.
Within two days, Comston had obtained a position as clerk in a store, and soon began to prosper.
The next time that Ernest called, both gave him such a joyful and grateful greeting that he felt compensated for all the trouble and inconvenience to which he had been subjected. After conversing a while, Ernest said:
“Surely, you now see the hand of God in your affairs?”
“Yes,” replied Comston, “and I am a different man, and, by God’s grace, intend to lead a different life.”
“And what has Mrs. Comston to say?” asked Ernest with a smile.
“I am perfectly overwhelmed,” she answered. “I feel as one in a dream, and youappear to me as our guardian angel. God must have sent you here.”
“I hope so, my friends,” replied Ernest, “but give all the glory to God. I am only an humble instrument in His hands. But,” he added after a short pause, “you will now both join the church, will you not, and lead Christian lives?”
“I will,” answered Comston emphatically. “I’ve not forgotten my vow.”
“And so will I,” replied Clara.
“What church will you join? I do not believe I have ever asked you.”
“The Presbyterian—your church,” answered Comston. “I like its comforting doctrines. They are certainly the right thing when one is in trouble. I’ve heard some people talk very hard about the eternal decrees, but, as you told me, the doctrine of election is taught in the Bible, and I find it there.”
“A few months ago,” said Clara, “I had an abhorrence of predestination, but now I have no doubt that it is a doctrine of God’s Book. If it is not taught in the 8th and 9th chapters of Romans, I cannot understand language. So I can be nothing but a Presbyterian.”
Accordingly, the next Sabbath both werereceived into the church of their choice. Ernest never had more faithful, zealous members, and more staunch friends. If Comston heard any one complaining in regard to Ernest, or any thing he did, it made him impatient, and he defended his beloved pastor and friend, with unlimited warmth of feeling. God prospered him in business, and in a few years Comston had a store of his own. He became a liberal and cheerful supporter of the Church and all its institutions. Clara contracted habits of economy and diligence, and was foremost in all church work, such as ladies could perform. We close the chapter with the remark that Blicker was tried for murder, and condemned to the penitentiary for the period of his natural life.
THE LAST SCENE.
The lives of a great many people are distinguished by a few romantic events, but no man’s life is one continuous series of startling incidents. Life flows in a regular channel, and its romantic portions are mere episodes. The great bulk of mankind are doomed to toil for the necessaries of existence. Hence, every day is alike. They go through the same dull routine—the same tread-mill process of eat, drink, sleep, work.
It could not, therefore, be reasonably expected that the career of a minister, like Ernest, living in a quiet provincial town, should be distinguished for thrilling experiences. The clerical life is generally tranquil and unromantic. The preacher visits the sick, comforts the distressed, resolves the doubts of the skeptical, preaches the gospel, Sabbath after Sabbath, and in this way the days glide by till death transfers him to a higher state ofexistence. After the remarkable episode, involving Comston’s startling history, nothing occurred, for years, in the life of Ernest which would be of interest to the mere story reader. At present he is performing his ministerial duties, assisted by Mildred, with unostentatious piety.
One Sabbath there was an unusually large congregation assembled in Ernest’s church. It had been published that he would, by special request, preach a doctrinal sermon.
On Monday morning there was considerable excitement throughout the community. Many of those who had believed the opposite doctrine, were caused to reflect, and made to examine the ground-work of their creed. Little groups gathered on the streets and in the stores to discuss the sermon of the day before.
“Well,” said good old father Grimshaw, “if I believed as Brother Edgefield does, I would never go to church any more. In fact, I’d never do anything, but I’d take my fill of sin—yes I would.”
“I am utterly astounded,” answered a Presbyterian elder, “to hear you talk that way, father Grimshaw. If you were to take your fill of sin, how could you be a Christian? Can a Christian love sin?”
“Why, what difference would it make whether I am a Christian or not?” cried the old man. “If I’m to be saved, I’ll be saved anyhow, and if I’m to be lost, I’ll be lost anyhow, no matter what I may do.”
“Look here, father Grimshaw,” said the elder, “did Brother Edgefield say anything like that?”
“If he didn’t say it, that’s what his doctrine leads to.”
“I confess,” said the elder mildly, “that I cannot see that it leads to any such conclusion. But that is the way with some of you people. You draw your inferences, and take them as the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church. You know that Brother Edgefield said that all could be saved who wanted to be. I should like to know how much broader you desire the plan of salvation. Do you want God to save people,nolens volens?”
“No, sir,” replied father Grimshaw. “But if certain people are fore-ordained to eternal death, how can any of them be saved?”
“Brother Edgefield made that as plain as anything could be,” replied the Elder. “But I will answer your question. Of course, if they are fore-ordained to eternal death, theycannot be saved, but whose fault is it? God does not prevent their salvation. It is nothing but their own wicked hearts—their own perverse will. No man ever was lost simply on account of predestination.”
“But why don’t they have the will?” asked father Grimshaw.
“I do not know, but that is the truth,” replied the elder. “Their lack of the will is not to be attributed to any eternal decree, and if that be so, I am sure the sinner can charge the loss of his soul to nobody but himself. We naturally hold every man responsible for his own character. If a man is a thief, it is not natural for us to think that God made him so. Neither do we hold the Lord responsible for any man’s will. If, then, the sinner lacks the disposition to be saved, surely he cannot charge God with injustice. Every man has the consciousness that he could be a Christian, if he only desired to be. Then, I ask you, in the name of common sense, how does predestination prevent his salvation?”
“I don’t know how to argue the question,” cried father Grimshaw testily, “but it does appear horrible to me that God should choose one man to eternal life and condemn anotherto eternal death, when both are alike by nature—both sinners.”
“Let me ask you,” said the elder, “if God was under any obligations to save any one?”
“No, certainly not.”
“If He were to send all to eternal torment, would it be just?” asked the Elder.
“Yes,” answered father Grimshaw.
“Well, then, if God, in mercy, choose to save a large portion of the human race, and leave the rest to perish in their sins,and on account of their sins, how is any injustice done them?”
“Because they have as much right to be chosen as the others,” said father Grimshaw.
“Right!” said the elder, “What right do they have? I suppose if the Governor were to pardon two or three convicts, he is bound to pardon all, is he? Why, my dear, sir, your position runs squarely into Universalism!”
“How does it?”
“Why, you say that one man has as much right to be saved as another. If then, God saves one, He must save all. What is that but Universalism?” asked the Elder.
“He’s got you there, father Grimshaw,” cried one of the by-standers with a laugh.
“I repeat, father Grimshaw,” continued the elder, “no man is punished on account of predestination, but on account of his sins. Show me a man who feels that he must be lost by reason of the eternal decrees, and I promise to give up the doctrine.”
“I can’t for my life,” said father Grimshaw, “understand why some are chosen, and others are passed by.”
“No,” replied the elder, “if we understood that, Peter never would have said that Paul ‘wrote things hard to be understood.’ If we only knew what God’s reasons are, there would be no difficulty and no mystery in the doctrine of predestination. But we are told that the secret things belong unto the Lord, and those which are revealed are for us and our children.”
“Well, you Presbyterians,” said father Grimshaw, “have a way of getting around things so that it is hard to keep up with you. I cannot argue the point, but the doctrine looks strange to me—don’t look right somehow.”
“No,” replied the elder, “that is what people said in Paul’s day. It did not look right to some of the disciples of Christ, and they went back, and ‘walked with Him no more.’ People always have found fault with thisdoctrine, and I suppose will do so till the end of the world.”
“I must say,” spoke up a man by the name of Wallerton, “that Mr. Edgefield made it plain to my mind. I never knew before what Presbyterians do believe.”
“What!” exclaimed father Grimshaw, “are you going to turn Presbyterian?”
“Well,” answered Wallerton, “I fully endorse what Mr. Edgefield said yesterday. If that makes me a Presbyterian, I am one.”
“All may believe that please,” cried father Grimshaw, “but I never will. You may out-argue me, but you are not going to make me believe that predestination is right, no sir—never.”
“But what will you do with the Scripture?” asked Wallerton. “It says, ‘Whom He did foreknow, He did predestinate.’ Now what does predestinate mean?”
“I don’t know,” cried father Grimshaw, giving way to a feeling closely related to anger, “but there ain’t no predestination in it—not a bit of it.”
“If there is not,” replied Wallerton, “I should like to know where to find it.”
“You’ll find it no where, but in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith,” cried the old man.
“Well, I am convinced,” said Wallerton, “that it is the true doctrine. I love to believe it too, because I can see that there is more comfort in it than in the other.”
“What comfort is there in it?” cried the old man, raising his hand in holy horror.
“Why just this,” replied Wallerton, “I am trying to serve God. It does me good, then, to think that I have been elected from all eternity to salvation, and, therefore I can never perish.”
“If you believe that,” exclaimed the old man, “then go on, and sin as much as you please. You’ll be saved anyhow.”
“But I do not want to sin,” replied Wallerton, looking at him in surprise. “That is the very thing I pray God to deliver me from. Instead of desiring to sin, I pray to become more holy. I do not ask God to save me in my sins, but from them. I should think I would make a poor return of gratitude to God, if He should give me the evidence of my election, and I should say to Him, I will, then, serve the devil. What sort of religion is that?”
“You will make a Presbyterian out of me, Wallerton, if you talk much longer,” said another by-stander.
“Father Grimshaw,” continued Wallerton, laughing, “you’ve got this doctrine wrong; you are mixed up on it.”
“If I am, I guess I’ll stay mixed up,” replied the old man, shaking his head. Rising, he limped off on his stick, leaving the group wondering at his prejudice.
Father Grimshaw was a type of that class that will not be convinced by anything. Many people reject the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, especially predestination, because such doctrines are repugnant to their feelings, and are not in harmony with their preconceived opinions.
We may here state that all the parties who have been conspicuous in these pages, are alive at the present writing, and our story must come to an end.
There was so much discussion in regard to the doctrinal sermon which Ernest had preached, that the elders of his church requested it for publication. He thought it advisable to comply with their request, in order that there might be no misconstruction of his views. We present the outlines of the sermon to our readers, leaving it to them to draw their own conclusions.
“For whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son.”—Romans viii: 29.
I have quoted only one clause of the verse, because I have not time to elaborate the several doctrines to which the apostle calls our attention. On this occasion, I desire to make some few remarks on the divine purpose. In one sermon I can do little more than present only a few of the reasons which Presbyterians have for believing the doctrine of predestination. Without taking up the time in further preliminaries, I proceed, at once, to discuss the doctrine that is announced in our text. We can hardly misapprehend the text. But to remove all possible ground of misconstruction and misunderstanding, let us notice in what sense “foreknowledge” is employed. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of predestination. No one will dispute that it means to “appoint,” or “destine beforehand.” “To foreknow,” says Adam Clarke, “here signifies to design beforehand,or at the first forming of the scheme.” Without, therefore, doing the least violence to the text, I am justifiable in translating, “whom He elected or designed before He did predestinate.” The term predestinate embraces both the decrees of election and reprobation. Some persons are disposed to limit the word to election. But no good reason can be assigned for such restriction, as God determined the final condition of both classes. Permit me to say here, that we ought to enter into the discussion of this subject with feelings of the deepest solemnity and reverence. I know it is revolting to the carnal heart to think that the eternal destiny of men is settled before they are born. It is repugnant to human pride; but above all things let us avoid warping and perverting the truth of the Scripture so as to bring it in harmony with our feelings and desires. If we allow ourselves to do violence to God’s Word, in order to support a theory, we shall run into serious error. Men, impelled more by feeling than reason, have embraced the doctrine of universalism. I am sure I could have no objection to the doctrine of universalism, if it could be established from God’s written Word. I want noone to go to hell, and I would be glad to think that all of Adam’s race will be saved at last. I, for one, hold to the doctrine of predestination, not only because it is agreeable to my feelings, but because I believe it to be taught in God’s Word. If it were not taught there, I would not have the least objection to renouncing it. Now let us, as briefly as possible, see whether or not it is promulgated in the Bible. I begin withElection. Is it to be found in the Scriptures? If so, it is our duty to accept it, no matter if we cannot make it square with our notions of the fitness of things. The definition of election is, that it is the choice which God, in the exercise of sovereign grace, made of certain individuals of mankind to enjoy salvation by Jesus Christ. I do not think the position can be successfully combatted, that God has elected some to salvation in preference to others. There are many passages of Scripture that establish the position. But I have time to call attention to only a few of them. Romans 16: 13: “Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord.” “I have manifested thy name unto the men which Thou gavest me out of the world.” “When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified theword of the Lord, and as many as were ordained to eternal life, believed.” “I have much people in this city” * * * * “to them who are the called of the Lord according to his purpose,” “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain.” “He said to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “So then, it is not to him that willeth nor him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” “Who hath saved us andcalledus with a holy calling, not according to our work, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began.” “According as He hath chosen us, in Him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” These are but a few passages that establish the doctrine of predestination and election. It would require a volume to contain the passages of Scripture that teach the doctrine both by precept and example. Some persons admit the doctrine of election with certain modifications. They say it is an election ofcharacter;they affirm that God elected the righteous character. I cannot see what is gained by this attempt to separate an individual from his character. It is character that makes the man. It would be just as reasonable to talk of extracting the sweetness from sugar as to make a distinction between an individual and his character. But leaving out the passages which I have just quoted, our text settles the point. It says plainly,whom, notwhat, he did foreknow. All through the Scripture, election is spoken of as applicable to individuals, and not characters. Some say, God elected to salvation those who He foresaw would believe and repent. If Paul meant no more than this in the epistle to the Romans, he used language for which there was no necessity. Why should he exclaim with such solemnity, “Who art thou, oh, man, that repliest against God”? If Paul did not hold to the doctrine of predestination, it is strange that Peter should have said that Paul “wrote things hard to be understood.” There is not the least difficulty in understanding the proposition that God elected those He foresaw would believe and repent. No Presbyterian would deny that proposition in itsliteral sense, for it is certain that those who are elected, do believe and repent. God never elected any one that does not believe and repent. But those who oppose the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, assert that God elected some to salvation on account of their foreseen faith, and their voluntary compliance with God’s requirements. Well, if this position be correct, there was no necessity of Peter’s saying that Paul wrote things hard to understand, because no one could fail to understand such a proposition, and no one could reply against God, not even the worst sinner on the face of the earth, if Paul meant no more than that every man’s salvation is placed in his own hands; because this is the very thing for which the natural man has ever clamored. No one would object to the doctrine of salvation on account of foreseen faith and righteousness, or righteous works, if it were taught in the Scriptures; because it is in accordance with human notions of things. It is a philosophical idea. I will cheerfully concede the point that the main system that stands opposed to the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church has the merit of philosophy. But this is one great objection to it. TheBible is no book of philosophy. It announces truths in disconnected order, some of which, owing to the weakness of our finite minds, appear to be contradictory. But the chief objection to this doctrine of foreseen faith and works as a ground of salvation, is that it does not appear to be consonant to the divine will. Paul tells us why we are chosen. He says “according as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” We were not chosen because we were already holy, but that we should become so. Then he goes on to say: “He having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to thegood pleasure of His will.” That is the reason why we were chosen; it was the good pleasure of His will. He does not say that we were chosen on account of our foreseen faith and works. I hope no one will understand me as affirming that we are saved without faith. We must have faith; but it is not the ground of our salvation. Besides, faith itself is the gift of God. It is a well-settled principle in all orthodox theology, that man is dead in trespasses and sin. HowGod could foresee that a man in this condition could, of himself, exercise faith, it is difficult to conceive. It requires the Holy Spirit to awaken men to life. Without such an operation, no man is capable of spiritual activity. If this be granted, then, we can easily see in what sense faith is the gift of God. Now to bring the discussion down to the narrowest possible limits, I will lay down a proposition which cannot be disputed.
First, God made choice of some to be saved. On what principle was the choice based? Why, to use plain language, God chose some on account of some good in them; or some evil in them; or the choice was simply His good will and pleasure. Well, there was no good in them, consequently God could not have chosen them on that account. There was not a naturally righteous character on the face of the earth. If men had been left to themselves to believe, not a single individual of the human race would have been saved. Again, God is too holy to have chosen men on account of the evil in them. I presume no one will contend for any such doctrine as this. Then, the conclusion of the whole matter is, that God chose some men to salvation because it was His good will and pleasure.
Some cry out that this would be unjust. They say that God should not make distinctions, and that He should be impartial. I do not see where the injustice is. To illustrate: Here are five criminals condemned to death. If the Governor should pardon two of them, is there any injustice to the remaining three? The objector says there would be, unless the Governor has some good reason for showing clemency in the case of the two. For the sake of argument, we will admit it. God also has His reasons for His choice; but these reasons, so far as His secret purposes are concerned, have never been revealed to us. All we now know is that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. Men somehow, seem to think that God has no right to make distinctions among the sons of Adam; and that He is bound to put all on the same level, and if He saves one, He is bound to give all the same opportunity to be saved. But God is under no sort of obligation to save any one. If the Lord has no right to make distinctions, then we are driven to the conclusion that the universalist has the true doctrine. Because it would follow that if God saves one, then He must employ such means in the case of everyindividual as would result in His salvation. If it required a miracle to convince Paul, and it would require a miracle to convince me, God would be bound to perform it. So all must be saved. The only safe position is to take God’s Word at what it says. It speaks of the elect as individuals, and not mere characters, and it speaks of them as chosen before the foundation of the world, because of God’s good will and pleasure. Now let us notice the other class whom God has not chosen—the class of reprobates. The idea of reprobation is necessarily implied in the idea of election. So if we prove one, the other is virtually established. They are correlative terms, and men do violence to Scripture and logic when they admit election and deny reprobation. When out of some objects a choice is made, those not chosen are certainly rejected. When objects are presented to a person for the selection of some, even if he speak not a word, he says by his actions: “This I will take, and this I will not take.” It is in vain to say that nothing has been done to them; but that they were left in the precise condition in which they were found. There certainly has been some sort of act ofmind in refusing them, or passing them by. But leaving out the question of logical consistency, we would have no zeal in the advocacy of such a doctrine were it not taught in the Scriptures. We could well afford to admit a logical inconsistency, if by the admission we could get rid of this doctrine which has aroused a spirit of rebellious wrath in the heart of the natural man. We may lift up our hands in holy horror at the idea of reprobation, but the Scriptures affirm it in language plain enough. There are so many passages bearing on the subject, that I have not time to call attention to them all. I refer to only a few as specimens. The Scriptures say concerning Pharaoh, ‘For this same purpose have I raised thee up,’ etc. “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” “Men of corrupt mind,reprobateconcerning the faith.” “There are certain men crept in unawares who were before of oldordainedto this condemnation,” etc. Again, we read of those whose names are not writtenin the Book of Life. I could quote other passages just as strong and conclusive as those referred to. Throughout the whole Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, we are taught both by precept and example, that there is a line running between the people of God and those doomed to eternal destruction. Therefore, we conclude that the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith were justifiable in inserting that much-abused article: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others are fore-ordained to everlasting death.” The idea is expressed in no ambiguous terms. These men perceived the doctrine in God’s Word, and they did not shrink from avowing it, without the least sugar-coating.
And now, if reasoning from logical premises would be of any avail; if it be thought necessary to support scriptural truth by logical processes, I would say that only three propositions can be made in regard to the salvation of men:
First, All men will be saved.
Second, All men will be lost.
Third, A part of the human race will be saved, and a part lost.
We can easily prove by the holy Scriptures that the first two propositions are not true. Then, we are bound to admit that thethirdis true. This is a fixed fact. The question is, when was it fixed in the mind of God? The Scripture says the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world. The point for which we contend is that the fact was fixed by the Lord. It was not simply foreseen as a fact that would arise independently of divine interposition, but it was predetermined. It was God who determined it. This is the kind of predestination to which the Presbyterian Church holds. Whatever objections may be urged against it, we believe it to be taught in God’s Word. There are questions in regard to it which no human being can answer. We are confronted with the question, how fore-ordination and man’s free agency can be reconciled. It is certainly no good reason for the rejection of a doctrine that we cannot fully understand it. Who can understand the Trinity? Who can comprehend the dual existence of our Lord Jesus? Such truths we receive on faith, and not because they are in harmony with reason. But it is not right to require that Predestinarians shall removeobjections which apply with equal force to the theological system of those who so bitterly oppose us. For instance, how can fore-knowledge be reconciled with man’s free agency? Whatever God fore-knows must come to pass.
We, too, believe with others, that so far as free agency is concerned, every man on the face of the earth could be saved, if he only had thewillto come to Christ. But some will not accept; and that fact was fixed in the Eternal Mind, away back before the foundation of the world, as well as the other fact, that some would accept. It is in vain to say that this result was merely fore-seen. When there was nothing in existence, how could God fore-see anything except what He had determined should be? Permit me to use a plain illustration: Here stands a sculptor before a block of marble. There are millions of possible images and forms in that marble. With his chisel the artist can developoneimage. That must first exist as a conception in his mind. After a while the beautiful statue is brought out as the result of a predetermination. Or the sculptor might producetwoimages—three—four—a hundred. There are millions of possible forms in the marble, butthe workman determines what forms he will develop. Applying the illustration, there were millions of possible events or circumstances before the divine Mind. The Lord could have made this world larger or smaller; He could have made Adam a very different being from what he was. But God chose, predetermined, to make this world just the size it is. God selected the events that take place out of millions that might have taken place, as the sculptor chose the images which he would develop. If the Lord did not select, or predetermine, the precise events that occur in time, who did make the selection? Was the All Wise God merely trying experiments? What would we think of a sculptor who should go to work on his block of marble without any conception or plan in his mind? How, then, can we believe that God would place men in the world, and devise the scheme of redemption without selecting the exact results in His own Omniscient Mind? The Lord has His own purposes, and these purposes will be accomplished; and this is predestination. Therefore, I do not hesitate to endorse another article of our Confession of Faith, which has been often assailed with un-christian virulence:“God hath fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass.”
Here I would observe that the objection is without foundation that, if predestination be true, it is in vain for men to make any effort to be saved. This is a gross perversion of the doctrine. God does not decree that any one shall be doomed to eternal torment who desires to enjoy heaven, and who is willing to accept the terms of salvation. Show me the sinner who is thirsting for the waters of Life, and I will show you one whose name is written in the Book of Heaven as an heir of God. Now, how much broader do we want the plan of salvation, if it embraces all that desire salvation on Scriptural terms? If the sinner is disposed to repent, he has no reason to suppose that he belongs to the reprobate class. But some men want an excuse for continuing in sin, and these are the persons who, Peter said, would “wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.”
Another argument in support of this doctrine is the fact that Paul mentions, and comments upon the very objections that are to this day urged against the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church. It is evident that the apostletaught precisely what the Confession of Faith does. We have to meet the very same objections which he met, and refuted. We know that this doctrine has ever been revolting to men of the world. You remember, when Christ said, “No man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me, draw him,” some of His disciples “went back, and walked with Him no more.”
I have no doubt the doctrine of predestination will be opposed to the end of time. But it can never be destroyed. You may revise the Confession of Faith till every vestige of it disappears, but that does not blot it out from the pages of God’s Word. To get rid of that doctrine, the whole Bible must be revised from Genesis to Revelation. Strike out from the Scriptures every thing that is said in regard to predestination; expunge every passage from which the doctrine may be deduced by plain inference, and there is nothing left but Universalism.
Predestination and man’s free agency are both taught in the Holy Scriptures. Recognize this fact, and you will find little difficulty in harmonizing passages that may appear to some persons to be antagonistic. Reject eitherdoctrine, and you will run into serious error. There is Fatalism, on the one side; and on the other, there is a broad Liberality of sentiment among men which receives no support from God’s Word. Hence we honestly believe that the position of the Presbyterian Church is the only true way to steer in safety between Scylla and Charybdis.