For the Signs of the Times. Strikersville, Pa. January 20th, 1837.

 For the Signs of the Times.

Strikersville, Pa. January 20th, 1837.

DEAR BROTHER: I find in the 1st No. of Vol. V. of the Signs, a communication from our aged and justly esteemed brother, John Leland. I have ever taken a peculiar pleasure in reading his writings; there is, in general, a clearness of conception and perspicuity of language that cannot fail to give an interest to all his productions.

But I find in the present, as well as in a former communication, he seems to take exception to the terms Sovereign and Total. These terms are used as explicatives to explain our views of certain doctrines. If there existed a perfect union of views among professors of religion in relation to the doctrines of the Bible; these qualifications would be useless in such an event, when the terms Grace and Depravity were used, there would be a perfect understanding among us as to the meaning of the preacher; but this is not the fact, and it is evident that the terms Grace and Depravity are used by different persons in a very different sense: for instance, the Arminian will admit, at least in word, that salvation is of Grace, but when he comes to define his view of Grace, it amounts to a conditional Grace, if we can admit of such an idea; he will admit that there is Grace involved in the plan of redemption; yet the benefits of this Grace are to be enjoyed upon certain conditions performed on our part, and that all men have an equal opportunity of deriving the benefits of his sort of Grace, by performing the same conditions; and he argues that God would be unjust in condemning any of the human family, had he not made equal provision for all, and given to all, an equal opportunity of realizing those provisions. Now in opposition to this, we use the term Sovereign, by which we design to convey the idea, at least this is the main sense in which I have used the term, that God was under no obligation to confer the Grace of Salvation upon any one of the human family, that therefore, the blessing of salvation is an act of sovereign favor on the part of God, conferred without reference to any condition performed on the part of the recipient thereof, or without any accountability to those on whom that favor is not bestowed. There is another sense in which the term Sovereign is frequently used, i. e., to express the efficacy of a remedy; and in this sense the Grace of God is Sovereign in as much as it has always proved efficacious, whenever and wherever applied. The Arminian also admits of human depravity, and indeed, we can hardly suppose that anyone of common sense would deny it; but in defining his notion of it, he makes it but a partial depravity. While he admits the degeneracy of man from his primeval rectitude, yet he contends that there remain some vestiges of his former purity, sufficient if properly cultivated to raise him above the ruins of the fall, and reinstate him in the Divine favor; and according to this hypothesis, secure his salvation from all the consequences of sin without the mediation of Christ. I do not wish to be understood as saying that Arminians are in the habit of so expressing themselves, but I do mean to say that their hypothesis on depravity leads to such a conclusion. Now in opposition to this view of depravity, we have been in the habit of using the qualification Total, when treating on the subject by which we wish to convey our idea of the condition of men, while in unregeneracy, in as short a way as possible. I think, if not greatly deceived, I am as ready as any other to receive the scripture as a sufficient and infallible rule of gospel, faith, and order, and that on all occasions when treating of scripture subjects, the nearer we can confine to scripture phraseology, the better; but I can see no impropriety in using explicatives merely to explain the sense in which we view certain disputed doctrines, particularly when such explicatives convey ideas fully sustained by the tenor of scripture, which is manifestly the case in Sovereign, in reference to Grace, and Total in reference to Depravity.

I am at a loss to understand his design in another part of his letter, where he asks whether a new translation would decide the question of particular redemption, and suggests a query. Whether or not, this is a mystery locked up in the mind of God, not to be read till we enter another state of existence?

I do not know that I fully understand him here, but to me it seems rather his opinion that it is not decided in the scripture, and that it is one on which we can form no definite idea till we enter a future state of existence. That there have been subjects dragged into the controversies among christians, that cannot have anything like a fair solution, this side of eternity, is unquestionable; but I, for one, cannot rank particular redemption among them.

I do not present these remarks to elicit a controversy with that war-worn soldier of the cross; no, I feel too sensible of the vanity of such an idea on my part; nor do I feel myself influenced by a vain curiosity, but as your paper is very much identified with the Old School Baptists in this country, I feel it a privilege, as one of its readers and admirers, to ask an explanation of any thing in it touching doctrinal matter that to me appears of doubtful meaning. No paper in the United States is subject to a more critical examination than yours, and nothing that is subject to an unfavorable criticism will pass unnoticed. With an earnest desire that your new location may prove a blessing to yourself, the churches you are called to serve, and to the cause of Christ in general, I subscribe myself yours, as ever, in the bonds of love,

THOMAS BARTON.