{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30119/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30119","id":"gutenberg_30119","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30119","summary":null,"tags":["Calvinism -- Controversial literature","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Methodist Episcopal Church -- Controversial literature","Predestination"],"text":"THE\n\nCALVINISTIC DOCTRINE\n\nOF\n\nPREDESTINATION\n\nEXAMINED AND REFUTED:\n\n\nBEING THE SUBSTANCE OF\n\nA SERIES OF DISCOURSES\n\nDelivered in St. George's M. E. Church, Philadelphia,\n\n\nBY\n\nFRANCIS HODGSON, D. D.\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA:\n\nHIGGINS AND PERKINPINE.\n\nNo. 40 NORTH FOURTH STREET,\n\n1855.\n\n\nEntered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by\n\nFRANCIS HODGSON,\n\nin the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United\nStates in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA:\n\nT. R. AND P. G. COLLINS, PRINTERS.\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA, July 13, 1854.\n\n\n\nRev. FRANCIS HODGSON, D. D.\n\n\nDEAR SIR: We, whose names are hereunto annexed, having heard your\nrecent series of discourses upon the \"Divine Decrees,\" and\nbelieving that their publication at this time would be of great\nservice to the cause of truth, earnestly desire that such\nmeasures may be taken as will secure their publication at an\nearly period. We therefore respectfully solicit your concurrence,\nand that you would do whatever may be necessary on your part to\nfurther our object:--\n\n  JAMES B. LONGACRE,        P. D. MYERS,\n  GARRET VANZANT,           R. MCCAMBRIDGE,\n  JOHN J. HARE,             THOMAS W. PRICE,\n  DANIEL BREWSTER,          CHAS. MCNICHOL,\n  WM. G. ECKHARDT,          THOS. M. ADAMS,\n  CHAS. COYLE,              FRANCIS A. FARROW,\n  BENJAMIN HERITAGE,        THOS. HARE,\n  J. O. CAMPBELL,           SAMUEL HUDSON,\n  JAMES HARRIS,             JOSEPH THOMPSON,\n  WM. GOODHART,             DAVID DAILEY,\n  R. O. SIMONS,             JNO. R. MORRISON,\n  AMOS HORNING,             JAMES HUEY,\n  ENOS S. KERN,             JOHN FRY,\n  JNO. P. WALKER,           E. A. SMITH,\n  JOHN STREET,              JAMES D. SIMKINS,\n  J. W. BUTCHER,            S. W. STOCKTON,\n  JACOB HENDRICK,           FOSTER PRITCHETT.\n\n\n\nDEAR BRETHREN:--\n\n\nThe motives which induced me to preach the discourses on the\n\"Divine Decrees\" are equally decisive in favor of their\npublication, as you propose. I have taken the liberty to\nrearrange some parts of them for the benefit of the reader.\n\nYours,\n\nFRANCIS HODGSON.\n\n\nTo Brothers LONGACRE,\n\nMYERS, and others.\n\n\n\nPREDESTINATION.\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE I.\n\n\n\"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being\npredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all\nthings after the counsel of his own will.\"--EPH. i. 11.\n\nIT would very naturally be expected of a preacher, selecting this\npassage as the foundation of his discourse, that he would have\nsomething to say upon the subject of predestination. It is my\npurpose to make this the theme of the occasion; and this purpose\nhas governed me in the selection of the text. The subject is one\nof great practical importance. It relates to the Divine\ngovernment--its leading principles and the great facts of its\nadministration. Some suppose that the Methodists deny the\ndoctrine of Divine predestination, that the word itself is an\noffence to them, and that they are greatly perplexed and annoyed\nby those portions of Scripture by which the doctrine is\nproclaimed. This is a mistaken view. We have no objection to the\nword; we firmly believe the doctrine; and all the Scriptures, by\nwhich it is stated or implied, are very precious to us.\n\nThere is a certain theory of predestination, the Calvinistic\ntheory, which we consider unscriptural and dangerous. There is\nanother, the Arminian theory, which we deem Scriptural and of\nvery salutary influence. My plan is, _first_, to refute the false\ntheory; and, _secondly_, to present the true one, and give it its\nproper application.\n\nMy discourse or discourses upon this subject may be more or less\nunacceptable to some on account of their controversial aspect.\nThis disadvantage cannot always be avoided. Controversy is not\nalways agreeable, yet it is often necessary. Error must be\nopposed, and truth defended. What I have to say, is designed\nchiefly for the benefit of the younger portion of the congregation.\nI feel that there devolves upon me not a little responsibility in\nreference to this class of my hearers. Many of them, I am happy to\nlearn, are eagerly searching for truth, and they have a right to\nexpect that the pulpit will aid their inquiries, and throw light\nupon their path.\n\nThe theory of predestination to which we object affirms that God\nhas purposed, decreed, predetermined, foreordained, predestinated,\nwhatsoever comes to pass, and that, in some way or other, he, by\nhis providence, brings to pass whatever occurs.\n\nThe advocates of this doctrine complain loudly that they are\nmisunderstood and misrepresented. The Rev. Samuel Miller, D. D.,\nlate of Princeton College, N. J., in a tract on _Presbyterian\nDoctrine_, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication,\ncomplains thus: \"It may be safely said that no theological system\nwas ever more _grossly misrepresented_, or more _foully_ and\n_unjustly vilified_ than this.\" \"The gross misrepresentations\nwith which it has been assailed, the _disingenuous_ attempts to\nfasten upon it consequences which its advocates disavow and\nabhor; and the _unsparing calumny_ which is continually heaped\nupon it and its friends, have _scarcely been equalled_ in any\nother case in the entire annals of theological controversy.\" \"The\nopponents of this system are wont to give the most _shocking_ and\n_unjust_ pictures of it. Whether this is done from _ignorance_ or\n_dishonesty_ it would be painful, as well as vain, at present, to\ninquire.\" \"The truth is, it would be difficult to find a writer\nor speaker, who has distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism,\nwho has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared to\nunderstand it. They are forever fighting against a _caricature_.\nSome of the most grave and venerable writers in our country, who\nhave appeared in the Arminian ranks, are undoubtedly in this\npredicament: whether this has arisen from the want of knowledge\nor the want of candor, the effect is the same, and the conduct is\nworthy of severe censure.\" \"Let any one carefully and dispassionately\nread over the _Confession of Faith_ of the Presbyterian Church, and\nhe will soon perceive that the professed representations of it,\nwhich are _daily_ proclaimed from the _pulpit_ and the _press_,\nare _wretched slanders_, for which no apology can be found but in\nthe ignorance of their authors.\"\n\nHe places himself in very honorable contrast with those whom he\nthus severely condemns: \"The writer of these pages,\" says he, \"is\nfully persuaded that Arminian principles, when traced out to\ntheir natural and unavoidable consequences, lead to an invasion\nof the essential attributes of God, and, of course, to blank and\ncheerless atheism. Yet, in making a statement of the Arminian\nsystem, as actually held by its advocates, he should consider\nhimself inexcusable if he departed a hair's-breadth from the\ndelineation made by its friends.\" (pp. 26, 27, 28.)\n\nThis writer reiterates these charges, with interesting\nvariations, in his introduction to a book on the Synod of Dort,\npublished by the same establishment. \"They,\" says he, \"are ever\nfighting against an imaginary monster of their own creation. They\npicture to themselves the consequences which they suppose\nunavoidably flow from the real principles of Calvinists, and\nthen, most unjustly, represent these consequences as a part of\nthe system itself, as held by its advocates.\" Again: \"How many an\neloquent page of anti-Calvinistic declamation would be instantly\nseen by every reader to be either calumny or nonsense, if it had\nbeen preceded by an honest statement of what the system, as held\nby Calvinists, really is.\" (_Synod of Dort_, p. 64.)\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Beecher says, in his work on _Skepticism_: \"I have\n_never heard a correct_ statement of the Calvinistic system from\nan opponent;\" and, after specifying some alleged instances of\nmisrepresentation, he adds: \"It is needless to say that\nfalsehoods _more absolute_ and _entire_ were never stereotyped in\nthe foundry of the father of lies, or with greater industry\nworked off for gratuitous distribution from age to age.\"\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Musgrave, in what he calls a _Brief Exposition and\nVindication of the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees, as taught in\nthe Assembly's Larger Catechism_, another of the publications of\nthe Presbyterian Board, charges the opponents of Calvinism in\ngeneral, and the Methodists in particular, with not only\n_violently contesting_, but also with _shockingly caricaturing_,\nand _shamefully misrepresenting_ and _vilifying_ Calvinism--with\n\"systematic and wide-spread defamation\"--with \"wholesale\ntraduction of moral character, involving the Christian reputation\nof some three or four thousand accredited ministers of the\ngospel.\" His charity suggests an apology for much of our\n\"misrepresentation of their doctrinal system\" on the ground of\nour \"intellectual weakness and want of education;\" but, for our\n\"dishonorable attempts to impair the influence\" of Calvinistic\nministers, and \"injure their churches,\" he \"can conceive of no\napology.\"\n\nThe Rev. A. G. Fairchild, D. D., in a series of discourses\nentitled _The Great Supper_, likewise published by the Presbyterian\nBoard of Publication, complains in these terms: \"Sectarian partisans\nare interested in misleading the public in regard to our real\nsentiments, and hence their assertions should be received with\ncaution. Those who would understand our system of doctrines, must\nlisten, not to the misrepresentations of its enemies, but to the\nexplanations of its friends.\" (p. 40.) Again: \"As these men cannot\nwield the civil power against us, they will do what they can to\npunish us for holding doctrines which they cannot overthrow by fair\nand manly argument. God only knows the extent to which we might\nhave to suffer for our religion, were it not for the protection of\nthe laws! For, if men will publish the most wilful and deliberate\nuntruths against us, as they certainly do, for no other offence\nthan an honest difference of religious belief, what would they not\ndo if their power were equal to their wickedness?\" (p. 73.)\n\nThis writer expresses his sense of the \"wickedness of those who\noppose Calvinism\" in still stronger terms: \"If, then, the\ndoctrines of grace [Calvinism] are plainly taught in the\nScriptures, if they accord with the experience of Christians, and\nenter largely into their prayers, then it must be exceedingly\nsinful to oppose and misrepresent them. Those who do this will\neventually be found _fighting against God_. We have recently\nheard of persons praying publicly against the election of grace,\nand we wonder that their tongues did not cleave to the roof of\ntheir mouth in giving utterance to the horrid imprecation.\" (p.\n178.) Ah! These Methodists are very wicked!\n\nThe Rev. L. A. Lowry, author of a recent work, entitled _Search\nfor Truth_, published by the same high authority, discourses as\nfollows:--\n\n\"When I see a man trying to distort the proper meaning of words,\nand, presenting a garbled statement of the views of an opponent,\nI take it as conclusive evidence that he has a bad cause; more\nwhen he is constantly at it, and manifests in all that he does a\nfeeling of uneasiness and hostility towards those who oppose him.\nDuring my brief sojourn in the Cumberland Church, I was called\nupon to witness many such exhibitions, that, in the outset of my\nministerial labors, made anything but a favorable impression on\nmy mind. I found there, in common with all others who hold to\nArminian sentiments, the most uncompromising and _malignant_\nopposition to the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, while\nthere was _not_ a man that I met in all my intercourse, that\n_could_ state fairly and fully what those doctrines are. Their\nviews were entirely one-sided; the truth was garbled to suit\ntheir convenience; and the creations of their own fruitful fancy\nwere constantly being presented before the minds of the people,\nthereby deepening their prejudices, and drawing still closer the\ndark folds of their mantle of ignorance and bigotry.\" (pp. 65,\n66.)\n\nAgain: \"It is painful to witness the ignorance and stupidity of\nmen--their malignity and opposition to the truth--who have\nlearned to misrepresent and abuse Calvinism with such bitterness\nof feeling, till, like a rattlesnake in dog-days, they have\nbecome blinded by the poison of their own minds.\" (p. 156.)\n\nIn this attempt to destroy confidence in the veracity of\nArminians, so far, at least, as it is connected with their\nrepresentations of Calvinism, leading individuals are singled out\nfor special animadversion. Dr. Miller assails the moral character\nof Arminius. He says of him that, \"On first entering upon his\nprofessorship, he seemed to take much pains to remove from\nhimself all suspicion of heterodoxy, by publicly maintaining\ntheses in favor of the received doctrines; doctrines which he\nafterwards zealously contradicted. And that he did this contrary\nto his own convictions at the time, was made abundantly evident\nafterwards by some of his own zealous friends. But, after he had\nbeen in his new office a year or two, it was discovered that it\nwas his constant practice to deliver one set of opinions in his\nprofessional chair, and a very different set by means of private\nconfidential manuscripts circulated among his pupils.\" (_Synod of\nDort_, p. 13.)\n\nDr. Fairchild speaks thus of a passage by Mr. Wesley: \"In the\ndoctrinal _Tracts_, p. 172, is an address to Satan, which we have\nno hesitation in saying is fraught with the most concentrated\nblasphemy ever proceeding from the tongue or pen of mortal,\nwhether Jew, Pagan, or Infidel, and all imputed to the Calvinists.\nOne cannot help wondering how such transcendent impieties ever\nfound their way into the mind of man; I am not willing to transfer\nthe language to these pages; but the work is doubtless accessible\nto most readers, having been sown broadcast over the land.\"\n(_Great Supper_, p. 150.) He also indorses the charge of forgery\nwhich Toplady made against Mr. Wesley. (See p. 111.)\n\nThe late Dr. Fisk is charged with garbling the _Confession of\nFaith_ for sinister purposes (p. 111); and with \"scandalous\nimputations\" against Calvinism. (p. 150.)\n\nIt is not impossible that our Calvinistic brethren should be\nmisrepresented. Nor is it impossible that they should misrepresent\nboth themselves and others. I do not admit that they are thus\nmisrepresented by their Methodist opponents, but it is not my\nintention to refute these charges at this time. I refer to them\nnow to justify the special caution which I shall observe in\npresenting their tenets. They make it necessary for us to prove\nbeyond the possibility of doubt that they hold the doctrines\nwhich we impute to them. I shall give their views in their own\nwords.\n\nCalvin says, in his _Institutes_: \"Whoever, then, desires to\navoid this infidelity, let him constantly remember that, in the\ncreatures, there is no erratic power, or action, or motion, but\nthat they are _so governed _by the secret counsel of God, that\n_nothing can happen_ but what is subject to his knowledge, and\nDECREED _by his will_.\" (Vol. i. p. 186.)\n\nAgain: \"All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in\nsuspense, as though they might happen either one way or another.\nYet, this remains a _fixed principle_ in our hearts, that _there\nwill be_ NO _event which God has not_ ORDAINED.\" (_Ib_. p. 193.)\n\nAgain: \"They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by\nthe will and command of God, and afterwards be punished for his\nblindness. They, therefore, evade this difficulty, by alleging\nthat it happens only by the permission of God, and not by the\nwill of God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations,\nrejects this subterfuge. That men, however, _can effect_ NOTHING\nbut by the secret _will_ of _God_, and can _deliberate_ upon\nnothing but what he has _previously decreed_, and DETERMINES by\nhis _secret direction_, is proved by express and innumerable\ntestimonies.\" (_Ib_. p. 211.)\n\nAgain: \"If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not also\n_dispose_ and _fix_ them by his _determination_, there would be\nroom to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight\nrendered them at all necessary. But, since he foresees future\nevents only in consequence of _his decree that they shall\nhappen_, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it\nis evident that ALL _things come to pass rather_ by ORDINATION\nand DECREE.\" (Vol ii. p. 169.)\n\nAgain: \"I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess plainly, with\nAugustine, 'that the _will_ of God is the _necessity of things_,\nand that _what_ he has _willed_ will _necessarily come to pass_.'\n\" (_Ib_. p. 171.)\n\nAgain: \"With respect to his secret influences, the declaration of\nSolomon concerning the heart of a king, that it is inclined\nhither or thither according to the Divine will, certainly extends\nto the whole human race, and is as much as though he had said,\nthat WHATEVER CONCEPTIONS we form in our minds, they we\n_directed_ by the _secret_ INSPIRATION of GOD.\" (_Ib_. p. 213.)\n\nFinally, for the present: \"_What God decrees_,\" says this\ncelebrated writer, \"must NECESSARILY _come to pass_.\" (_Ib_. p.\n194.)\n\nI think it will not be said, by any one who has heard me\nattentively, that I either misrepresent, or misunderstand,\nCalvin, when I impute to him the doctrine that God has purposed,\ndecreed, determined, foreordained, predestinated whatsoever comes\nto pass, and that he in some way or other brings to pass whatever\noccurs.\n\nBut it may be objected that we ought not to hold modern\nCalvinists responsible for all the doctrines of Calvin; that they\n\"no further indorse them than as they are incorporated into their\nacknowledged creeds.\" To this we cordially assent. By this rule\nwe will abide. What, then, is the language of the _Westminster\nConfession of Faith_, the established standard of orthodoxy in\nthe American Presbyterian Churches? The third chapter commends\nthus: \"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy\ncounsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain\nwhatsoever comes to pass\" (p. 15); and, at the commencement of\nthe fifth chapter, we read: \"God, the great Creator of all\nthings, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures,\nactions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his\nmost wise and holy providence.\"\n\nObserve, he, according to this statement, not only _upholds_ and\n_governs_ all creatures, but _directs_ and _disposes_ all\n_actions_ and things, from the _greatest_ even to the _least_.\n\nThe _Larger Catechism_ says, in answer to the question, \"What are\nthe decrees of God?\" \"God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy\nacts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he\nhath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained _whatsoever\ncomes to pass in time_, especially concerning angels and men.\"\n\nThe _Shorter Catechism_ answers the same question by these words:\n\"The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose according to the\ncounsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath\nforeordained _whatsoever comes to pass_.\"\n\nThe next question in this Catechism is: \"How doth God execute his\ndecrees?--_Ans_. God executeth his decrees in the works of\ncreation and providence.\"\n\nIn a work, entitled _An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of\nthe Westminster Assembly of Divines_, by the Rev. Robert Shaw,\npublished by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, and revised\nby the Committee of Publication, we find the following passages:\n\"That God _must have decreed all future things_ is a conclusion\nwhich flows necessarily from his foreknowledge, independence, and\nimmutability.\" (p. 58.)\n\nAgain: \"The decrees of God relate to all future things without\nexception; _whatever is done in time was foreordained before the\nbeginning of time_.\" (p. 59.)\n\nAgain: \"If from all eternity he knew all things that come to\npass, then from eternity he _must_ have _ordained_ them\" (p. 60).\nAgain: \"The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree;\nfor God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had\ndecreed they should be.\" (p. 59.)\n\nIn another publication of this Board, entitled _Fisher's\nCatechism_, we find the following questions and answers:--\n\n\"_Q_. What are the decrees of God?--_Ans_. The decrees of God are\nhis eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby,\nfor his own glory, he hath _foreordained whatsoever comes to\npass_.\" (p. 51.)\n\n\"_Q_. Are all the decrees of God then unchangeable?--_Ans_. Yes:\nfrom all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably\nforeordained whatsoever comes to pass.\" (p. 53.)\n\n\"_Q_. Does anything come to pass in time but what was decreed\nfrom eternity?--_Ans_. No: for the _very reason why anything_\ncomes to pass in time, is _because God decreed_ it.\" (p. 54.)\n\n\"_Q_. Are things that are casual or accidental positively\ndecreed?--_Ans_. Yes.\" (_Ib_.)\n\n\"_Q_. What has the decree of God fixed with respect to man's\ncontinuance in this world?--_Ans_. It has _immovably fixed_ the\nprecise moment of _every_ one's _life_ and _death_, with _every\nparticular circumstance thereof_.\" (_Ib_.)\n\n\"_Q_. How does God execute his decrees?--_Ans_. God executes his\ndecrees in the works of creation and providence.\" (p. 57.)\n\n\"_Q_. What is it for God to execute his decrees?--_Ans_. It is to\nbring them to pass; or give _an actual being in time_, to what he\n_purposed from eternity_.\" (_Ib_.)\n\n\"_Q_. Does not God leave the execution of his decrees to second\ncauses?--_Ans_. Whatever use God may make of second causes, in\nthe execution of his decrees, yet they are _merely tools_ in his\noverruling hand, to bring about his glorious designs, and must do\nall his pleasure.\" (_Ib_.)\n\n\"_Q_. Are there not certain means by which the decrees of God are\nexecuted?--_Ans_. Yes; but these _means_ are _decreed as well as\nthe end_.\" (p. 52.)\n\n\"_Q_. Is there an exact harmony or correspondence, between God's\ndecree and the execution of it?--_Ans_. When the thing decreed is\nbrought actually into being, it _exactly corresponds_ to the idea\nor platform of it _in_ the infinite _mind_ of _God_.\" (p. 57.)\n\n\"_Q_. Can none of the decrees of God be defeated or fail of\nexecution?--_Ans_. By no means.\" (_Ib_.)\n\n\"_Q_. Does God's governing providence include in it his\n_immediate concurrence_ with every action of the creature?--Ans.\nYes; God not only _efficaciously concurs_ in _producing_ the\naction, as to the matter of it; but likewise _predetermines_ the\ncreature to such or such an action, and _not to another, shutting\nup all other ways of acting_, and leaving _that only open_ which\nhe had _determined_ to be done.\" (p. 67.)\n\n\"_Q_. Why are the decrees of God said to be _absolute_?--_Ans_.\nBecause they depend upon no condition without God himself, but\nentirely and solely upon his own sovereign will and pleasure.\"\n(p. 52.)\n\nOn page 67 he tells us that \"the _worst action_ that was ever\n_committed_, the _crucifying_ of the Lord of glory, was _ordered_\nand _directed_ by God.\"\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Musgrave says, &c.: \"In the former chapter, we\nendeavored to explain and prove the three following propositions:--\n\n\"1. That _all things that come to pass_ in time, have been\n_eternally_ and _unchangeably foreordained_, because most\ncertainly foreknown to the infinitely perfect Jehovah.\" (p. 18.)\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Boardman, of this city, in his discourses on the\ndoctrine of election, not only quotes with approbation that part\nof the Confession of Faith which says, \"God, from all eternity,\ndid, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely\nand unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass\" (p. 49), but\nalso says: \"Some persons appear to think that the Divine decrees\nare restricted to spiritual matters. This is so far from being a\ncorrect opinion, that the Scriptures represent ALL EVENTS,\nhowever _trivial_, as being embraced in those decrees.\" In this\nconnection, he also affirms \"that the Divine decrees embrace not\nonly _ends_ but _means_, and that both in temporal and spiritual\nthings, where an end is decreed, the _means_ by which it is to be\nreached or accomplished are _also decreed_.\" (pp. 56, 57.)\n\nDr. Chalmers, in his discourse on Predestination, says: \"Let us\nnot conceive that the _agency_ of _man_ can bring about _one\nsingle iota_ of _deviation_ from the _plans_ and the _purposes_\nof _God_, or that he can be compelled to vary in a single case by\nthe movement of any of those subordinate beings whom he hath\nhimself created. There may be a diversity of operations, but it\nis God who worketh all in all. Look at the resolute and\nindependent man, and you then see the purposes of the human mind\nentered upon with decision, and followed up by vigorous and\nsuccessful exertions. But these _only make up one diversity of\nGod's operations_. The _will of man_, active, and spontaneous,\nand fluctuating as it appears to be, is an _instrument in his\nhand_--and he turns it at his pleasure--and he brings other\ninstruments to act upon it--and he plies it with all its\nexcitements--and he measures the force and proportion of each of\nthem--and _every step_ of _every individual_ receives as\n_determinate_ a _character_ from the _hand of God_, as every mile\nof a planet's orbit, or every gust of wind, or every wave of the\nsea, or every particle of flying dust, or every rivulet of\nflowing water. This power of God knows no exception. It is\nabsolute and unlimited, and while it embraces the vast, it\ncarries its _resistless_ influence to all the minute and\nunnoticed diversities of existence. It reigns and operates\nthrough all the secrecies of the inner man. _It gives birth to\nevery purpose. It gives impulse to every desire. It gives shape\nand color to every conception_. It wields an entire ascendency\nover every attribute of the mind, and the will, and the fancy,\nand the understanding, with all the countless variety of their\nhidden and fugitive operations, are submitted to it.\"\n\nIt may be supposed that while we have shown clearly and\nindubitably that the doctrine which we propose to examine and\nrefute is held by Old School Presbyterians, it would be an act of\ninjustice upon our part, should we impute it to those of the New\nSchool. Many think that the New School have rejected the leading\ndoctrines of Calvinism, as set forth in the Confession of Faith.\nThis is a very erroneous impression. A writer in the _Presbyterian\nQuarterly Review_--a work recently originated and sustained by New\nSchool Presbyterians--remarks as follows: \"Whatever difficulties\nthere may be in the philosophy of the fact, it is certain that the\nidea of Presbyterianism actuates itself theologically in Calvinism.\"\n(Vol. i. No. I. p. 18.)\n\nAgain: \"So far as we are informed, there is not a minister of our\nbody who does not love and cherish the Westminster Confession of\nFaith as the best human delineation of Biblical theology.\" (p.\n5.)\n\nAgain: \"After fifteen years, in the body with which we are\nconnected, no man has moved to alter a tittle of the Confession\nof Faith.\" (p. 3.)\n\nAgain: \"As we love the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms, we\nshall stand ready to vindicate them from Arminian, Socinian, and\ninfidel assaults on the one side, as well as Antinomian glosses\non the other.\" (p. 10.)\n\nAgain: \"We must then, if we would obey the voice of God's\nprovidence, teach our children the priceless glories of their\nfaith\" (p. 152). \"Who tells them that the Westminster Confession\nof Faith is a model of noble writing?\" (p. 153.)\n\nThe _Westminster Confession of Faith_, with the _Catechisms_, has\nrecently been republished by the authority of the New School\nGeneral Assembly, as the creed of their Church. Had they made any\nmaterial changes in their creed, so far as Calvinism is\nconcerned, this would have been the time to manifest them. But\nthe New School _Confession of Faith_ is a mere reprint of that of\nthe Old School.\n\nThe Rev. Albert Barnes, in a sermon in behalf of the American\nHome Missionary Society, preached in New York and in Philadelphia,\nsays of that institution: \"It cannot be denied, it need not be\ndenied, that the form of Christianity which it seeks and expects\nto propagate, is that which has been much spoken against in the\nworld, and known as the Calvinistic form, and that it expects to\nmake its way because there are minds in every community that are\nlikely to embrace Christianity in that form, because it is\npresumed that the more mind is elevated, and cultivated, and\nbrought into connection with schools and colleges, the more\nlikely it will be to embrace that form.\" (p. 38.)\n\nAgain, in a sermon preached before the New School General\nAssembly, May 20, 1852, he commences a paragraph with these\nwords: \"The Calvinistic denomination of Christians, of which we\nare a part\" (p. 12). Again, he says: \"As this form of Christianity\nis represented in the great denominational family to which we\nbelong, it combines two things--the Presbyterian form of government,\nand the Calvinistic or Augustinian type of doctrine.\" (_Ib_.)\n\nThis eminent writer, whom I hold in very high esteem for his\nlearning, intelligence, and piety, notwithstanding his Calvinism,\nexpresses his views of the Divine decrees in these words:--\n\n\"But on this point, the entire movement of the world bears the\nmarks of being conducted according to a plan. We defy a man to\nlay his finger on a fact which has not such a relation to other\nfacts as to show that it is a part of a scheme; and if of a\nscheme, _then of a purpose formed beforehand_.\" (_Introd. to\nButler's Analogy_, p. 53.)\n\nAgain: \"The event which was thus foreknown, must have been, for\nsome cause, _certain_ and _fixed_, since an uncertain event could\nnot possibly be foreknown. To talk of foreknowing a contingent\nevent as certain, which may or may not exist, is an absurdity.\"\n(_Notes on Romans_, viii. 29.)\n\nAgain: \"We interpret the decrees of God, so far as we can do it,\nby _facts_; and we say that the actual _result_, by whatever\nmeans brought about, is the expression of the _design_ of God.\"\n(_Introd. to Butler's Analogy_, p. 43.)\n\nThe _Saybrook Platform and Confession of Faith_, which contains\nthe faith of the New England Congregationalists, holds precisely\nthe same language respecting the Divine decrees, with the\nConfession of Faith of the Presbyterian Churches.\n\nI am in possession of a work entitled _A Confession of Faith put\nforth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of\nChristians (baptized upon profession of their faith) in London\nand the country_; adopted by the Baptist Association, met at\nPhiladelphia, September 25, 1752. The chapters in this Confession\nwhich relate to \"God's decree\" and \"Providence,\" are, with very\nslight variations of phraseology, not affecting the sense, the\nsame with those in the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, and the\n_Saybrook Platform_. It is thoroughly Calvinistic.\n\nThe _Baptist Catechism_, published by the American Baptist\nPublication Society, contains the following question and answer:--\n\n\"_Q_. What are the decrees of God?--_Ans_. The decrees of God are\nhis eternal purposes, according to the counsel of his will,\nwhereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes\nto pass.\"\n\nThe _Confession of Faith_ of the Dutch Reformed Church says: \"We\nbelieve that the same God, after he had created all things, did\nnot forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but that\nhe rules and governs them according to his holy will, so that\n_nothing happens in this world without his appointment_.\" Again:\n\"This doctrine affords us unspeakable consolation, since we are\ntaught thereby, that nothing can befall us by chance, but by the\ndirection of our most gracious and Heavenly Father.\" Mark,\naccording to this, NOTHING _happens_ but with the APPOINTMENT and\nby the DIRECTION of our Heavenly Father.\n\nMy hearers will, by this time, be fully convinced that I have not\nmisstated the Calvinistic doctrine of Divine predestination.\n\nThe application of this doctrine to the final destinies of men\nand angels constitutes the Calvinistic doctrine of election and\nreprobation. Upon this point, Calvin says:--\n\n\"Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which _he\nhas determined in himself what he would have become of every\nindividual of mankind_. For they are _not all created with a\nsimilar destiny_, but _eternal life is foreordained for some_,\nand _eternal damnation for others_. Every man _therefore being\ncreated for one or the other of these ends_, we say he is\npredestinated either to eternal life or death.\" (Vol. ii. p. 145.)\n\nAgain: \"Observe; all things being at God's disposal, and the\ndecision of salvation or death belonging to him, he orders all\nthings by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that _some men\nare born devoted from the womb to certain death_, that his name\nmay be glorified in their destruction.\" (_Ib_. 169.)\n\nAgain: \"I inquire, again, how it came to pass that the fall of\nAdam, _independent of any remedy_, should involve so many nations\nwith their _infant children_ in eternal death, but because such\nwas _the will of God_. Their tongues, so loquacious on every\nother point, must here be struck dumb. It is an awful decree, I\nconfess but no one can deny that God foreknew the future final\nfate of man before he created him, and that he did foreknow it\n_because it was appointed by his own decree_.\" (_Ib_. 170.)\n\nUpon this point, the _Presbyterian Confession of Faith_, the\n_Saybrook Platform_, and the _Baptist Confession of Faith_, hold\nthe following language:--\n\n\"By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, some\nmen and angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and others\nforeordained to everlasting death.\n\n\"Those angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are\nparticularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so\ncertain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or\ndiminished.\n\n\"Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before\nthe foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal\nand immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure\nof his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out\nof his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith\nor good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other\nthing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him\nthereunto, and all unto the praise of his glorious grace.\"\n\nI do not say that Calvinists never contradict any of these\nstatements. Nor do I profess to have spread out the entire theory\nof Calvinism. The question now relates to their doctrine of\nDivine decrees.\n\nI am fully convinced that the times demand a review and\ncomparison of the two opposing systems, Calvinism and\nArminianism. Our Calvinistic brethren, both Old and New School,\nare putting forth high claims in behalf of their system, and\nspeaking of ours in very disparaging terms.\n\nThe Rev. Albert Barnes tells us, in his sermon in behalf of the\nHome Missionary Society, preached in 1849, that the more mind is\nelevated, and cultivated, and brought into connection with\ncolleges and schools, the more likely it will be to embrace the\nCalvinistic form of Christianity. He thinks that Calvinists will\nbe increased just in proportion as schools and colleges can be\nfounded, and an intelligent and educated ministry sent out. He\ndoes not suppose that the entire mind of the west will embrace\nCalvinistic views, but he does \"expect that a considerable\nportion of the _educated_ and _ruling_ mind will\" (p. 40). He\ntells us, in his sermon delivered before the New School General\nAssembly, convened in Washington in 1852, that past history has\nshown that the class of minds most likely to embrace the\nCalvinistic system \"is most likely to be found among the\nthinking, the sober, the educated, the firm, the conservative,\nand the free\" (p. 10); that \"the Calvinistic system identifies\nitself with education, and a large portion of the cultivated mind\nof a community will be always imbued with the sentiments of the\nsystem.\" (p. 15.)\n\nThis seems to imply, whatever may be intended, that Arminianism\nhas special affinities for ignorance; that it is more indebted to\nignorance than to intelligence for its diffusion; that its\nchances for success will be diminished, in proportion as sound\neducation advances, and the ministry becomes intelligent. If this\nbe so, Arminians are pursuing a suicidal policy; for no Christian\ndenomination has established as many colleges and academies in\nthe same length of time as the Methodists. That Arminianism takes\nbetter than Calvinism with _the masses_ is undeniable; but this\nmay be because it possesses a superior adaptation to the wants of\nhumanity. Our Saviour gave it as a distinctive mark of the\nushering in of the last dispensation that the poor have the\ngospel preached unto them, which implies that the poor, and\nconsequently the uneducated, may understand it.\n\nMr. Barnes goes further. He intimates that the different\ntheological systems are \"the result of some _original peculiarity_\nin certain classes of minds;\" that \"there are minds, not a few in\nnumber, or unimportant in character, which, when converted, will\n_naturally_ embrace Calvinism.\" He \"will not undertake to say\nwhether John Wesley _could_ have been a Calvinist, but he can say\nthat Jonathan Edwards _could never have been anything else_.\" He\nrepeats this sentiment three years after, in these words: \"There\nare minds, indeed, and those in _many respects_ of a high order,\nthat _will not_ [mark the phraseology!] see the truth of the\nCalvinistic system; but there are minds that _can never_ see the\ntruth of an opposite system. We could not perhaps undertake to\nsay whether John Wesley could ever have been a Calvinist, but we\n_can_ say that Jonathan Edwards could never have been anything\nelse; and if there be a mind in any community formed like that\nof Edwards, we anticipate that it will embrace the same great\nsystem which he defended.\"\n\nNow it is inconceivable that Mr. Barnes should consider the\nArminian superior or equal to the Calvinistic mind. That must be\nthe best mental structure which is most in harmony with the best\ntheory. The tenor of his remarks indicates clearly his opinion\nupon this point.\n\nI can hardly express the astonishment which I felt upon reading\nthis strange sentiment from so justly distinguished a writer. It\nappeared to me to be grossly unphilosophical, implying either\nthat truth is not homogeneous; that contradictory propositions\nmay be equally true; or that God has constituted some minds\nfalsely. It is presumable that between truth and mind, in its\noriginal normal condition--mind not perverted by erroneous\neducation, or prejudice, or passion, or depravity in any form--\nthere will be a strict congeniality, so that truth will be\npreferred to error. But this doctrine implies that one set of\nminds will, under the same circumstances, from their peculiar\nnatural constitution, prefer the truth, and another set reject\nit. It is obviously of very dangerous practical tendency. While\nthe Calvinist may refer to it to account for his being a\nCalvinist, and the Arminian to account for his being an Arminian,\nthe infidel may claim that it is from the same cause that he is\nan infidel. His rejecting the Bible is the natural inevitable\nresult of the peculiar mental constitution which God gave him.\n\nMr. Barnes tells us that Calvinism does not appeal to passion;\nbut, if I am not very greatly mistaken, and you may judge whether\nI am or not, its advocates appeal very significantly to pride of\nintellect. It offers gross flattery as the price of adhesion and\nsupport. What else can be inferred from the passages which I have\nquoted, than that by becoming Calvinists you will class\nyourselves with minds of a superior structure, and with the\neducated and cultivated, and will occupy an elevation from which\nyou can look down upon the less favored Arminians?\n\nA writer in the New School _Quarterly Review_ has this remark:\n\"Our physical frame could about as well be erect, and adapted for\nits purposes without a backbone, as piety be complete without\nCalvinism.\" (Vol. i. No. I. p. 19.)\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Lowry, in his _Search for Truth_, claims that \"the\ndoctrine of human depravity--the complete ruin of man--the\njustice of his condemnation--the legal or covenant relation of\nAdam and his posterity--the necessity of an atonement--and its\nvicarious nature,\" \"belong exclusively to the Calvinistic\nsystem.\" He admits that the \"Arminian often makes use of the same\nphraseology as the Calvinist,\" but then he rejects the \"proper\nand scriptural sense.\" \"The Arminian,\" he says, \"attempts to\nconnect with his system the doctrine of a vicarious atonement,\nbecause the phrase is a popular one, and he cannot well do\nwithout it; but when we come to examine its meaning, we find that\nlie has no claim to it whatever. He may hold on to the name, but\nnothing more. The substance is as different from the view which\nforms a part of his creed, as a city on the Atlantic coast\ndiffers from a small village in the backwoods.\" (pp. 55, 56.)\n\nAgain: \"The principles which lie at the foundation of the\nArminian doctrine of _ability_ and _grace_, are not only\ncalculated to destroy the energies of the Church, and unhinge the\ninstitutions of society, as I have endeavored to show, but they\ngo still further; they enter the Christian's closet, and destroy\nthe life and soul of his private devotions. They are calculated\nto dry up every fountain, and destroy every spring of religious\nfeeling and action.\" (p. 86.)\n\nAgain: \"Arminians are without any consistent and harmonious\nsystem of doctrine. It is true that, on speaking of the doctrines\nof those who hold to Arminian sentiments, we are in the habit of\nusing the word _system_, but it is only as a matter of convenience\nand courtesy. Some of those doctrines may sustain a logical\nconnection with others--such as the doctrine of falling from grace,\nand the denial of divine efficiency in conversion and sanctification\n--but Arminianism, as a whole, is a coat of many colors, that has\nbeen patched and pieced since the days of Pelagius, according to\nthe taste and caprice of the man that wears it.\" (p. 156.)\n\nAgain: \"It requires but half an eye to see, that the view of the\nfall of man and the relation we sustain to Adam, as found in the\nstandards of the Methodist Church, vitiate the whole Gospel\nscheme; that the principles growing out of the view there\npresented, lead to fundamental error with regard to the nature of\nvirtue and vice, and destroy all human accountability; that the\nnature of the remedy found in the same standards necessarily\ndestroys all motive to intelligent action and labor upon the part\nof the Church in the great work before her, holds out no\nencouragement to prayer; degrades the character of God to that of\na debtor and apologist for injuries he has done to the creature;\nand exalts the creature to heaven by a kind of semi-omnipotence\nof his own. Such consequences as these I say are _dangerous and\nruinous_.\" (p. 157.)\n\nThis book derives its importance from its being adopted by the\nPresbyterian Board of Publication, and its bearing the _imprimatur_\nof that institution. It is commended by their catalogue as \"well\nworthy of perusal by those who have doubts as to the scriptural\ncharacter of those doctrines which ignorance and prejudice brand\nas the horrible dogmas of Calvinism.'\" It was published in 1852.\n\nA writer in the _Presbyterian_, of June 25, 1853, thus expresses\nhis views of Arminianism: \"Did we preach Arminianism to the\npeople, we could get ten into our churches where we now get one;\nfor it must be remembered that Arminianism is far more palatable\nto depraved nature than Calvinism.\" Again: \"These brethren go too\nfast, get men into the visible kingdom too soon; lull them to\neverlasting sleep by their soporific measures and doctrinal\nanodynes, thereby breaking down the barriers which separate the\nChurch from the world, and ruining hundreds of souls where they\nsave one. Let our young men be made to feel rather that\nArminianism is a dangerous delusion wherever it is preached, and\nuphold with all their might and main real old-fashioned\nCalvinism.\"\n\nIt is a very common thing with Calvinists to refer opposition to\nCalvinism to depravity, as its source. The _Presbyterian Banner_,\nfor Nov. 5, 1853, contains the following: \"The natural heart\nrecoils from predestination. The ungodly hate it. Our whole\nsystem is too humbling to human pride to find friends even among\nthe vicious. This is to us a strong affirmation of its truth.\"\n\nThey also claim for Calvinism that it is not only specially\nconducive to civil and religious liberty, but that it is\nessential thereto. The Rev. Dr. Wilson, of the New School\nPresbyterian Church, in an address delivered before the literary\nsocieties of Delaware College, in 1852, went out of his way to\neulogize Calvinism in these terms: \"Calvinism and human liberty\nflourish side by side, or rather the latter is not found without\nthe former; and nowhere at this hour is there _true freedom_,\ntrue independence of opinion in Church or State where Calvinism\nis not the foundation.\" Calvinists must be very forgetful of\ntheir history, or they must suppose that all others are ignorant\nor forgetful of it. But it is not my intention, at present, to\nreply to this extravagant pretension.\n\nI do not object to the publication of these views from the pulpit\nand the press. If our brethren entertain them, they have a right\nto publish them. It is manly to do so. But it may be obligatory\nupon us to stand up for what we believe to be the truth, and to\noppose what we believe to be error. I shall endeavor to do so,\nthe Lord being my helper.\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE II.\n\n\n\"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being\npredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all\nthings after the counsel of his own will.\"--EPH. i. 11.\n\nIN the preceding discourse, I called attention to the fact that the\nopponents of Calvinism are frequently charged with misunderstanding\nthrough ignorance, or grossly misrepresenting it. I read passages\nfrom several, charging us with calumny, defamation, slander, and\neven blasphemy.\n\nIn view of these charges, often made and reiterated, and widely\nspread, with high official sanction, and likely to be repeated\nwhenever Calvinism is boldly investigated, I deemed it necessary\nto show, by numerous quotations, that I do not misrepresent it\nwhen I impute to it the doctrine that God has willed, proposed,\nand decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and that, in some way or\nother, he brings to pass whatever occurs. For this purpose, I\nreferred to the acknowledged publications of the Presbyterian,\nCongregational, Baptist, and Reformed Dutch Churches. I noted,\nparticularly, that this doctrine is held by the New School\nPresbyterians, because it is supposed by many that they have\nabandoned it, and that their rejection of it constitutes one of\nthe points of difference between them and the Old School.\n\nI also quoted largely to show that earnest efforts are in\nprogress to exalt Calvinism, and disparage Arminianism and\nArminians.\n\nWe now propose to test this dogma of Calvinism by reason and\nScripture. We shall not, at present, enter upon the examination\nof the proof-texts, though we hold the Holy Scriptures to be the\nultimate authority on all theological questions, but shall\ncompare it with acknowledged Scripture principles. And, yet, it\nmay be very reasonably expected that some attention will be paid\nto the passage which, according to custom, has been selected as\npresenting the subject of discourse. It is the very first proof\n-text adduced by the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, but it\nfails to meet the demand made upon it. It does not contain the\ndoctrine sought to be proved. It does, indeed, assert the\npredestination of believers to certain blessings, a point not in\ndispute, and also that they are predestinated to these blessings\naccording to God's purpose; but all this is very far from\nteaching that _God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass_.\nThe proof is supposed by some to be contained in the remaining\nportion of the passage--\"who worketh all things,\" &c. But we must\ntake the entire expression of the apostle in order to get his\nmeaning, \"who worketh all things after the counsel of his own\nwill.\" By this he means to say, merely, that, in whatever God\ndoes towards men or angels, he is uncontrolled. He carries out\nhis own free purposes. He does not conform to the counsels of\nothers. He does not yield to the clamors of discontented\nsubjects, or make concessions to contemporary and independent\npowers. The words are thus paraphrased by McKnight, a Calvinistic\ncommentator: \"According to the gracious purpose of him, who\neffectually accomplisheth all his benevolent intentions, by the\nmost proper means, according to the wise determination of his own\nwill.\" We may, with as much propriety, argue from the apostolic\ninjunction, \"Do all things without murmurings and disputings\"\n(Phil. ii. 14), that Christians are required by the law of God to\n_do all things_ absolutely, as, from the clause under consideration,\nthat God has decreed and executes whatsoever comes to pass. But, if\nour brethren insist upon so understanding the apostle, we shall\nhold them to their interpretation. We shall not allow them to\ncontradict it whenever the exigencies of the argument may render it\nconvenient.\n\n1. In the first place, this theory of predestination is\ninconsistent with the doctrine of man's free moral agency. The\nforce of this objection is readily perceived. It is _impossible_\nthat we should be free agents, when all the _external circumstances_\nthat affect us, and all our _mental_ and _bodily acts_, are\npredetermined and brought about by God. Man is thus reduced to, a\nmere passive instrument. He is nothing more than a complicate and\ncurious machine--a man-machine, an automaton--whose every movement\nis conceived, determined, directed, controlled by a supervisor. It\navails nothing to apply to him terms which signify freedom. We may\nsay that he has _the power to will_; that he _actually wills_; but\nthe difficulty is not relieved. The being who endowed him with this\nfaculty has foreordained and brings to pass, by a well-directed\nagency, every movement of that faculty. We may say that he _wills\naccording to his inclinations_, and is therefore free; but God has\ndecreed and brings to pass all his inclinations. We may say that he\nacts according to his will, and not against his will; still nothing\nis gained, since all his purposes, and the movements by which he\nexecutes them, are equally preordained and brought to pass by\nGod. We may say that he is _conscious_ of _acting freely_, but\nthis is a mere delusion, if the doctrine we are considering be\ntrue. By the very logic which reconciles it with free agency in\nman, I will undertake to prove that every steamboat and every\nrailroad-engine is a free agent. Calvinistic free agency must be\nsomething analogous to Bishop Hughes's freedom of conscience,\nindestructible and inviolable, in its very nature and essence; so\nthat a man may be denied the privilege of reading the Bible, or\nof propagating or entertaining any opinions contrary to the\nChurch of Rome--he may be thrown into prison, and put to torture,\nfor refusing to subscribe to its dogmas, or to worship according\nto forms which he holds to be idolatrous--and yet he enjoys\nfreedom of conscience. So, according to the teachings of modern\nCalvinism, man is a free agent, notwithstanding all the\n_circumstances_ which _surround_ him, with all his _sensations,\nemotions, desires, purposes, volitions_ and _acts_ were _decreed\nfrom eternity_, and brought to pass by a power which he can\n_neither control_ nor _resist_. This free agency must then be\nsomething absolutely inviolable in its nature and essence,\nsomething which God himself cannot destroy or impinge except by\nterminating the existence of the being in whom it inheres. As\nBishop Hughes's freedom of conscience is very different from what\nis generally understood to be freedom of conscience, so the free\nagency which may be made to harmonize with this doctrine, is\ndifferent from what is usually understood to be free agency. It\nis not the power to act otherwise than as we do act, or to choose\nor will otherwise than as we do choose or will.\n\n2. This doctrine, being at variance with man's free agency, is,\nby necessary consequence, at variance with his _moral accountability_.\nThere would be as much reason in holding the _atmosphere_ accountable,\nor the _trees_, or the _grass_, or the _clods_, or the _stones_. All\nhis _views_, _feelings_, and _volitions_, being thus predetermined,\nhe can no more be accountable for them than for the _circumstances_\nof his _birth_, or the _natural color_ of his _skin_. He cannot\nreasonably be made the subject of commendation or censure--of reward\nor punishment.\n\n3. It also follows, from this doctrine, that there is not, and\ncannot be any such thing as sin. If man be not a free agent--if\nhe be incapable of acting otherwise than as predetermined by\nJehovah--he is incapable of either virtue or vice. It would be as\nreasonable to predicate virtue or vice of the flux and reflux of\nthe tides, or the circulation of the blood, as of man or angel\nunder such circumstances.\n\nAnd, mark! if we, for the sake of the argument, should admit that\nman is capable of _virtue_, notwithstanding all his acts are\nforeordained and rendered infallibly certain by a power which he\ncannot successfully resist, he is still incapable of _vice_. He\ncannot sin, for this plain, all-sufficient reason--he cannot act\notherwise than according to the will of God. \"Nothing comes to\npass in time but what was decreed from eternity.\" \"None of the\ndecrees of God can be defeated or fail of execution.\" So\nCalvinism explicitly affirms.\n\nFurther, while the inference that there is and can be no sin is\nfairly deducible from the supposition that man is not a free\nagent, it does not depend upon that supposition. Let it be\nadmitted, for the purpose of the argument, that man is a free\nagent, and capable of sinning, notwithstanding all his actions\nwere predetermined, and what is the state of the case? _Still he\nhas not sinned_. He has done nothing but what God freely willed\nand ordained he should do. The perfect obedience of Christ\nconsisted in his doing in all respects the will of the Father.\nEither, then, it may be sinful to do the will of God, or there\nis--there can be no sin. I do not know of any way in which this\nconsequence can be avoided. I do not believe that it can.\n\nLet us take another view of this point. Let the advocates of this\ndoctrine succeed in proving that man is a free agent, in the\nproper sense of the term, and capable of sinning, notwithstanding\nall his actions are decreed and brought to pass by God, and we\nhave before us this remarkable result: _Every individual of the\nhuman race, while in a state of probation, without a knowledge of\nGod's predetermination respecting him, and without any controlling\ninfluence brought to bear upon him, has, in every instance, willed\nand acted in accordance with the will of God_. The result is\n_universal voluntary holiness_. Here, then, is a dilemma. Either\nthere is _no possibility of sin or of holiness_, or, if there be\na possibility of sin or of holiness, there is, in fact, _no sin_\n--there is, in fact, _universal holiness_.\n\n4. If it be asserted that sin exists, notwithstanding this\nperfect coincidence between the will of God and the conduct of\nhis creatures, it will follow, most conclusively, that _God is\nthe author of sin_. He has decreed and brings to pass all the\nsensations, perceptions, emotions, inclinations, volitions, and\novert actions, of the whole human race. Various attempts have\nbeen made to avoid this result, but they are all futile. The\n_Confession of Faith_ says: \"God, from all eternity, did, by the\nmost wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably\nordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God\nthe author of sin.\" We pay all respect to this as a disclaimer. Our\nPresbyterian brethren do not intend to charge God with being the\nauthor of sin. But we are compelled to regard these propositions\nas directly contradictory to each other. Is not a being the author\nof that which he originally designs and decrees, and subsequently\nbrings into existence? and is it not maintained that he decreed\nfrom all eternity, and brings to pass whatever occurs? Either sin\nhas not come to pass, or God is the author of it. It is useless\nto say that God has brought to pass the act, but not the sinfulness.\nThe sinfulness has come to pass. It is useless to say that sin is\nman's, and not God's act. Man does nothing but what God has decreed,\nand, in some infallible way leads him to do. \"God's power,\" says Dr.\nChalmers, \"gives birth to _every purpose_; it gives impulse to\n_every desire_, gives shape and color to _every conception_.\" Says\nFisher, in his _Catechism_: \"God not only efficaciously concurs in\nproducing the action as to the matter of it, but likewise predetermines\nthe creature to such or such an action, and not to another, shutting\nup all other ways of acting, and leaving only that open which he\nhad determined to be done.\" We might, with vastly more plausibility,\ndeny that Paul was the author of his Epistles, because he employed an\namanuensis, or, for the same reason, deny that Milton was the author\nof _Paradise Lost_. It is useless here to speculate upon the reasons\nwhich induced God to ordain and bring sin to pass. We are now concerned\nwith the fact merely, and we hence conclude that he is the author of\nsin and the only being properly answerable for it.\n\n5. If the advocates of this doctrine should still insist that it\ndoes not make God the author of sin; that man is a free agent,\nand properly responsible for his actions, notwithstanding they\nare foreordained; I press them with this plain consequence--God\nis, to say the least, a participant in the sinning. And he is not\nmerely a _coadjutor_, but the _principal_--the principal in\n_every instance of sinning_. He originates the first conception\nof the sinning act. He forms the plan. He arranges all the\ncircumstances. He, by his providence, applies the influence by\nwhich the result is effectuated. Here, then, is a dilemma from\nwhich there is no escape. Either God is, _strictly and properly_,\nthe _author of sin_, or he is a _participant_ therein, and not\nmerely accessory, but _the principal_, the _plotter_, the _prime\nmover_, the RINGLEADER thereof.\n\n6. Another inevitable consequence of this doctrine is that,\nadmitting the existence of sin, God _prefers sin to holiness_ in\nevery instance in which sin takes place. This consequence is too\nplain to require much illustration. If God _freely_ ordained\nwhatsoever comes to pass; if he was not under a fatal necessity\nof ordaining just as he did; if he had it in his power to ordain\notherwise, he could have ordained holiness in the place of sin.\nThe fact that he was free and unnecessitated in his decrees, and\ncould ordain the one or the other, according to his good\npleasure, is proof substantial that he prefers sin to holiness in\nevery instance in which sin occurs. Had he preferred holiness, he\ncould have decreed it, and it would have come to pass. This\nconsequence has been admitted, and is, by many Calvinists at this\nday, maintained as a doctrine. In fact, it has been a matter of\ndispute amongst Calvinists--Dr. Taylor, of Connecticut, taking\none side, and Dr. Tyler, of Connecticut, taking the other. But\nwhat a shocking conception! (See _Christian Spectator_, vol. iv.\np. 465.)\n\n7. Nor can we resist the further conclusion, from these premises,\nthat sin is not a real evil, but, on the contrary, a good, and\nthat in every instance in which it is preferred to holiness, it\nis worthy of such preference. This reasoning proceeds upon the\nassumption that God is a being of infinite goodness and wisdom,\nand, therefore, always prefers good to evil, being, of course,\nalways able to distinguish the one from the other.\n\nThis inference also has been admitted by many of the advocates of\nCalvinistic predestination. They distinctly affirm that sin is\nthe necessary means of the greatest good, and, as such, so far.\nas it exists, is preferable on the whole to holiness in its\nstead--that its existence is, on the whole, for the best. I give\nas authority for this affirmation, a publication of the\nPresbyterian Board, entitled _Old and New Theology_. On the first\npage we find this explicit statement: \"It has been a common\nsentiment among New England divines, since the time of Edwards,\nthat sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, and as\nsuch, so far as it exists, is preferable, on the whole, to\nholiness in its stead.\"\n\nI do not charge Dr. Musgrave with holding this inference as a\ndoctrine, and yet it is very clearly asserted in an argument\ndesigned to prove the Calvinistic doctrine of foreordination.\n\"There must,\" says he, \"have been a time when no creature\nexisted, as God alone is from everlasting. Before creation, and\nfrom all eternity, all things that are possible, as well as all\nthings that actually have or will come to pass in time, must have\nbeen perfectly known to God. He must, therefore, have known what\nbeings and events would, on the whole, be most for his own glory,\nand the greatest good of the universe; and therefore, as an\ninfinitely wise, benevolent, and Almighty Being, he could not but\nhave chosen or determined, that such beings and events, and SUCH\nONLY, should come to pass in time.\" \"The conclusion is,\ntherefore, to our minds, irresistible, that if God be infinitely\nwise, benevolent, and powerful, and perfectly foreknew what\nbeings and events would, _on the whole_, BE BEST, he must have\nchosen and ordained that they should exist, or be permitted to\noccur; and that, consequently, everything that does actually come\nto pass in time, has been eternally and unchangeably foreordained.\"\n\nHere it is argued that God, as an infinitely wise, benevolent,\nand powerful being, must have _known_ and _preferred_, and\n_decreed_, that just such beings should exist and events occur,\nas would, on the whole, be most for his own glory, and the\n_greatest good_ of the universe, _and such only_; and that,\nconsequently, he has eternally, and unchangeably foreordained\neverything that does actually come to pass in time. Now it is\nplain that all the events which have come to pass in time must\nanswer this description--must be for the best, for his highest\nglory--or the argument falls to the ground.\n\nThe Rev. Jas. McChain, one of the editors of the _Calvinistic\nMagazine_, in a discourse published in that periodical, December,\n1847, thus undertakes to prove that God \"has foreordained\nwhatsoever comes to pass:\" \"Jehovah is infinitely _wise_; does he\nnot, therefore, know what it is BEST should take place? He is\ninfinitely _benevolent_; will he not choose, then, that _shall\ntake place_ which he knows is FOR THE BEST? He is infinitely\n_powerful_; can he not, therefore, cause _to take place_ what he\n_chooses shall take place_? The Most High is infinitely wise, and\n_knows_ what it is BEST should come to pass--benevolent, and\n_chooses_ to bring to pass WHAT IS BEST--powerful, and _does_\nbring to pass what he chooses as BEST.\" \"Surely his infinite\nwisdom and goodness will choose and determine whatsoever it is\nbest should take place, and his almighty power will perfectly\ncarry out his plan.\"\n\nIt is not my intention, at this time, to point out the fallacy of\nthese arguments. I quote them to show that the consequence which\nI have deduced from the doctrine that God has decreed whatsoever\ncomes to pass--that sin is not an evil, but a good, and worthy of\nbeing preferred to holiness in every instance in which it occurs--\nis actually recognized as a truth, and used as a premise in\nproof of the Calvinistic doctrine of the decrees.\n\n8. And how can we avoid adopting as a legitimate conclusion, the\nlicentious infidel maxim, that \"WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT\"?\n\n9. It is obvious, at the first glance, that this doctrine\ndestroys all reasonable ground for repentance. Of what shall we\nrepent? Of sinning? Let it first be proved that, according to\nthis doctrine, any one has sinned, or can sin. But, if sin be\npossible, yet in every instance of sinning we have done the will\nof God. He freely and unchangeably predestinated the act from all\neternity. His providence brought it to pass. Before we feel\nourselves authorized to repent we should be sure that God has\nrepented of his purposes and acts. And, even then, there would be\nno good reason for repentance upon the part of his creatures.\nFor, if we, for the sake of the argument, allow that they are\nable to act otherwise than as they do, notwithstanding the Divine\ndecrees, they are morally bound to submit cordially to those\ndecrees, leaving to God the responsibility of decreeing wisely.\nHence there is no room for repentance.\n\nThis is precisely the application made of this doctrine by an\nintelligent Calvinistic lady of New England, Mrs. Elizabeth\nStuart Phelps, daughter of the late Prof. Stuart, of Andover, and\nauthoress of certain very popular works. In the memorial of her,\nprefixed to _The Last Leaf of Sunny Side_, she is quoted as\nsaying in her diary: \"I never _could_ understand or divine\nbefore, my claim upon the Deity's overruling care. Now I do get a\nglimpse of it--enough to make me feel like an infant in its\nmother's arms. Every event, of every day, of every hour, is\nunalterably fixed. Each day is but the turning over a new leaf of\nmy history, already written by the finger of God--every letter of\nit. Should I wish to re-write--to alter--one? Oh, no! no!! no!!!\"\nHere, you perceive, is no ground for repentance. It is repudiated.\nShe would not alter an event of her life, a letter of her history.\nShe carries this acquiescence in the Divine decrees so far as to\nsay in another place: \"I have no hope but in my Saviour and if He\nhas not saved me, then this too, I know, is just, and God's\ndecrees I would not change.\"\n\n10. Nor can prayer be more reasonable than repentance. For what\nshall we pray? That God would reverse his eternal decrees? This\nwould be to reflect upon his attributes. Are his decrees wrong?\nBesides, the doctrine in question affirms them to be unchangeable.\nShall we pray that God may accomplish them? This can add nothing\nto the certainty of their accomplishment; for they cannot be\ndefeated. So we are distinctly assured by the advocates of this\ntheory. The only apology that can be offered for prayer, on the\npart of those who believe this doctrine, is that it is decreed\nthey shall pray. But a prayer offered in strict logical accordance\nwith this theory would be a manifest absurdity.\n\n11. Another legitimate consequence of this doctrine is that man\nis not in a state of probation. There is a flat contradiction\nbetween the idea that man is in a state of probation and the\naffirmation that the whole series of volitions, states, actions,\nand events of his life is fixed, unchangeably, by the Divine\ndecree, before he comes into existence. I have long regarded this\nas an inevitable deduction from the Calvinistic doctrine of\ndecrees, but it was not until lately that I found it actually\nadvanced as a doctrine by a Calvinistic writer. On page 77 of\n_Fisher's Catechism_, the following occurs:--\n\n\"_Q_. Is there any danger in asserting that man is not now in a\nstate of probation, as Adam was?--_Ans_. No.\"\n\n\"_Q_. What, then, is the dangerous consequence of asserting that\nfallen man is still in a state of probation?--_Ans_. This\ndangerous consequence would follow, that mankind are hereby\nsupposed to be still under a covenant of works that can justify\nthe doer!\"\n\nI do not mean to be understood that this dogma is held by all\nCalvinists, but, whether held or not, it is a legitimate\ninference.\n\n12. Let us now notice the bearing of this strange tenet upon some\nof the leading doctrines and facts of Christianity. Take the\ndoctrine of the Fall--which is understood to be that God made man\nin his own image--holy; righteous, capable of standing in his\nintegrity, yet liable to be seduced from it; and that man\nvoluntarily transgressed, brought guilt and depravity upon\nhimself, and involved his posterity in moral degradation and\nruin. But, if the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees be true, there\nwas obviously no fall in the case. There was a change in the\ncondition of Adam, but that change was a part of God's eternal\nplan. Nothing occurred but what belonged to the divinely\npredetermined series of events. If Adam had acted otherwise than\nas he did, God's original purposes would have been frustrated. If\nthere were any fall, it should be predicated of the Divine\ndecrees rather than of the human subject thereof.\n\n13. Again: The plan of redemption, it is supposed, was designed\nto rescue him from a deplorable, desperate condition, in which\nhis perverseness had placed him; but, if the doctrine we are\nconsidering be true, the redemption, so called, is nothing but a\npart of a chain of predetermined events. He _was, and is, at no\ntime_, in _any other condition_ than was _devised_ and _decreed_\nby _Jehovah as most conducive to his own glory_ and _the highest\ngood of the universe_. Thus, the redemption, about which so much\nis said, is resolved into a mere nullity.\n\n14. Again: The glorious doctrine of Christ crucified thrills the\nbosom of the church with intense emotions of fear, and penitence,\nand hope, and gratitude, and joy. Paul attached so much\nimportance to it as to say: \"For I determined to know nothing\namong men save Christ and him crucified.\" But, view it in the\nlight of the doctrine that God has decreed whatsoever comes to\npass, and what does it amount to? The sufferings and death of\nChrist derive their importance from the fact of their being\npropitiatory--an atonement. But for what shall they atone? For\nacts which were determined upon, as a part of God's plan, for his\nglory, and the good of the universe, millions of ages before the\nhuman actors were born; for acts which no more need to be atoned\nfor than the actions of Jesus Christ himself. To say that those\nacts were wrong is to reflect upon the decrees of God, since\n\"nothing has come to pass but what was decreed by him;\" since,\naccording to Mr. Barnes, we are \"to interpret the decrees of God\nby facts, and the actual result, by whatever means brought about,\nexpresses the design of God.\" If men need atonement, they need it\nfor doing the will of God, and for nothing else. Need I add that,\nin view of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees, the doctrine of\natonement by the sufferings and death of Christ is absolute\nnonsense?\n\n15. Again: I affirm of this doctrine that it renders utterly\nbaseless the _doctrine of pardon_, or the remission of sins. It\nrenders the offer of pardon a mockery. For what is pardon\noffered? For _doing the will of God_--for doing just _what he\ndecreed_ we should do; for _carrying into effect_ his _eternal\ncounsels_. How can any man need pardon if this doctrine be true?\nShould it be said, in reply, that although the decrees of God\nhave been invariably fulfilled, yet his _precepts_ have been\nviolated, I rejoin that the violation of these precepts was,\naccording to the Calvinistic hypothesis, specifically _decreed_.\nUnless decreed, it could not have come to pass. Hence, the\nviolation was inevitable, from the very nature of the case. God\noffers pardon to his creatures, who have invariably, from the\ncommencement of their being, fulfilled his decrees. He offers\npardon to them for violating commands which it was impossible for\nthem to keep, inasmuch as he had eternally decreed that they\nshould not keep them, and his decrees are infinitely wise and\nholy, and cannot be, frustrated.\n\nFurther, if God's decrees are righteous (and we are told\nexplicitly by the creed we are reviewing that they had their\norigin in his \"wise and holy counsel\"), it follows that his\nprecepts must be unrighteous, whenever they are assumed to be in\nopposition to his decrees; and surely no one can need pardon for\npursuing a righteous course in opposition to an unrighteous one.\nIf it be said that his precepts and his decrees are all equally\nrighteous, it follows that a course in direct opposition, in all\nrespects, to a righteous law is, nevertheless, a righteous\ncourse, and thus the distinction between righteousness and\nunrighteousness is destroyed. View the subject in whatever light\nyou may, and the offer of pardon in connection with the\nCalvinistic doctrine of decrees, becomes an impertinence and an\nabsurdity.\n\n16. And what is the effect of the Calvinistic theory of\npredestination upon the doctrine of _regeneration_? Regeneration\nis usually understood to be a change by which unholy dispositions\n--dispositions at variance with the character and will of God\n--are substituted by those in accordance therewith. But, if\nCalvinism be true, regeneration is nothing more than a preordained\nchange from doing the will of God perfectly in one way, to doing\nit perfectly in another way.\n\n17. A consequence of this theory has been incidentally brought to\nview in illustrating a preceding argument, which deserves a\ndistinct statement. It is that God has two hostile wills, in\nrelation to the same thing--his decrees, and his published\ncommands and prohibitions. He has enjoined certain modes of\naction, by the most solemn legislation, and yet decreed, from all\neternity, that multitudes of those whom he has subjected to those\nobligations, shall constantly act at variance therewith; so that\nmultitudes of human beings are doing his will perfectly, and yet\nviolating his will at the same time.\n\n18. This theory makes all civil government manifestly unreasonable.\nCivil government proceeds upon the supposition that man is a free\nagent, capable of choosing and acting otherwise than as he does;\nbut this theory, as we have seen, is incompatible with free agency.\n\nAnd should we admit, for the sake of the argument, that it is not\nincompatible with free agency, it is still irreconcilable with\ncivil government. Civil legislation prohibits various modes of\nacting. It assumes that the forbidden actions are wrong--\ninjurious to society--whereas, this theory represents that all\nthe actions that have been performed, or will be performed, were\nfreely willed, purposed, decreed, foreordained, and brought to\npass by God himself--that there are no events, and can be none,\nbut what are in precise harmony with his eternal purposes--so\nthat, unless we suppose that God has from all eternity freely\ndecreed what is wrong and injurious, thereby subjecting human\nlegislators to the necessity of opposing his will in order to\nprevent outrage and injury, civil legislation admits of no\njustification or apology.\n\nAnd if this theory is incompatible with civil legislation, it is\nnot less so with civil jurisprudence. Men assume the right to\ninflict severe punishment upon their fellow-men for doing what\ncannot be avoided, or for not doing what they cannot possibly do.\nOr, if it be admitted, for the sake of the argument, that they\ncould act otherwise, still they are punished for doing and\nsuffering, in all respects, the will of God, for merely\nexemplifying his eternal unchangeable decrees. Take either\nalternative, and human jurisprudence is palpably iniquitous.\n\nThe only plausible apology that can be offered in behalf of civil\ngovernment is, either that human legislators and judges, and\njurors, and counsel, and sheriffs, and constables are passive\ninstruments in the hands of God, in which case their proceedings\nare ludicrous, the actors being mere puppets, exhibiting all the\nappearance of self-determined motion, and yet, like those famous\ncharacters called _Punch_ and _Judy_, acting only as determined\nand effected by the wire-worker; or, admitting that they are\nfree, and executing their own determinations, they too are doing\nprecisely what God has foreordained; so that, in this respect,\nthe jury who pronounce the verdict of guilty, and the judge who\npronounces the sentence of death, are upon a level with the\nalleged criminal. All have done, and are doing, just the things\nwhich God has decreed they should do, neither more nor less.\n\n19. I cannot but regard this theory as subversive of every\nrational idea of a Divine moral government. Moral government\nimplies precepts or prohibitions, or both, enforced by rewards\nand penalties, and addressed authoritatively to beings capable of\neither obedience or disobedience. But of what use are precepts or\nprohibitions if every act of every individual is fixed beforehand\nby the Divine decrees? As well might moral codes be addressed to\nsteam-engines or to whirlwinds. The only plausible attempt that\ncan be made to reconcile this theory of predestination with a\nDivine moral government, is to apply the term moral government to\na certain class of preordained influences designed to bring about\na certain class of preordained results. But this is moral\ngovernment in name merely. The process which the advocates of\nthis theory call moral government is just as mechanical as that\nby which the motions of the planets are controlled. The judiciary\nsystem of the Divine government, with all its solemn pageantry,\nis thus reduced to a mere farce. Beings are arraigned, with great\njudicial pomp, and condemned, or approved, punished or rewarded\nfor actions which were decreed innumerable ages before they were\nborn, and brought to pass by influences beyond their control, for\nactions which were devised, decreed, and irresistibly brought to\npass by the judge himself.\n\n20. We are now prepared for another consequence, which hangs like\na millstone around the neck of this theory, and is sufficient, of\nitself, to sink it to the depths. It represents God not only as\ndecreeing one thing and commanding another directly adverse\nthereto, but also as decreeing and bringing to pass opposite and\ncontradictory events. He ordained that one man should believe the\nHoly Scriptures, and reverence them, and that another man should,\nat the same time, deny, and hate, and vilify them. He ordained\nthat men should at one period of their lives preach the gospel,\nand write in favor of Christianity, and at another period become\ninfidel lecturers and disputants. He decreed that some should\nbelieve the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees, and teach it, and\nthat others should, at the same time, regard it as false and\noppose it. He has ordained that men shall take opposite sides on\nall great questions, religious, philosophical, or political. He\nordained the fugitive slave law and the recent Nebraska and\nKansas enactment, and all the opposition from ministers and\nlaymen, with which these measures have been regarded. He has\nordained that one party shall laud them as just and patriotic,\nand that another party shall condemn and hate them as diabolical.\nHe ordained the arrest of that man on the suspicion of murder,\nwith all the conflicting opinions as to his guilt or innocence,\nthe contradictory testimony of the witnesses, the contrary\npleadings of the counsel, the verdict of the jury pronouncing him\nguilty, the sentence of the judge condemning him to death, and\nthe pardon of the governor under the full conviction of his\ninnocence. All the conflicting opinions and acts in the fiercest\ncontroversy that ever raged, this theory traces up to the Divine\nforeordination.\n\n21. It must have appeared to the audience, by this time, that the\ncharacter of God is fearfully involved in this inquiry.\n\n(1). We have already seen that this theory draws after it the\nlogical consequences that God is the author of sin, or, if not\nthe author of it in the strict and proper sense of the term, at\nleast the plotter--the prime mover of it; that he prefers sin to\nholiness in every instance in which sin takes place; that he\nregards sin as the necessary means of the greatest good; that he\nhas, at the same time, two hostile wills relative to the same\nthing. And now what shall we say of his _wisdom_, when we find\nhim decreeing acts, and bringing them to pass, and yet,\nperemptorily forbidding them--enjoining acts, by formal solemn\nlegislation, which, from all eternity he has foreordained shall\nnever be performed? When we find him ordaining measures for the\npromotion, and measures for the counteraction, of his own plans?\nWhen we find him ordaining all the contradictions and vacillations\nby which human conduct is diversified and disgraced?--when every\nexample of the most contemptible folly that ever turned the laugh,\nor the sneer, or the frown, or the sentiment of pity upon its\nimmediate perpetrators, can be traced to the free counsels and\ndesigns of God, and finds its origin there?\n\n(2). What shall we say of the _sincerity_ of God when we find him\nenjoining one class of actions on pain of eternal damnation,\nwhile yet he has decreed, and by unfailing means brings to pass,\nin the same subjects, an entirely opposite class?--when we find\nhim threatening, and expostulating, and professing to be grieved,\non account of conduct which had its origin in his own free\npurposes, and is effected by his own providence?--when we find\nhim engaged in enforcing two wills respecting the same thing, one\ndirectly the opposite of the other, one of which must necessarily\nfail of accomplishment, and then, wrathfully charging the failure\nupon those who have acted in all respects as he ordained they\nshould?--when we find him offering salvation to all men, and\nsolemnly asseverating that it is his will that all men should\ncome to the knowledge of the truth, while yet the sinning, and\nultimate damnation of myriads, were decreed innumerable ages\nbefore they existed?\n\n(3). What shall we say of his _holiness_, when the vilest crimes\nthat ever caused the blush of shame, or the feeling of indignation\nor horror--_fornication, adultery, bestiality, fraud, oppression,\nlying, murder_--are in perfect coincidence with his eternal\npurposes, parts of his great plan, when he chose them in preference\nto their opposites, with all the means and appliances, great and\nsmall, by which they were brought to pass?\n\n(4). And what shall we say of his _equity_ and _justice_, when we\nfind him placing his subjects under the necessity of violating\nhis will in one way or another, either his secret decrees or his\npublished enactments? When we find him rewarding one class of his\nsubjects for fulfilling his decrees, and damning another class\nwith everlasting tortures for doing precisely the same thing?\n\n(5). And where is his _benevolence_, when he freely chooses,\nprefers, ordains, and brings to pass all the sin and misery in\nthe universe?\n\n22. Again: It is obvious that this theory lays the foundation of\na new system of morals. If it be insisted upon that, notwithstanding\nGod has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, he is perfectly sincere,\njust, holy, and benevolent, we shall have obtained certain ethical\nprinciples which, if carried out into universal practice, would\nsubvert all social order, and destroy all confidence. For instance,\nit will follow:--\n\nFirst. That a ruler may secretly will, purpose, decree,\nforeordain, that his, subjects shall act in a certain way. He may\nput into operation effective measures to secure their concurrence\nwith his designs. Meantime, he may profess a profound and\ninsuperable dissatisfaction with a very large proportion of the\nactions which he has predetermined and induced; he may indignantly\ncondemn and threaten to punish the actors; he may do all this,\nand yet be perfectly sincere. In other words, what men usually\nregard as the most thorough-paced duplicity, is in entire accordance\nwith perfect sincerity. By this principle, the worst hypocrite that\never lived may be fully vindicated from the charge of hypocrisy.\n\nAgain: A being may give existence to a vast multitude of other\nbeings, inferior, dependent, but yet intelligent. He may assert\nover their actions the most absolute control. He may predetermine\nand bring to pass every one of their actions. He may \"shut up all\nother ways of acting, and leave that only open which he had\ndetermined to be done.\" Meanwhile, he may issue laws peremptorily\nrequiring conduct directly opposite to his unchangeable\npredeterminations, thus placing his creatures under the dire\nnecessity of violating his secret decrees, or his published laws;\nand yet he may, with perfect justice, arraign, condemn, and\npunish them for the violation of these laws, consigning them to\neternal misery. This theory will furnish us with a criterion of\nmoral character--a code by which the Neros, Domitians, Caligulas,\nand Diocletians, whom men have reprobated and abhorred as\ntyrants, may be triumphantly vindicated and made honorable.\n\nAgain: A being may be the author, or, if not, in the strictest\nsense, the author, at least the planner, the prime mover of all\nthe wickedness that ever existed. He may use effective influences\nin bringing it to pass, so that it may be said, in truth, that he\nfreely and unchangeably preordained and produced it, and yet he\nmay be perfectly holy.\n\nAnd again: A being may purpose, foreordain, and bring to pass all\nthe sin and misery in the universe, and yet be perfectly\nbenevolent. Here is a principle of ethics which will more than\ncover and vindicate the most atrocious cruelties of the Romish\ninquisition. The rum-seller, so called, who is the agent of\nincalculable mischief, may find under it the most ample\nprotection. His designs terminate upon the sale of his liquors,\nand the gains which result. If he could sell his fiery commodity,\nand secure his gains without the misery, he would. But, according\nto our new code of ethical principles, he might go much further.\nHe might design, as an end, all the wretchedness that results,\nand prosecute his traffic as a means to secure that end, and yet\nbe perfectly benevolent.\n\nIs it not plain that this theory, if adopted and carried out to\nits legitimate logical results, must revolutionize and reverse\nall our established conceptions of wisdom, sincerity, holiness,\nequity, justice, and benevolence, and introduce an entirely new\nestimate of moral conduct?\n\n23. Further: This theory furnishes the most complete\njustification of all the conduct of the worst men that ever\nlived, both by the ethical principles which may be deduced from\nit, and by the single consideration that their every action is in\nperfect harmony with the Divine will. The New Testament speaks of\nmen being without excuse; but I ask, what better excuse can be\ndesired than that the conduct in question is in precise\naccordance with the will of God? Men sometimes think it an\napology to say that they acted hastily--that they were misled by\nothers--that they were not aware of the mischief likely to result\nfrom their course; but this doctrine puts them at once upon the\nhighest possible ground of justification. The poor reprobate may\nbe silenced, at the day of judgment, by the terrors which\nsurround him, and by the stern authority of the judge, but _not\nby the want of a valid plea_. When the sentence shall go forth\nconsigning him to perdition for the deeds done in the body, he\nwill have in readiness, whether allowed to utter it or not, the\nunanswerable answer: \"Lord, the deeds for which I am condemned\nwere in all respects what thou didst predetermine. I have\nexecuted from first to last thy wise and holy counsels. Had I\nacted otherwise, I should have frustrated thy free purposes,\nformed before the foundation of the world. I have, indeed, gone\ncontrary to thy published law, but that thou didst render\ninevitable by making that law antagonistic to thy eternal decree,\nwhich thou dost not allow to be thwarted, in any instance, by man\nor angel.\"\n\nThis plea would be equally conclusive before any human tribunal.\nThere are Calvinistic lawyers, or lawyers who are members of\nCalvinistic churches or congregations. The names of some of these\nare appended to a note soliciting for publication Dr. Boardman's\nsermons on _Election_. In defending alleged criminals, men of\ntheir profession often tax their ingenuity to the utmost for\narguments. If the insanity of the prisoner can be established,\nthey expect his acquittal, though he may have perpetrated the\nfatal violence. But why do they never offer, in behalf of the\nprisoner intrusting his case to them, that he has done nothing\nbut what God willed and decreed from all eternity he should do?\nthat, from the beginning to the end of the affair, he was but\nexecuting the counsels of Heaven--counsels which Heaven never\nsuffers to be frustrated, either as to the end, or the instrument.\nSome of them believe the doctrine, and desire that the public\nshould believe it. Why, then, do they never plead it when pledged\nto give their client the benefit of every available argument? Is\nit nothing to be able to say for him that he has not swerved a\nhair's-breadth from the designs of the great Sovereign of the\nuniverse, at whose judgment-seat all the decisions of human\ntribunals will be reviewed? They dare not offer such a plea.\nThey know that common sense would laugh them out of countenance,\nif not out of court. And if all present were believers in the\ndoctrine, they could not attempt to reduce it to its legitimate\npractical application without laughing in each other's faces--\nsuch is its essential absurdity. They may circulate it in\nsermons, in which eloquent nonsense is drivelled with impunity,\nbut they will not venture to propound it in a court, where common\nsense and equity bear sway.\n\n24. If this doctrine be true, it is wholly unnecessary for any of\nyou to impose any restraint upon your passions or wills. Are you\ntempted to indulge in sensuality, or to defraud your neighbor,\nand even to assassinate him? And does the inquiry arise in your\nmind whether the act to which you are tempted is according to the\nwill of God? You have only to do it, and the result proves that\nit is decreed. So says Mr. Barnes: \"The result, by whatever means\nbrought about, expresses the design of God.\" If the act be not\ndecreed, you cannot do it, though you try. If you can, it is\ndecreed _that you should_; and your doing it is as inevitable as\ndestiny itself. So you may just go forward, and the result will\nbe right; that is, if God's decrees are right.\n\n25. It is also an obvious consequence of this doctrine that no\nman can contribute anything to hip personal salvation; that his\nsalvation or damnation is fixed wholly by the Divine decrees. He.\ncannot influence his destiny by any effort he can make. There is\nno use in his trying. Indeed, the _Westminster Confession of\nFaith_ informs us directly that man is \"altogether passive\" in\n\"regeneration,\" and that his \"perseverance\" \"depends not upon his\nown free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of\nelection.\" So that all the exhortations of the gospel and of the\npulpit, are utterly irrelevant. There is a very significant\npassage bearing upon this point in Chalmer's discourse on\nPredestination: \"And now,\" says he, \"you can have no difficulty\nin understanding how it is that we make our calling and election\nsure. _It is not in the power of the elect to make their election\nsurer in itself than it really is, for this is a sureness which\nis not capable of receiving any addition_. It is not in the power\nof the elect to make it surer to God--for all futurity is\nsubmitted to his all-seeing eye, and his absolute knowledge\nstands in need of no confirmation. But there is such a thing as\nthe elect being ignorant for a time of their own election, and\ntheir being made sure of it in the way of evidence and discovery.\"\nThe amount is that a man may ascertain by exertion the fact of his\nelection, but he can do nothing towards securing it. Thus Mr.\nWesley's famous consequence is established. \"The elect shall be\nsaved, do what they will; the reprobate shall be damned, do what\nthey can.\" It is plain from these reasonings that this doctrine\ntends to spiritual inactivity, and countenances licentiousness.\n\nBut we are told, by Dr. Boardman, that the Divine \"decrees are\nnot the rule of our duty;\" that \"we are not held responsible for\nnot conforming to them;\" that \"we are not bound to act with the\nleast reference to them.\" (p. 45.) What! The subjects of a\ngovernment not bound to act with the least reference to the\ndecrees of its sovereign!--not responsible for not conforming to\nthem!! This is surely a strange doctrine. It is an indirect\nconcession that the practical bearing of the Calvinistic doctrine\nof decrees cannot be defended. But it is said that we have no\nright to make God's secret decrees our rule. Very true. We are\nnot arguing from his secret decrees, but from what our brethren\nprofess to know. If the doctrine in question be a secret, we\nwould like to know by what authority it is so confidently stated\nin the _Confession of Faith_ and the _Catechism_. How did they\ncome by the knowledge of God's secret decree? They may claim to\nbe better educated than we are, and more intelligent, to have\nminds of a superior natural constitution; but we protest against\ntheir claiming to be intrusted with the secrets of heaven.\n\n26. This wonderful doctrine makes out the devil and his angels to\nbe faithful servants of God. They have done, throughout the past,\nand are doing now, precisely what God, in his wise and holy\ncounsel, foreordained they should do.\n\n27. It leads to Universalism. If all beings do as God has\ndecreed, upon what ground can God punish any of them, then, in\nfuturity? You have only to connect with this doctrine the\ndeclaration that God is benevolent, or just, and Universalism\nfollows.\n\n28. It leads to rank infidelity. It is to my mind more reasonable\nto believe that God has made no written revelation of his will,\nthan that he has revealed such a doctrine as this. Let the\nopinion become prevalent that it is a doctrine of the Bible, and,\nas the consequence, the Bible will be rejected by thousands, yea,\nhundreds of thousands. It is impossible for the ablest disputant\nto maintain a respectable argument against infidelity while\nstanding upon this ground. He must assume the opposite ground, as\nthe basis of his argument, or he will fail signally. The infidel\nobjects to the Bible that it represents God as sanctioning crime,\nand making favorites of its perpetrators, and hence concludes\nthat it cannot be true.\n\nThe usual reply is that, so far from having sanctioned vice and\nits perpetrators, he has solemnly prohibited it; that he holds\nthe perpetrator guilty, condemns him to severe punishment, and\nwill remit that punishment only in view of repentance, and\nreformation, and an atonement which fully vindicates the Divine\ngovernment, and most impressively manifests its abhorrence of the\ncourse pursued by the transgressor. But what says this doctrine?\nThat God has freely, and from all eternity _willed, decreed,\nforeordained, whatsoever_ comes to pass. The infidel objects that\nthe Bible contains contradictions, and hence cannot be the word\nof God. The usual answer admits that God cannot contradict\nhimself, but denies that the Bible is chargeable with self\n-contradiction. Whereas, this doctrine declares that God has\ndecreed and brought to pass all the contradictions that were ever\nuttered. Can it be that God is the author of a book which\nrepresents him as ordaining and bringing to pass all the acts of\ncrime and folly that were ever committed, including all the lies\nthat were ever uttered, as having two hostile wills in relation\nto the same event, as decreeing that his creatures should pursue\na certain course, and yet commanding them to pursue a contrary\ncourse, and then, damning them, thousands upon thousands, for\ndoing what he decreed they should do? It is impossible for the\ninfidel to frame a stronger argument than this doctrine supplies\nhim with.\n\nI have shown, unanswerably, I think, that this doctrine leads, by\nobvious deduction, to the doctrine that God prefers sin to\nholiness in every instance in which sin takes place, and that sin\nis the necessary means of the greatest good. I will now quote an\neminent Calvinistic minister upon the tendencies of this\ndoctrine. He is commenting upon what he calls \"the third\nsolution\" of the question, \"For what reason has God permitted sin\nto enter the universe?\" which he states to be that \"God chose\nthat sin should enter the universe as the necessary means of the\ngreatest possible good. Wherever it exists, therefore, it is, in\nthe whole, better than holiness would be in its place\"--the very\ndoctrine which we are told by high Calvinistic authority, has\nbeen a \"common sentiment among New England divines since the days\nof Edwards.\" He says:--\n\n\"The third solution has been extensively adopted by philosophers,\nespecially on the continent of Europe; and its ultimate reaction\non the public mind had no small share, we believe, in creating\nthat universal skepticism which at last broke forth upon Europe,\nin all the horrors of the French Revolution. While the profoundest\nminds were speculating themselves into the belief that sin was the\nnecessary means of the greatest good, better on the _whole_, in\neach instance, than holiness would have been in its place--common\nmen were pressing the inquiry, 'Why, then, ought it to be punished?'\nVoltaire laid hold of this state of things, and assuming the\nprinciple in question to be true, carried round its application to\nthe breast of millions. In his _Candide_, one of the most amusing\ntales that was ever written, he introduces a young man of strong\npassions and weak understanding, who had been taught this doctrine\nby a metaphysical tutor. They go out into the world, to 'promote the\ngreatest good' by the indulgence of their passions; certain that,\n_on the whole_, each sin is better than holiness would have been\nin its place. But when Candide begins to suffer the natural\nconsequences of his vices, he feels it to be but a poor consolation,\nthat others are now reaping the benefit of his sin. Is it surprising\nthat such a work induced thousands to disbelieve in the holy\nprovidence of God, and prepared multitudes to 'do evil that good\nmight come?'\" (_Christian Spectator_, vol. i. pp. 378, 9.)\n\nIt would be easier, and more reasonable, to believe in a\nplurality of gods, than that one God should be capable of such\nconflicting counsels. And this would bring us to the verge of\nAtheism.\n\n29. This doctrine covers with the wing of its sanction all the\nerrors that were ever promulgated or conceived. I do not say that\nthey all grow out of it, but that it justifies them. Why should I\noppose Romanism, or Universalism, or Socinianism, or Puseyism, or\nInfidelity, when they are all decreed by Jehovah? Christendom\npresents the strange spectacle of men prying into systems,\nbringing to the light, condemning, and holding up to public odium\ntheir errors of theory and practice, and, yet, holding as a\nfundamental article of their own creed that God from all eternity\nfreely decreed, whatsoever comes to pass. Let them first reject\nand refute the error which vindicates all errors. What right has\na Calvinist to find fault with anything?\n\n30. Again: It clearly follows, from this theory, that any attempt\nto prevent the commission of sin in our neighbors, is not only in\nopposition to the primary--the original will, the eternal\npurposes of God, but is also in opposition to the highest good of\nthe universe; and that we should, as reasonable beings, rejoice\nin every instance of sin--of lying, robbery, uncleanness, and\nmurder--as in every instance of holiness.\n\n31. I do not identify this doctrine with pagan fatalism, but I\nhold that it is akin thereto, and that it tends to the same\npractical results. It is, in my opinion, worse than pagan\nfatalism. That doctrine represents all events and actions as\nstrictly necessary, but it binds the gods as well as men. All bow\nto that mysterious power called fate. Thus it relieves the gods\nof all blame. But Calvinism asserts the freedom of Jehovah, and\nthen imputes to him the foreordination of whatever occurs in the\nwhole universe, and thus, by plain logical consequence, fastens\nupon him all the just blame of whatever is exceptionable.\nCalvinism is not pagan fatalism. It is Christian fatalism. It is\nfatalism baptized.\n\n\n\nDISCOURSE III.\n\n\n\"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being\npredestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all\nthings according to the counsel of his own will.\"--EPH. i. 11.\n\nIN the preceding discourse, I showed that the Calvinistic\ndoctrine of the Divine decrees leads to the following consequences,\nnamely, that man is not a free agent; that he is not properly\naccountable for his conduct; that there is no sin in the world; or,\nthat, if there be sin, God is the author of it; or, that, if he be\nnot strictly and properly the author, he is at least the prime\nmover of it; that, if sin exist, God prefers sin to holiness in\nevery instance in which sin takes place; that sin is not an evil,\nbut a real good; that whatever is is right; that there is no\nreasonable ground for repentance, or for prayer, or for pardon;\nthat regeneration is nothing else than a change from perfect\nconformity to the will of God in one way, to perfect conformity to\nthe will of God in another way; that the doctrines of the fall and\nredemption by Christ are gross and palpable absurdities; that man\nis not in a state of probation; that God has two hostile wills\nrelative to the same thing; that, not only are his secret decrees\nand his written laws at variance, but he has also decreed and brings\nto pass opposite and contradictory events; that civil government is\nwholly unreasonable; that there is in fact no moral government; that\nGod is not holy, or just, or wise, or truthful, or benevolent; or,\nthat if God be nevertheless holy, and wise, and true, and just, and\ngood, we have the foundation of a new system of morals, which, if\nadopted, must reverse all our estimates of moral character; that man\ncannot contribute anything to his personal salvation; that the devil\nand his angels are as faithful servants of God as any of his elect.\nIt was shown that it leads to Universalism and to rank infidelity;\nthat it sanctions all the errors that were ever promulgated; that it\nfurnishes a complete justification of the worst conduct of the worst\nmen, that ever lived, tends to paralyze all effort to resist\ntemptation, and condemns as impious any opposition to the commission\nof sin by our neighbors, and, finally, that it is worse than the\npagan doctrine of fatalism.\n\nI shall now endeavor to present the true doctrine. As has been\nsaid, we do not object to the doctrine of predestination, but to\nthe Calvinistic doctrine. The question is not whether God is a\nSovereign, or whether he has his purposes or decrees, but how\ndoes he exercise his sovereignty--what are his purposes and\ndecrees? We deny that he has foreordained whatsoever comes to\npass.\n\nFor all our information upon this great question we must inquire\nof the sacred oracles. We understand them to teach that God,\nforeseeing, though not ordaining, the transgression of our first\nparents, decreed that it should subject them to the penalty of\ndeath--eternal death. \"In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou\nshalt surely die.\" He also decreed that their condition should\nnot be at once irremediable, but that a second probation should\nbe allowed them. He also decreed that an atonement should be\nmade, by which the claims of his government should be vindicated,\nwhile he granted to the offenders a respite, and the advantages\nof a new trial, and which should lay a firm foundation for\nwhatever acts of mercy should be extended to them and their\nposterity. He further decreed that this atonement should be\neffected by the suffering and death of his Son, who, for the\npurpose of effecting this atonement, should assume our nature,\nand become God-man. The apostle instructs us that he was\n\"delivered\" to suffering and death, \"by the determinate counsel\nand foreknowledge of God.\" It was also decreed that the benefits\nof this atonement should extend to all Adam's posterity--that\nChrist should die for all. He gave him \"a ransom for all,\" that\nhe, \"by the grace of God, should taste death for every man.\" It\nwas also predetermined in the counsels of Heaven, that a change\nshould take place in the administration of the Divine government.\nThe first administration, sometimes called the Adamic law or\ncovenant, was suited to beings perfectly innocent and pure, but\nnot to fallen beings, as it made no provision for pardon or moral\nrestoration. Under its authority the sinner could have no hope.\nAnother decree provides that the Son of God shall bear the\nsceptre of authority--that the government shall be upon his\nshoulders. To this arrangement we suppose the words of the\nPsalmist to refer: \"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of\nZion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou\nart my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will\ngive the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts\nof the earth for thy possession.\" (Ps. ii. 6, 7, 8.) Also the\nprayer of the apostle Paul, in which he speaks of \"the mighty\npower\" of God, \"which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him\nfrom the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly\nplaces, far above all principality, and power, and might, and\ndominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world,\nbut also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under\nhis feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the\nchurch, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in\nall.\" (Eph. i. 21, 23.) It is further ordained that, under this\nnew arrangement, faith shall be the condition of the sinner's\nacceptance with God--that whosoever believeth shall be pardoned\njustified from all things; that the act of faith which secures\nthe pardon of one sin shall secure the pardon of all then\nchargeable; that whosoever is pardoned shall be made holy,\nconformed to the image of the Son of God, and made a child of God\nby adoption. \"For whom he foreknew, them he also did predestinate\nto be conformed to the image of his Son.\" \"Having predestinated\nus to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, unto himself,\naccording to the good pleasure of his will;\" that the great\nmediatorial scheme should be developed in successive dispensations,\nusually distinguished as the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian\ndispensations; that one nation of people should be selected as the\ndepository of the sacred oracles, and as a theatre for the exhibition\nof the true religion; that in the fulness of time, Jews and Gentiles\nshould be placed upon one common ground of religious privilege, the\npartition wall being broken down. It is also decreed that there shall\nbe a general judgment. God hath appointed a day in the which he will\njudge the world; that there shall be a resurrection of the bodies of\nmen; that the bodies of the saints at the resurrection shall be made\nvery glorious; that the righteous of every age and country shall\nultimately be gathered into one glorious place, from which all\nsin and pain shall be excluded, and shall constitute one undivided\nfamily forever. \"Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given\nme be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory.\" \"Having\nmade known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good\npleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation\nof the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things\nin Christ, both which are in Heaven and which are on earth.\" And,\nfinally, it is decreed that while the righteous shall have life\neternal, the wicked, the finally impenitent, and unbelieving, and\nunholy, shall go away into everlasting punishment--shall be\nimprisoned in a place originally prepared for the first rebels\nagainst the Divine government--the devil and his angels.\n\nSuch, as I understand it, is the Methodistic, or Arminian,\ndoctrine of the Divine decrees. There is no difficulty in\nsustaining this doctrine by Scripture. It is not liable to any of\nthe objections which menace fatally the Calvinistic scheme. There\nis no difficulty in perceiving its harmony with man's free agency\nand moral accountability. It does not give the slightest occasion\nfor the question whether God is the author of sin. He has issued\ndecrees respecting it; but they are all condemnatory. None of\nthem preordain it. It does not admit the supposition of his being\na participant in any unholy deed or device. The question never\ncame up among Methodist divines, whether God prefers, in any\ninstance, sin to holiness? They would not, could not, consider it\na debatable question. Nor that other question--Is sin the\nnecessary means of the greatest good? Calvinism is justly\nentitled to the honor of originating such questions as these. No\none would ever think of affirming upon Arminian principles that\nwhatever is is right. Arminianism lays a firm basis for Divine\nmoral government, and also for civil government--for rewards and\npunishments. It not only relieves the Divine attributes from the\nfearful suspicions and imputations with which Calvinism dishonors\nthem, but surrounds them with a transcendent glory. It protects\nthe morality of the Bible from the devastating incursions to\nwhich Calvinism exposes it, and presents the most powerful\nincentives to piety. It does not throw the protecting shield of\nthe Divine decrees over every form of error and outrage with\nwhich earth is filled, or represent God as having two hostile\nwills. It forms no entangling alliances with heathen fatalism. We\nare not under the necessity of warning inquirers against\ncommitting themselves to the practical influence of the Arminian\ndoctrine of Divine decrees, by saying, with Dr. Boardman, that\n\"These decrees are not the rule of our duty. We are not held\nresponsible for not conforming to them. We are not bound to act\nwith the least reference to them.\"\n\nThe practical bearing of the Arminian doctrine is eminently and\nobviously salutary. It has not a single aspect which is not\nfavorable to piety and morality. Does a sinner tremble at the\nword of God? He is made to feel the force of the inspired\ndeclaration that the way of transgressors is hard, and to ponder\nthe advantages of reformation? Is he not appalled and paralyzed\nby the terrible announcement that all his misdeeds, the tendency,\nif not the nature of which he now contemplates with horror, are\nthe result of a power which he cannot successfully resist; that\nhe is bound to the hateful course of conduct which he deplores,\nby eternal decrees and that, in despite of any feelings or\ndesires he may have, his course may be predestined to be worse in\nthe future than in the past. O, no! He is assured that God never\npreordained sin. That he commands all men everywhere to repent,\nand that what he requires of men he will enable them to do. He is\ntold that nothing binds him to sin but his depravity, that he may\navail himself of the powerful influences of the Spirit of life in\nChrist Jesus, which can make him free from the law of sin and\ndeath; and that whom God foreknew, as repenting, and believing,\nand availing themselves of remedial provisions, he \"predestinated\nto be conformed to the image of his Son\"--he hath chosen \"to be\nholy and without blame before him in love.\"\n\nHas the man who is seeking with penitence and prayer the favor of\nGod profoundly humbling views of himself? Does he think it to be\na wonderful stretch of condescension and mercy in God to forgive\nhis innumerable and grievous offences? And does he wonder whether\nGod will, in addition to pardoning him, raise him to those high\nrelationships to the Godhead to which he has raised others? Will\nhe extend to me the grace of adoption? Will he constitute and\ncall me his child? Shall I be favored with those blessed\nintimacies--those varied and manifold advantages of which that\nrelation is the guaranty? How satisfactory the answer! You will.\nYou will be numbered with his sons and daughters, the coheirs\nwith his eternal--his only begotten Son. God hath not left this\nan open question. \"He hath predestinated us to the adoption of\nchildren by Jesus Christ unto himself.\" \"For unto as many as\nreceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God,\neven to as many as believe in his name.\"\n\nChristians, you entertain high hopes of heaven. And yet,\nsometimes, it seems too much for your faith that God should\nconfer upon you such blessedness and glory. Your faith almost\nstaggers at the promise. You are ready to say--\n\n   \"How can it be, thou Heavenly King,\n   That thou should'st us to glory bring--\n   Make slaves the partners of thy throne,\n   Deck'd with a never-fading crown?\"\n\nLet your faith be invigorated by the assurance that this is\nsettled beyond dispute by God's eternal purpose. It is decreed.\n\"To him that overcometh will I give to sit down with me on my\nthrone.\" \"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being\npredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all\nthings after the counsel of his own will.\" Nor has this measure\nbeen forced upon Jehovah. It is sometimes the case that\nsovereigns are compelled to yield privileges to restless and\nrevolted subjects. Sometimes contemporary sovereignties combine\nto force a reluctant ruler into arrangements contrary to his\npreconceived and preferred policy. Sometimes potent rulers yield\ntheir preferences to the sway of sage and influential counsellors,\nand find themselves committed to a policy which they execute with\nreluctance, and with exceptions. It is not so with any of the\ndecrees of the Most High. Who, being his counsellor, hath taught\nhim? He \"worketh all things according to the counsel of his own\nwill.\" \"It is the Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.\"\nIt is no less the pleasure of the Son: \"Father, I will that they\nalso that thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may\nbehold my glory.\" And he has power to carry out his purposes to\ntheir entire fulfilment. O, how precious is this doctrine of Divine\npredestination!\n\nYou may have enemies. There may be those who would deny you a\nplace in the church on earth. You may have been excommunicated\nand cursed for worshipping the God of your fathers after the\nmanner which some call heresy. Your enemies would fain keep you\nout of heaven. They profess to be able to do so. But they are\nmistaken. God has not left it to them to determine who shall\nenter heaven and who shall not. He has fixed the conditions of\nsalvation independently of their counsels--long before they\nexisted--before the sun began his course. \"He will have mercy on\nwhom he will have mercy.\" To accomplish their end, they must be\nable to go behind all human arrangements to the decrees, the\npurposes of heaven, and revoke them. Will they be able to do\nthat? Or, if unable to revoke, or induce him to revoke his\ndecrees, will they be able to defeat them by machinations or\nphysical resistance? Surely not. He will show them \"the\nimmutability of his counsels.\" He will say to them, \"My counsel\nshall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.\" \"There is no wisdom,\nor understanding, or counsel, against the Lord.\" \"He will make\nthe devices of the people of none effect.\" \"The Lord of Hosts\nhath purposed, and who shall disannul it.\" \"Hallelujah, for the\nLord God omnipotent reigneth!\"\n\nAnd how glorious are the prospects which the decrees of God\nunfold! These bodies must decay. One of those decrees consigns us\nto the grave; another provides that we shall be recalled--that\ndeath shall be conquered--shall be swallowed up of victory. The\nprearrangements of Heaven respecting the bodies of the saints,\nare thus disclosed: \"It is sown in corruption; it is raised in\nincorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It\nis sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural\nbody; it is raised a spiritual body.\"\n\nReligion does not extinguish or impair our social feelings, but\nrather refines and invigorates them; and, among the hopes that we\nhave been led to cherish, is that of a reunion with departed\nfriends in heaven, and a participation in the society of the good\nof other climes and ages; and it is expressly declared that the\nredeemed of subsequent ages shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac,\nand Jacob, in the Kingdom of God.\n\nAnd while this doctrine is so full of consolation to the\nChristian, and so fraught with healthful stimulus to piety, it is\nterrible to the sinner. He need not think to find anything in it\nto justify or to apologize for his crime, or his impenitency. Nor\nmay he indulge the hope that whatever may be the destiny of other\nsinners, he will escape the damnation of hell. There can be no\ninfluence brought to bear upon Jehovah sufficient to induce him\nto swerve in a single instance from his plans. The decrees of God\nare against him. He that believeth shall be saved. He that\nbelieveth not shall be damned. \"These shall go away into\neverlasting punishment.\" And he has power to execute his decrees.\nAll attempts at resistance will be as nothing. \"The Lord\nreigneth; let the people tremble.\"\n\nI have now presented the two rival theories. There is the\nCalvinistic doctrine, and there are the consequences to which it\nleads. We can easily detect the wisdom of the requisition that\nthe teachers of it shall handle it with \"special caution,\" and\naccount for their studiously keeping it out of sight during\nrevivals, and in their ordinary ministrations, and then seeking\nto divert attention from its practical tendencies by denying that\nthe decrees of God are to be taken as the rule or test of our\nconduct.\n\nBut do I not repeat an Arminian slander when I charge them with\npartially concealing or disguising the doctrine? No! We have high\nCalvinistic authority for the imputation. The following is the\ntestimony of a distinguished Congregational minister of New\nEngland, the Rev. Dr. Harvey:--\n\n\"There is a large number of orthodox ministers in New England\nwho, from family alliances, from constitutional delicacy of\ntemper, &c. &c., as I hinted above, will temporize and make\n_smooth work_, from an honest conviction that a full disclosure\nof the truth would _alienate their hearers_. The bitter revilings\nof base men have been gradually and insensibly leading Calvinistic\nministers to _hide their colors_, and _recede_ from their ground.\nDr. Spring's Church, at Newburyport, Park Street, especially in\nDr. Griffin's day, and a few others, have stood like the Macedonian\nPhalanx. But others have gone backward. _Caution_, CAUTION, has\nbeen the watchword of ministers. When they do preach the old\nstandard doctrines, it is in so guarded a phraseology that they are\nnot understood to be the same.\" (_Harvey on Moral Agency_, p. 174.)\n\nThis is clear and indisputable. The Methodist preachers are\nprobably included among the \"base men\" whose \"bitter revilings\"\nhave brought about this state of things, as none have done more\nto bring Calvinism into discredit.\n\nAnd yet, with all this caution, this doctrine is assiduously\ntaught to little children in Sabbath-Schools. It is presented to\nthem and inculcated without disguise. I almost shudder when I\nthink of it. Were all the wealth of this great city offered to me\nfor the privilege of teaching this doctrine to my children, with\nthe understanding that I would withhold counter-instruction, I\nwould spurn the offer. At least, I would do so until my mind had\nbecome reconciled to the proposition by a slow and painful\nprocess of self-depravation, which, I acknowledge, would not be\nan impossibility. The apostle Paul speaks of those who through\n\"love of money\" have \"erred from the faith.\"\n\nOur Calvinistic brethren may have some ground for claiming that\nthey are in advance of us in learning and intelligence, but it is\nto be hoped that they will not offer their holding this doctrine\nas proof of the justness of the claim. And if it be the case that\nsome minds are determined, by peculiarities in their original\nformation, to the belief of Calvinism, I thank God that mine does\nnot belong to that class. And, further, it may be a source of\nconsolation to us, in our imputed inferiority, that it does not\nrequire much learning or intelligence to refute Calvinism, or to\nmake its supporters ashamed of it.\n\nAnd when Calvinists ascribe our opposition to their doctrines to\ndepravity, and call our objections to it \"impious cavillings,\" as\ndoes Dr. Musgrave, we offer this apology, that our objections are\nnot alleged against what we understand to be the Scripture\ndoctrine; and that if their doctrine be true, and ours false, we\nare, after all, doing nothing but what God has wisely foreordained\nwe should do. We would also suggest to them that any opposition to\nour course is resistance to the will of Heaven, so that it is a\nfair question whether the charge of depravity should not take the\nopposite direction, But I do not retort it. Methodists never, so\nfar as I know, seek to raise the slightest suspicion of the piety\nof their Calvinistic brethren on the ground of their being Calvinists.\n\nThe assertion that Calvinism is specially and exclusively\nfavorable to civil and religious liberty, is a _sheer_ pretence.\nI will just state a few facts. When the Presbyterians obtained\nthe ascendency in England, they proceeded to establish themselves\nby law. The _Westminster Confession of Faith_ was intended for\nthe English Establishment. Presbyterianism is the established\nreligion of Scotland at this day, and also of Holland, Geneva,\nand some parts of Germany. Presbyterian ministers in Ireland are\nsupported, in part, by the British Government. They thus consent\nthat Methodists, Baptists, and others, shall be taxed for their\nsupport. That Presbyterianism is not the Established Church in\nthis country may be owing altogether to the fact that it has\nalways been too weak to place itself in that position. When the\nIndependents, in Cromwell's time, obtained the ascendency, they\nfollowed the example of the Presbyterians. The Congregationalists\nof New England, who are Calvinists, established their system, by\nlaw, in several of the colonies, and continued to be the\nEstablished Church after the Revolution, and until the other\nsects, combining with unbelievers, became strong enough to put\nthem down and change the State constitutions in favor of equal\nrights. And, within five or six years of the present time, a\nPresbyterian Church, in one of the States of this Republic,\napplied to the legislature, and obtained a grant of one thousand\nfive hundred dollars to be expended upon a Presbyterian church\nedifice. Many Calvinists have held, and many do yet hold\ndoctrines highly intolerant; and the history of Calvinism is\ncrimsoned by records of blood spilled in support of its tenets.\nIt would be great wisdom on the part of our Calvinistic brethren\nto allow the question of the bearing of Calvinism upon civil and\nreligious liberty to sleep, undisturbed.\n\nA very strong presumption of the unsoundness of the Calvinistic\ndoctrine of decrees arises from the fact that its advocates are\ncompelled, in answering objections to it, not only to disguise,\nbut also flatly contradict it, and to substitute for it Arminian\npositions; thus virtually conceding that it is indefensible. Dr.\nMusgrave, as we have seen, asserts explicitly that God has\nforeordained whatsoever comes to pass. He argues that to deny\nthis, would be in effect to deny that God is infinitely wise,\nbenevolent, and powerful. He says: \"We have proved, both by\nreason and revelation, that all things that come to pass are\nforeordained.\" He applies this doctrine to sinful actions in the\nfollowing manner: \"Now, that the whole of Pharaoh's conduct had\nnot only been foreknown but foreordained is indisputable.\" Again,\nhe says: \"In connection with the foregoing statements concerning\nthe crucifixion of the Saviour, let us single out the case of one\nof the individual actors in that awful tragedy, one whose part\nwas the most perfidious and execrable, and see whether his crime\nwas not before ordained, and he the individual predesignated as\nits perpetrator.\" He proceeds to the proof of this proposition.\nBut, when it becomes necessary to meet the palpable and\nirrefutable objections that this doctrine makes God the author of\nsin, and takes away the responsibility of the creature, he is\ncompelled to change entirely his ground. He substitutes\n_permission_ for _foreordination_, and defines permission to mean\nsimply not preventing. \"And is there no difference,\" says he,\n\"between God's making, or exciting men to sin, by his power or\ninfluence, and his _permitting_, or _not preventing_ them from\nsinning? Between his determining to produce the evil himself, or\nto cause others by his power to do it, and his predetermining to\n_permit_ men to abuse their liberty and to commit the evil by the\n_unprevented_ exercise of their own voluntary efficiency?\"\n\nI reply--there is a very great difference. It is nothing less\nthan the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. He is led\nto deny his own doctrine, and take refuge in the one he has tried\nso hard to refute.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Baker, of Texas, in a tract published by the\nPresbyterian Board of Publication, and entitled _The Standards of\nthe Presbyterian Church a Faithful Mirror of the Bible_, attempts\nto establish by Scripture the proposition--\"God from all eternity\ndid, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely\nand unchangeably foreordain whatsoever comes to pass.\" But in\nanother, published by the same institution, and entitled _The\nSovereignty of God Explained and Vindicated_, the design of which\nis to present the doctrine of Divine decrees in such a light as\nwill obviate the usual objections to the Calvinistic view, he\nsays: \"Certain things God _brings to pass_ by a positive agency.\nOthers he _simply permits_ to come to pass. And let it be\nremarked, permission and approbation do not, by any means, mean\nthe same thing.\" Again: \"Does any one ask what is the difference\nbetween _bringing_ to pass, and _permitting_ to come to pass? I\nanswer: God brought to pass the incarnation of his Son. He\npermitted to come to pass his crucifixion. The difference is as\nwide as the east is from the west.\"\n\nBut if God simply permits some things, why do the creed and the\ncatechism of the Presbyterian Church assert, so unequivocally,\nthat he has from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes to\npass, and that he executes, or brings to pass all his decrees?\nThe contradiction is manifest.\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Fairchild, in his famous _Great Supper_, says:\n\"Calvinists do not regard the decrees of God as extending to all\nevents in the same manner. Some things God has determined to\n_effect_ by his own agency, and other things he has decreed to\n_permit_ or _suffer_ to be.\"\n\nBut, if the Calvinistic doctrine be that his decrees merely\n\"extend to all events\" (a very different thing from his decreeing\nall events), and that while he \"decrees\" and \"effects\" some he\nmerely \"permits\" or \"suffers\" other events, what must we\nunderstand to be the Arminian doctrine, against which they are\ncalled to contend so earnestly? Are they prepared to acknowledge\nthat they have abandoned Calvinism and run into Arminianism? Do\nthey mean to say that there is no difference between these\nsystems on the point in question? Not at all. How then do they\npreserve the antagonism of the two creeds? What is the Arminianism\nagainst which they are arrayed? Dr. Musgrave thus attempts the\nsolution of this question.\n\n\"Now, I submit, whether the difficulty, thus confessedly pressing\nagainst both systems, is not capable on our principles, of a much\nmore full and satisfactory conclusion. For we not only say, as\nWesley does, that 'God knew that it was best, on the whole, not\nto prevent the first sin of Adam,' but we add, that, knowing\nthis, he determined not only to permit that, but all the sins\nthat he knew would follow from it, and to limit and overrule the\nwhole for his most excellent glory.\"\n\nIt seems, then, that the difference between Calvinism and\nArminianism respecting the Divine decrees is that Calvinism\naffirms that God knew it was best, on the whole, not to prevent\nthe sins which he has not prevented, but to permit, and limit and\noverrule them, while Arminianism affirms that God knew it would\nbe best, on the whole, not to prevent the _first_ sin, but\ndetermined to prevent all the sins that he foresaw would flow\nfrom it. What a strange statement! To what shifts are these men\ndriven by their unfortunate creed! Where does Mr. Wesley, or any\nother Arminian writer, say this directly or indirectly? Our\nauthor very wisely declines any references at this point. Mr.\nWesley does, indeed, deny that God permitted sin, even the \"first\nsin of Adam,\" in the sense of approving or tolerating it; but\nwhoever denied that God permits, in the sense of suffering--not\nforcibly preventing, the sins which actually occur? He appropriates\nto himself, unfairly, Mr. Wesley's doctrine, and then imputes to Mr.\nWesley a tenet so perfectly foolish that it may be doubted whether\nany man ever advanced it, whether sane or insane, drunk or sober.\n\nNo! these are not the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism\nrespectively. The reader will see the importance of the pains\ntaken, in the first discourse, to identify Calvinism. I proved\nbeyond dispute, that Calvinistic creeds, Catechisms, and other\ntheological treatises, teach explicitly, that God has purposed,\ndecreed, foreordained, whatsoever comes to pass; that in some way\nor other he brings to pass all events; that nothing will, or can,\ncome to pass but what he has ordained; that none of his purposes\ncan be defeated; that it cannot, with truth, be said of any\nevent--it may or may not occur; and that all actual results, by\nwhatever means obtained, are expressions of the design, or decree\nof God. Arminianism teaches on the contrary, that God has not\nordained whatsoever comes to pass--that some things he has\npreordained; that other things he has not, but has, nevertheless,\napproved and commanded them, leaving it to the free agency of the\ncreature to fulfil his requisitions; that other things, he not\nonly has not foreordained, but, has condemned and prohibited\nthem, and yet permits or suffers them to be, in preference to\nthat violent interference with free agency which would be\nnecessary to their forcible prevention.\n\nDr. Fairchild tells us that \"this distinction between a decree to\n_effect_ and a decree to _permit_ has been adopted by Predestinarian\ndivines in all ages.\"\n\nYes, in all ages Predestinarian divines have been compelled to\nabandon and contradict their creed in the progress, and for the\npurpose, of its defence. But Calvin himself formally discards and\nprotests against this distinction. He says respecting it: \"A\nquestion of greater difficulty arises from other passages, where\nGod is said to incline or draw according to his own pleasure,\nSatan himself and all the reprobate. For the carnal understanding\nscarcely comprehends how he, acting by their means, contracts no\ndefilement from their criminality, and even in operations common\nto himself and them, is free from every fault, and yet righteously\ncondemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence was invented the\ndistinction between _doing_ and _permitting_; because to many\npersons this has appeared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satan\nand all the impious are subject to the power and government of God,\nso that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and uses\ntheir crimes for the execution of his judgments. The modesty of\nthose who are alarmed at the appearance of absurdity, might perhaps\nbe excusable, if they did not attempt to vindicate the Divine\njustice by a pretence utterly destitute of any foundation in truth.\nThey consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will\nand command of God, and afterwards be punished for his blindness.\nThey therefore evade the difficulty, by alleging that it happens\nonly by the permission of God, and not by the will of God; but God\nhimself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this\nsubterfuge.\"\n\nBut Calvin protests in vain against resorting to this \"evasion\"\nand \"subterfuge.\" It is the only way in which the advocates of\nhis doctrine can make a plausible show of argument when pressed\nwith certain objections. Hence we find the Westminster divines\nemploying it. They tell us in their Confession of Faith, that God\nwas pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to _permit_\nthe sin of our first parents. Lest, however, the faithful should\nfall into a serious mistake, another part assures them that the\nprovidence of God \"extendeth itself to the first fall, and all\nother sins of angels and men, and that not by a _bare permission_,\nbut such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,\nand otherwise ordering and governing of them, &c.\" The nature of\nthat \"ordering and governing\" is explained in the declaration that\n\"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his\nown will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.\"\nBut how learned men can talk of God's permitting what he has\neternally and unchangeably ordained, is a mystery to some of the\nunlearned. Is it necessary to tell us, gravely, that God permits\nto come to pass that which from all eternity he freely ordained\nshall come to pass? He permits men and angels to do what he has\npredetermined they shall do, and what they cannot avoid doing!\nWonderful!!\n\nThe apology for this gross misapplication of language, on the\npart of men whose learning is sometimes magnified almost into\ninfallibility, is found in their distressing emergency. In no\nother way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.\nThe usefulness of this term \"permit\" is admirably indicated by\nthe account which a Presbyterian colporteur gives of an interview\nwith some who objected to the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees. He\nsays:--\n\n\"I felt myself, however, sometimes compelled to combat with the\nopponents of our Calvinistic creed. On one occasion entering a\nhouse, the members of which all attended the Presbyterian Church,\nbut were not members, I sold a Confession of Faith to the\ngentleman; his lady inquired what the name of the book was and on\nbeing told, after turning over its pages in a hasty manner,\nexclaimed: 'I could never allow that book to be under my roof--it\nshould not be read, and it never ought to have been printed.'\n\n\"What was I to do? The doctrine of our Church, so far as election\nis concerned, was attacked. After some little conversation on the\nsubject, I found that she and her son charged our Confession with\nteaching that God passed a decree which put the fall of Adam\nbeyond the possibility of escape.\"\n\nHere was an exigency. Let us see how he meets it. That the\nConfession does teach the doctrine which the lady and her son\nascribed to it, is as plain as anything can be. He _decreed\nwhatsoever comes to pass_, and _executes_ his decrees. Does he\nask her what objections she has to this doctrine and offer to\nrefute them? Does he directly and promptly deny that Calvinism\nteaches this doctrine? No! Such a course would be rather\nhazardous, considering the character of the books he was seeking\nto distribute, and did actually leave with them. What course,\nthen, does he take? \"I told her,\" says he, \"if the chapter on the\nfall of man said so, I was as loath to believe it as she was; and\nif she could find it so, I would condemn the doctrine.\" Mark! He\ndoes not say, unconditionally and unequivocally that he condemned\nthe doctrine, and was as loath to believe it as she was, but _if\nthe chapter which treated on the fall of man said so_. Well, what\nfollows: \"On turning to the 6th chapter, how surprised was she to\nread--This their sin God was pleased according to his wise and\nholy counsel to _permit_.'\" This word _permit_ helped him out of\nhis difficulty. \"Here was a fact,\" says he, \"of which they had\nnever heard before, and which gave them no little satisfaction.\"\nHe doubtless left them under the impression that the Confession\nof Faith does not teach that God decreed and brought to pass the\nsin of Adam. However, he did not leave them until they willingly\npurchased the _Confession of Faith, the Great Supper_, and\n_Fisher's Catechism_, which asserts, as I have already shown,\nthat \"the very reason why anything comes to pass in time is,\nbecause God has decreed it,\" that \"none of the decrees of God can\nbe defeated, or fail of execution;\" and that God \"predetermines\nthe creature to such or such an action, and not to another,\nshutting up all other ways of acting, and leaving that only open\nwhich he had determined to be done.\"\n\nAnother presumption in favor of Arminianism results from the\nreadiness with which Methodist preachers are installed as pastors\nof Calvinistic churches, both old and new school, with the\nunderstanding, if their own statements be reliable, that they are\nnot required to renounce or contradict the Arminian creed.\nArminian ministers are coming into great demand by Calvinists.\nThey are admitted into the Methodist ministry with the understanding\nthat they are sound Arminians. They remain for years without\nexciting the least suspicion of their orthodoxy. When, all at once,\nwithout any prior change of ecclesiastical relations, or intimation\nof a change of theological views, they walk into Calvinistic pulpits.\nI make no remarks at present upon the morality of this course, but\ndeduce that Arminianism preaching, to some extent, is necessary to\nkeep up Calvinistic congregations.\n\nMethodists, you may well prize your creed. Your ministers can\npreach it without reserve. You can defend it. The water of life\ncomes to you through no corrupting medium. You are in no danger\nof inhaling poisonous sediment. It will bear analysis. It comes\nto you fresh and abundant. Drink it, and dig channels wide and\nlong for its diffusion, that others may be blest as you are.","title":"The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":23261}