THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION EXAMINED AND REFUTED: BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF A SERIES OF DISCOURSES Delivered in St. George's M. E. Church, Philadelphia, BY FRANCIS HODGSON, D. D. PHILADELPHIA: HIGGINS AND PERKINPINE. No. 40 NORTH FOURTH STREET, 1855. Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by FRANCIS HODGSON, in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the UnitedStates in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. PHILADELPHIA: T. R. AND P. G. COLLINS, PRINTERS. PHILADELPHIA, July 13, 1854. Rev. FRANCIS HODGSON, D. D. DEAR SIR: We, whose names are hereunto annexed, having heard yourrecent series of discourses upon the "Divine Decrees, " andbelieving that their publication at this time would be of greatservice to the cause of truth, earnestly desire that suchmeasures may be taken as will secure their publication at anearly period. We therefore respectfully solicit your concurrence, and that you would do whatever may be necessary on your part tofurther our object:-- JAMES B. LONGACRE, P. D. MYERS, GARRET VANZANT, R. MCCAMBRIDGE, JOHN J. HARE, THOMAS W. PRICE, DANIEL BREWSTER, CHAS. MCNICHOL, WM. G. ECKHARDT, THOS. M. ADAMS, CHAS. COYLE, FRANCIS A. FARROW, BENJAMIN HERITAGE, THOS. HARE, J. O. CAMPBELL, SAMUEL HUDSON, JAMES HARRIS, JOSEPH THOMPSON, WM. GOODHART, DAVID DAILEY, R. O. SIMONS, JNO. R. MORRISON, AMOS HORNING, JAMES HUEY, ENOS S. KERN, JOHN FRY, JNO. P. WALKER, E. A. SMITH, JOHN STREET, JAMES D. SIMKINS, J. W. BUTCHER, S. W. STOCKTON, JACOB HENDRICK, FOSTER PRITCHETT. DEAR BRETHREN:-- The motives which induced me to preach the discourses on the"Divine Decrees" are equally decisive in favor of theirpublication, as you propose. I have taken the liberty torearrange some parts of them for the benefit of the reader. Yours, FRANCIS HODGSON. To Brothers LONGACRE, MYERS, and others. PREDESTINATION. DISCOURSE I. "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, beingpredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh allthings after the counsel of his own will. "--EPH. I. 11. IT would very naturally be expected of a preacher, selecting thispassage as the foundation of his discourse, that he would havesomething to say upon the subject of predestination. It is mypurpose to make this the theme of the occasion; and this purposehas governed me in the selection of the text. The subject is oneof great practical importance. It relates to the Divinegovernment--its leading principles and the great facts of itsadministration. Some suppose that the Methodists deny thedoctrine of Divine predestination, that the word itself is anoffence to them, and that they are greatly perplexed and annoyedby those portions of Scripture by which the doctrine isproclaimed. This is a mistaken view. We have no objection to theword; we firmly believe the doctrine; and all the Scriptures, bywhich it is stated or implied, are very precious to us. There is a certain theory of predestination, the Calvinistictheory, which we consider unscriptural and dangerous. There isanother, the Arminian theory, which we deem Scriptural and ofvery salutary influence. My plan is, _first_, to refute the falsetheory; and, _secondly_, to present the true one, and give it itsproper application. My discourse or discourses upon this subject may be more or lessunacceptable to some on account of their controversial aspect. This disadvantage cannot always be avoided. Controversy is notalways agreeable, yet it is often necessary. Error must beopposed, and truth defended. What I have to say, is designedchiefly for the benefit of the younger portion of the congregation. I feel that there devolves upon me not a little responsibility inreference to this class of my hearers. Many of them, I am happy tolearn, are eagerly searching for truth, and they have a right toexpect that the pulpit will aid their inquiries, and throw lightupon their path. The theory of predestination to which we object affirms that Godhas purposed, decreed, predetermined, foreordained, predestinated, whatsoever comes to pass, and that, in some way or other, he, byhis providence, brings to pass whatever occurs. The advocates of this doctrine complain loudly that they aremisunderstood and misrepresented. The Rev. Samuel Miller, D. D. , late of Princeton College, N. J. , in a tract on _PresbyterianDoctrine_, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, complains thus: "It may be safely said that no theological systemwas ever more _grossly misrepresented_, or more _foully_ and_unjustly vilified_ than this. " "The gross misrepresentationswith which it has been assailed, the _disingenuous_ attempts tofasten upon it consequences which its advocates disavow andabhor; and the _unsparing calumny_ which is continually heapedupon it and its friends, have _scarcely been equalled_ in anyother case in the entire annals of theological controversy. " "Theopponents of this system are wont to give the most _shocking_ and_unjust_ pictures of it. Whether this is done from _ignorance_ or_dishonesty_ it would be painful, as well as vain, at present, toinquire. " "The truth is, it would be difficult to find a writeror speaker, who has distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism, who has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared tounderstand it. They are forever fighting against a _caricature_. Some of the most grave and venerable writers in our country, whohave appeared in the Arminian ranks, are undoubtedly in thispredicament: whether this has arisen from the want of knowledgeor the want of candor, the effect is the same, and the conduct isworthy of severe censure. " "Let any one carefully and dispassionatelyread over the _Confession of Faith_ of the Presbyterian Church, andhe will soon perceive that the professed representations of it, which are _daily_ proclaimed from the _pulpit_ and the _press_, are _wretched slanders_, for which no apology can be found but inthe ignorance of their authors. " He places himself in very honorable contrast with those whom hethus severely condemns: "The writer of these pages, " says he, "isfully persuaded that Arminian principles, when traced out totheir natural and unavoidable consequences, lead to an invasionof the essential attributes of God, and, of course, to blank andcheerless atheism. Yet, in making a statement of the Arminiansystem, as actually held by its advocates, he should considerhimself inexcusable if he departed a hair's-breadth from thedelineation made by its friends. " (pp. 26, 27, 28. ) This writer reiterates these charges, with interestingvariations, in his introduction to a book on the Synod of Dort, published by the same establishment. "They, " says he, "are everfighting against an imaginary monster of their own creation. Theypicture to themselves the consequences which they supposeunavoidably flow from the real principles of Calvinists, andthen, most unjustly, represent these consequences as a part ofthe system itself, as held by its advocates. " Again: "How many aneloquent page of anti-Calvinistic declamation would be instantlyseen by every reader to be either calumny or nonsense, if it hadbeen preceded by an honest statement of what the system, as heldby Calvinists, really is. " (_Synod of Dort_, p. 64. ) The Rev. Dr. Beecher says, in his work on _Skepticism_: "I have_never heard a correct_ statement of the Calvinistic system froman opponent;" and, after specifying some alleged instances ofmisrepresentation, he adds: "It is needless to say thatfalsehoods _more absolute_ and _entire_ were never stereotyped inthe foundry of the father of lies, or with greater industryworked off for gratuitous distribution from age to age. " The Rev. Dr. Musgrave, in what he calls a _Brief Exposition andVindication of the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees, as taught inthe Assembly's Larger Catechism_, another of the publications ofthe Presbyterian Board, charges the opponents of Calvinism ingeneral, and the Methodists in particular, with not only_violently contesting_, but also with _shockingly caricaturing_, and _shamefully misrepresenting_ and _vilifying_ Calvinism--with"systematic and wide-spread defamation"--with "wholesaletraduction of moral character, involving the Christian reputationof some three or four thousand accredited ministers of thegospel. " His charity suggests an apology for much of our"misrepresentation of their doctrinal system" on the ground ofour "intellectual weakness and want of education;" but, for our"dishonorable attempts to impair the influence" of Calvinisticministers, and "injure their churches, " he "can conceive of noapology. " The Rev. A. G. Fairchild, D. D. , in a series of discoursesentitled _The Great Supper_, likewise published by the PresbyterianBoard of Publication, complains in these terms: "Sectarian partisansare interested in misleading the public in regard to our realsentiments, and hence their assertions should be received withcaution. Those who would understand our system of doctrines, mustlisten, not to the misrepresentations of its enemies, but to theexplanations of its friends. " (p. 40. ) Again: "As these men cannotwield the civil power against us, they will do what they can topunish us for holding doctrines which they cannot overthrow by fairand manly argument. God only knows the extent to which we mighthave to suffer for our religion, were it not for the protection ofthe laws! For, if men will publish the most wilful and deliberateuntruths against us, as they certainly do, for no other offencethan an honest difference of religious belief, what would they notdo if their power were equal to their wickedness?" (p. 73. ) This writer expresses his sense of the "wickedness of those whooppose Calvinism" in still stronger terms: "If, then, thedoctrines of grace [Calvinism] are plainly taught in theScriptures, if they accord with the experience of Christians, andenter largely into their prayers, then it must be exceedinglysinful to oppose and misrepresent them. Those who do this willeventually be found _fighting against God_. We have recentlyheard of persons praying publicly against the election of grace, and we wonder that their tongues did not cleave to the roof oftheir mouth in giving utterance to the horrid imprecation. " (p. 178. ) Ah! These Methodists are very wicked! The Rev. L. A. Lowry, author of a recent work, entitled _Searchfor Truth_, published by the same high authority, discourses asfollows:-- "When I see a man trying to distort the proper meaning of words, and, presenting a garbled statement of the views of an opponent, I take it as conclusive evidence that he has a bad cause; morewhen he is constantly at it, and manifests in all that he does afeeling of uneasiness and hostility towards those who oppose him. During my brief sojourn in the Cumberland Church, I was calledupon to witness many such exhibitions, that, in the outset of myministerial labors, made anything but a favorable impression onmy mind. I found there, in common with all others who hold toArminian sentiments, the most uncompromising and _malignant_opposition to the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, whilethere was _not_ a man that I met in all my intercourse, that_could_ state fairly and fully what those doctrines are. Theirviews were entirely one-sided; the truth was garbled to suittheir convenience; and the creations of their own fruitful fancywere constantly being presented before the minds of the people, thereby deepening their prejudices, and drawing still closer thedark folds of their mantle of ignorance and bigotry. " (pp. 65, 66. ) Again: "It is painful to witness the ignorance and stupidity ofmen--their malignity and opposition to the truth--who havelearned to misrepresent and abuse Calvinism with such bitternessof feeling, till, like a rattlesnake in dog-days, they havebecome blinded by the poison of their own minds. " (p. 156. ) In this attempt to destroy confidence in the veracity ofArminians, so far, at least, as it is connected with theirrepresentations of Calvinism, leading individuals are singled outfor special animadversion. Dr. Miller assails the moral characterof Arminius. He says of him that, "On first entering upon hisprofessorship, he seemed to take much pains to remove fromhimself all suspicion of heterodoxy, by publicly maintainingtheses in favor of the received doctrines; doctrines which heafterwards zealously contradicted. And that he did this contraryto his own convictions at the time, was made abundantly evidentafterwards by some of his own zealous friends. But, after he hadbeen in his new office a year or two, it was discovered that itwas his constant practice to deliver one set of opinions in hisprofessional chair, and a very different set by means of privateconfidential manuscripts circulated among his pupils. " (_Synod ofDort_, p. 13. ) Dr. Fairchild speaks thus of a passage by Mr. Wesley: "In thedoctrinal _Tracts_, p. 172, is an address to Satan, which we haveno hesitation in saying is fraught with the most concentratedblasphemy ever proceeding from the tongue or pen of mortal, whether Jew, Pagan, or Infidel, and all imputed to the Calvinists. One cannot help wondering how such transcendent impieties everfound their way into the mind of man; I am not willing to transferthe language to these pages; but the work is doubtless accessibleto most readers, having been sown broadcast over the land. "(_Great Supper_, p. 150. ) He also indorses the charge of forgerywhich Toplady made against Mr. Wesley. (See p. 111. ) The late Dr. Fisk is charged with garbling the _Confession ofFaith_ for sinister purposes (p. 111); and with "scandalousimputations" against Calvinism. (p. 150. ) It is not impossible that our Calvinistic brethren should bemisrepresented. Nor is it impossible that they should misrepresentboth themselves and others. I do not admit that they are thusmisrepresented by their Methodist opponents, but it is not myintention to refute these charges at this time. I refer to themnow to justify the special caution which I shall observe inpresenting their tenets. They make it necessary for us to provebeyond the possibility of doubt that they hold the doctrineswhich we impute to them. I shall give their views in their ownwords. Calvin says, in his _Institutes_: "Whoever, then, desires toavoid this infidelity, let him constantly remember that, in thecreatures, there is no erratic power, or action, or motion, butthat they are _so governed _by the secret counsel of God, that_nothing can happen_ but what is subject to his knowledge, andDECREED _by his will_. " (Vol. I. P. 186. ) Again: "All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them insuspense, as though they might happen either one way or another. Yet, this remains a _fixed principle_ in our hearts, that _therewill be_ NO _event which God has not_ ORDAINED. " (_Ib_. P. 193. ) Again: "They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded bythe will and command of God, and afterwards be punished for hisblindness. They, therefore, evade this difficulty, by allegingthat it happens only by the permission of God, and not by thewill of God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge. That men, however, _can effect_ NOTHINGbut by the secret _will_ of _God_, and can _deliberate_ uponnothing but what he has _previously decreed_, and DETERMINES byhis _secret direction_, is proved by express and innumerabletestimonies. " (_Ib_. P. 211. ) Again: "If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not also_dispose_ and _fix_ them by his _determination_, there would beroom to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresightrendered them at all necessary. But, since he foresees futureevents only in consequence of _his decree that they shallhappen_, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while itis evident that ALL _things come to pass rather_ by ORDINATIONand DECREE. " (Vol ii. P. 169. ) Again: "I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess plainly, withAugustine, 'that the _will_ of God is the _necessity of things_, and that _what_ he has _willed_ will _necessarily come to pass_. '" (_Ib_. P. 171. ) Again: "With respect to his secret influences, the declaration ofSolomon concerning the heart of a king, that it is inclinedhither or thither according to the Divine will, certainly extendsto the whole human race, and is as much as though he had said, that WHATEVER CONCEPTIONS we form in our minds, they we_directed_ by the _secret_ INSPIRATION of GOD. " (_Ib_. P. 213. ) Finally, for the present: "_What God decrees_, " says thiscelebrated writer, "must NECESSARILY _come to pass_. " (_Ib_. P. 194. ) I think it will not be said, by any one who has heard meattentively, that I either misrepresent, or misunderstand, Calvin, when I impute to him the doctrine that God has purposed, decreed, determined, foreordained, predestinated whatsoever comesto pass, and that he in some way or other brings to pass whateveroccurs. But it may be objected that we ought not to hold modernCalvinists responsible for all the doctrines of Calvin; that they"no further indorse them than as they are incorporated into theiracknowledged creeds. " To this we cordially assent. By this rulewe will abide. What, then, is the language of the _WestminsterConfession of Faith_, the established standard of orthodoxy inthe American Presbyterian Churches? The third chapter commendsthus: "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holycounsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordainwhatsoever comes to pass" (p. 15); and, at the commencement ofthe fifth chapter, we read: "God, the great Creator of allthings, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by hismost wise and holy providence. " Observe, he, according to this statement, not only _upholds_ and_governs_ all creatures, but _directs_ and _disposes_ all_actions_ and things, from the _greatest_ even to the _least_. The _Larger Catechism_ says, in answer to the question, "What arethe decrees of God?" "God's decrees are the wise, free, and holyacts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, hehath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained _whatsoevercomes to pass in time_, especially concerning angels and men. " The _Shorter Catechism_ answers the same question by these words:"The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose according to thecounsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hathforeordained _whatsoever comes to pass_. " The next question in this Catechism is: "How doth God execute hisdecrees?--_Ans_. God executeth his decrees in the works ofcreation and providence. " In a work, entitled _An Exposition of the Confession of Faith ofthe Westminster Assembly of Divines_, by the Rev. Robert Shaw, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, and revisedby the Committee of Publication, we find the following passages:"That God _must have decreed all future things_ is a conclusionwhich flows necessarily from his foreknowledge, independence, andimmutability. " (p. 58. ) Again: "The decrees of God relate to all future things withoutexception; _whatever is done in time was foreordained before thebeginning of time_. " (p. 59. ) Again: "If from all eternity he knew all things that come topass, then from eternity he _must_ have _ordained_ them" (p. 60). Again: "The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree;for God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he haddecreed they should be. " (p. 59. ) In another publication of this Board, entitled _Fisher'sCatechism_, we find the following questions and answers:-- "_Q_. What are the decrees of God?--_Ans_. The decrees of God arehis eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath _foreordained whatsoever comes topass_. " (p. 51. ) "_Q_. Are all the decrees of God then unchangeable?--_Ans_. Yes:from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeablyforeordained whatsoever comes to pass. " (p. 53. ) "_Q_. Does anything come to pass in time but what was decreedfrom eternity?--_Ans_. No: for the _very reason why anything_comes to pass in time, is _because God decreed_ it. " (p. 54. ) "_Q_. Are things that are casual or accidental positivelydecreed?--_Ans_. Yes. " (_Ib_. ) "_Q_. What has the decree of God fixed with respect to man'scontinuance in this world?--_Ans_. It has _immovably fixed_ theprecise moment of _every_ one's _life_ and _death_, with _everyparticular circumstance thereof_. " (_Ib_. ) "_Q_. How does God execute his decrees?--_Ans_. God executes hisdecrees in the works of creation and providence. " (p. 57. ) "_Q_. What is it for God to execute his decrees?--_Ans_. It is tobring them to pass; or give _an actual being in time_, to what he_purposed from eternity_. " (_Ib_. ) "_Q_. Does not God leave the execution of his decrees to secondcauses?--_Ans_. Whatever use God may make of second causes, inthe execution of his decrees, yet they are _merely tools_ in hisoverruling hand, to bring about his glorious designs, and must doall his pleasure. " (_Ib_. ) "_Q_. Are there not certain means by which the decrees of God areexecuted?--_Ans_. Yes; but these _means_ are _decreed as well asthe end_. " (p. 52. ) "_Q_. Is there an exact harmony or correspondence, between God'sdecree and the execution of it?--_Ans_. When the thing decreed isbrought actually into being, it _exactly corresponds_ to the ideaor platform of it _in_ the infinite _mind_ of _God_. " (p. 57. ) "_Q_. Can none of the decrees of God be defeated or fail ofexecution?--_Ans_. By no means. " (_Ib_. ) "_Q_. Does God's governing providence include in it his_immediate concurrence_ with every action of the creature?--Ans. Yes; God not only _efficaciously concurs_ in _producing_ theaction, as to the matter of it; but likewise _predetermines_ thecreature to such or such an action, and _not to another, shuttingup all other ways of acting_, and leaving _that only open_ whichhe had _determined_ to be done. " (p. 67. ) "_Q_. Why are the decrees of God said to be _absolute_?--_Ans_. Because they depend upon no condition without God himself, butentirely and solely upon his own sovereign will and pleasure. "(p. 52. ) On page 67 he tells us that "the _worst action_ that was ever_committed_, the _crucifying_ of the Lord of glory, was _ordered_and _directed_ by God. " The Rev. Dr. Musgrave says, &c. : "In the former chapter, weendeavored to explain and prove the three following propositions:-- "1. That _all things that come to pass_ in time, have been_eternally_ and _unchangeably foreordained_, because mostcertainly foreknown to the infinitely perfect Jehovah. " (p. 18. ) The Rev. Dr. Boardman, of this city, in his discourses on thedoctrine of election, not only quotes with approbation that partof the Confession of Faith which says, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freelyand unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (p. 49), butalso says: "Some persons appear to think that the Divine decreesare restricted to spiritual matters. This is so far from being acorrect opinion, that the Scriptures represent ALL EVENTS, however _trivial_, as being embraced in those decrees. " In thisconnection, he also affirms "that the Divine decrees embrace notonly _ends_ but _means_, and that both in temporal and spiritualthings, where an end is decreed, the _means_ by which it is to bereached or accomplished are _also decreed_. " (pp. 56, 57. ) Dr. Chalmers, in his discourse on Predestination, says: "Let usnot conceive that the _agency_ of _man_ can bring about _onesingle iota_ of _deviation_ from the _plans_ and the _purposes_of _God_, or that he can be compelled to vary in a single case bythe movement of any of those subordinate beings whom he hathhimself created. There may be a diversity of operations, but itis God who worketh all in all. Look at the resolute andindependent man, and you then see the purposes of the human mindentered upon with decision, and followed up by vigorous andsuccessful exertions. But these _only make up one diversity ofGod's operations_. The _will of man_, active, and spontaneous, and fluctuating as it appears to be, is an _instrument in hishand_--and he turns it at his pleasure--and he brings otherinstruments to act upon it--and he plies it with all itsexcitements--and he measures the force and proportion of each ofthem--and _every step_ of _every individual_ receives as_determinate_ a _character_ from the _hand of God_, as every mileof a planet's orbit, or every gust of wind, or every wave of thesea, or every particle of flying dust, or every rivulet offlowing water. This power of God knows no exception. It isabsolute and unlimited, and while it embraces the vast, itcarries its _resistless_ influence to all the minute andunnoticed diversities of existence. It reigns and operatesthrough all the secrecies of the inner man. _It gives birth toevery purpose. It gives impulse to every desire. It gives shapeand color to every conception_. It wields an entire ascendencyover every attribute of the mind, and the will, and the fancy, and the understanding, with all the countless variety of theirhidden and fugitive operations, are submitted to it. " It may be supposed that while we have shown clearly andindubitably that the doctrine which we propose to examine andrefute is held by Old School Presbyterians, it would be an act ofinjustice upon our part, should we impute it to those of the NewSchool. Many think that the New School have rejected the leadingdoctrines of Calvinism, as set forth in the Confession of Faith. This is a very erroneous impression. A writer in the _PresbyterianQuarterly Review_--a work recently originated and sustained by NewSchool Presbyterians--remarks as follows: "Whatever difficultiesthere may be in the philosophy of the fact, it is certain that theidea of Presbyterianism actuates itself theologically in Calvinism. "(Vol. I. No. I. P. 18. ) Again: "So far as we are informed, there is not a minister of ourbody who does not love and cherish the Westminster Confession ofFaith as the best human delineation of Biblical theology. " (p. 5. ) Again: "After fifteen years, in the body with which we areconnected, no man has moved to alter a tittle of the Confessionof Faith. " (p. 3. ) Again: "As we love the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms, weshall stand ready to vindicate them from Arminian, Socinian, andinfidel assaults on the one side, as well as Antinomian glosseson the other. " (p. 10. ) Again: "We must then, if we would obey the voice of God'sprovidence, teach our children the priceless glories of theirfaith" (p. 152). "Who tells them that the Westminster Confessionof Faith is a model of noble writing?" (p. 153. ) The _Westminster Confession of Faith_, with the _Catechisms_, hasrecently been republished by the authority of the New SchoolGeneral Assembly, as the creed of their Church. Had they made anymaterial changes in their creed, so far as Calvinism isconcerned, this would have been the time to manifest them. Butthe New School _Confession of Faith_ is a mere reprint of that ofthe Old School. The Rev. Albert Barnes, in a sermon in behalf of the AmericanHome Missionary Society, preached in New York and in Philadelphia, says of that institution: "It cannot be denied, it need not bedenied, that the form of Christianity which it seeks and expectsto propagate, is that which has been much spoken against in theworld, and known as the Calvinistic form, and that it expects tomake its way because there are minds in every community that arelikely to embrace Christianity in that form, because it ispresumed that the more mind is elevated, and cultivated, andbrought into connection with schools and colleges, the morelikely it will be to embrace that form. " (p. 38. ) Again, in a sermon preached before the New School GeneralAssembly, May 20, 1852, he commences a paragraph with thesewords: "The Calvinistic denomination of Christians, of which weare a part" (p. 12). Again, he says: "As this form of Christianityis represented in the great denominational family to which webelong, it combines two things--the Presbyterian form of government, and the Calvinistic or Augustinian type of doctrine. " (_Ib_. ) This eminent writer, whom I hold in very high esteem for hislearning, intelligence, and piety, notwithstanding his Calvinism, expresses his views of the Divine decrees in these words:-- "But on this point, the entire movement of the world bears themarks of being conducted according to a plan. We defy a man tolay his finger on a fact which has not such a relation to otherfacts as to show that it is a part of a scheme; and if of ascheme, _then of a purpose formed beforehand_. " (_Introd. ToButler's Analogy_, p. 53. ) Again: "The event which was thus foreknown, must have been, forsome cause, _certain_ and _fixed_, since an uncertain event couldnot possibly be foreknown. To talk of foreknowing a contingentevent as certain, which may or may not exist, is an absurdity. "(_Notes on Romans_, viii. 29. ) Again: "We interpret the decrees of God, so far as we can do it, by _facts_; and we say that the actual _result_, by whatevermeans brought about, is the expression of the _design_ of God. "(_Introd. To Butler's Analogy_, p. 43. ) The _Saybrook Platform and Confession of Faith_, which containsthe faith of the New England Congregationalists, holds preciselythe same language respecting the Divine decrees, with theConfession of Faith of the Presbyterian Churches. I am in possession of a work entitled _A Confession of Faith putforth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations ofChristians (baptized upon profession of their faith) in Londonand the country_; adopted by the Baptist Association, met atPhiladelphia, September 25, 1752. The chapters in this Confessionwhich relate to "God's decree" and "Providence, " are, with veryslight variations of phraseology, not affecting the sense, thesame with those in the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, and the_Saybrook Platform_. It is thoroughly Calvinistic. The _Baptist Catechism_, published by the American BaptistPublication Society, contains the following question and answer:-- "_Q_. What are the decrees of God?--_Ans_. The decrees of God arehis eternal purposes, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comesto pass. " The _Confession of Faith_ of the Dutch Reformed Church says: "Webelieve that the same God, after he had created all things, didnot forsake them or give them up to fortune or chance, but thathe rules and governs them according to his holy will, so that_nothing happens in this world without his appointment_. " Again:"This doctrine affords us unspeakable consolation, since we aretaught thereby, that nothing can befall us by chance, but by thedirection of our most gracious and Heavenly Father. " Mark, according to this, NOTHING _happens_ but with the APPOINTMENT andby the DIRECTION of our Heavenly Father. My hearers will, by this time, be fully convinced that I have notmisstated the Calvinistic doctrine of Divine predestination. The application of this doctrine to the final destinies of menand angels constitutes the Calvinistic doctrine of election andreprobation. Upon this point, Calvin says:-- "Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which _hehas determined in himself what he would have become of everyindividual of mankind_. For they are _not all created with asimilar destiny_, but _eternal life is foreordained for some_, and _eternal damnation for others_. Every man _therefore beingcreated for one or the other of these ends_, we say he ispredestinated either to eternal life or death. " (Vol. Ii. P. 145. ) Again: "Observe; all things being at God's disposal, and thedecision of salvation or death belonging to him, he orders allthings by his counsel and decree in such a manner, that _some menare born devoted from the womb to certain death_, that his namemay be glorified in their destruction. " (_Ib_. 169. ) Again: "I inquire, again, how it came to pass that the fall ofAdam, _independent of any remedy_, should involve so many nationswith their _infant children_ in eternal death, but because suchwas _the will of God_. Their tongues, so loquacious on everyother point, must here be struck dumb. It is an awful decree, Iconfess but no one can deny that God foreknew the future finalfate of man before he created him, and that he did foreknow it_because it was appointed by his own decree_. " (_Ib_. 170. ) Upon this point, the _Presbyterian Confession of Faith_, the_Saybrook Platform_, and the _Baptist Confession of Faith_, holdthe following language:-- "By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, somemen and angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and othersforeordained to everlasting death. "Those angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, areparticularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is socertain and definite, that it cannot be either increased ordiminished. "Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, beforethe foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternaland immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasureof his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, outof his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faithor good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any otherthing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving himthereunto, and all unto the praise of his glorious grace. " I do not say that Calvinists never contradict any of thesestatements. Nor do I profess to have spread out the entire theoryof Calvinism. The question now relates to their doctrine ofDivine decrees. I am fully convinced that the times demand a review andcomparison of the two opposing systems, Calvinism andArminianism. Our Calvinistic brethren, both Old and New School, are putting forth high claims in behalf of their system, andspeaking of ours in very disparaging terms. The Rev. Albert Barnes tells us, in his sermon in behalf of theHome Missionary Society, preached in 1849, that the more mind iselevated, and cultivated, and brought into connection withcolleges and schools, the more likely it will be to embrace theCalvinistic form of Christianity. He thinks that Calvinists willbe increased just in proportion as schools and colleges can befounded, and an intelligent and educated ministry sent out. Hedoes not suppose that the entire mind of the west will embraceCalvinistic views, but he does "expect that a considerableportion of the _educated_ and _ruling_ mind will" (p. 40). Hetells us, in his sermon delivered before the New School GeneralAssembly, convened in Washington in 1852, that past history hasshown that the class of minds most likely to embrace theCalvinistic system "is most likely to be found among thethinking, the sober, the educated, the firm, the conservative, and the free" (p. 10); that "the Calvinistic system identifiesitself with education, and a large portion of the cultivated mindof a community will be always imbued with the sentiments of thesystem. " (p. 15. ) This seems to imply, whatever may be intended, that Arminianismhas special affinities for ignorance; that it is more indebted toignorance than to intelligence for its diffusion; that itschances for success will be diminished, in proportion as soundeducation advances, and the ministry becomes intelligent. If thisbe so, Arminians are pursuing a suicidal policy; for no Christiandenomination has established as many colleges and academies inthe same length of time as the Methodists. That Arminianism takesbetter than Calvinism with _the masses_ is undeniable; but thismay be because it possesses a superior adaptation to the wants ofhumanity. Our Saviour gave it as a distinctive mark of theushering in of the last dispensation that the poor have thegospel preached unto them, which implies that the poor, andconsequently the uneducated, may understand it. Mr. Barnes goes further. He intimates that the differenttheological systems are "the result of some _original peculiarity_in certain classes of minds;" that "there are minds, not a few innumber, or unimportant in character, which, when converted, will_naturally_ embrace Calvinism. " He "will not undertake to saywhether John Wesley _could_ have been a Calvinist, but he can saythat Jonathan Edwards _could never have been anything else_. " Herepeats this sentiment three years after, in these words: "Thereare minds, indeed, and those in _many respects_ of a high order, that _will not_ [mark the phraseology!] see the truth of theCalvinistic system; but there are minds that _can never_ see thetruth of an opposite system. We could not perhaps undertake tosay whether John Wesley could ever have been a Calvinist, but we_can_ say that Jonathan Edwards could never have been anythingelse; and if there be a mind in any community formed like thatof Edwards, we anticipate that it will embrace the same greatsystem which he defended. " Now it is inconceivable that Mr. Barnes should consider theArminian superior or equal to the Calvinistic mind. That must bethe best mental structure which is most in harmony with the besttheory. The tenor of his remarks indicates clearly his opinionupon this point. I can hardly express the astonishment which I felt upon readingthis strange sentiment from so justly distinguished a writer. Itappeared to me to be grossly unphilosophical, implying eitherthat truth is not homogeneous; that contradictory propositionsmay be equally true; or that God has constituted some mindsfalsely. It is presumable that between truth and mind, in itsoriginal normal condition--mind not perverted by erroneouseducation, or prejudice, or passion, or depravity in any form--there will be a strict congeniality, so that truth will bepreferred to error. But this doctrine implies that one set ofminds will, under the same circumstances, from their peculiarnatural constitution, prefer the truth, and another set rejectit. It is obviously of very dangerous practical tendency. Whilethe Calvinist may refer to it to account for his being aCalvinist, and the Arminian to account for his being an Arminian, the infidel may claim that it is from the same cause that he isan infidel. His rejecting the Bible is the natural inevitableresult of the peculiar mental constitution which God gave him. Mr. Barnes tells us that Calvinism does not appeal to passion;but, if I am not very greatly mistaken, and you may judge whetherI am or not, its advocates appeal very significantly to pride ofintellect. It offers gross flattery as the price of adhesion andsupport. What else can be inferred from the passages which I havequoted, than that by becoming Calvinists you will classyourselves with minds of a superior structure, and with theeducated and cultivated, and will occupy an elevation from whichyou can look down upon the less favored Arminians? A writer in the New School _Quarterly Review_ has this remark:"Our physical frame could about as well be erect, and adapted forits purposes without a backbone, as piety be complete withoutCalvinism. " (Vol. I. No. I. P. 19. ) The Rev. Mr. Lowry, in his _Search for Truth_, claims that "thedoctrine of human depravity--the complete ruin of man--thejustice of his condemnation--the legal or covenant relation ofAdam and his posterity--the necessity of an atonement--and itsvicarious nature, " "belong exclusively to the Calvinisticsystem. " He admits that the "Arminian often makes use of the samephraseology as the Calvinist, " but then he rejects the "properand scriptural sense. " "The Arminian, " he says, "attempts toconnect with his system the doctrine of a vicarious atonement, because the phrase is a popular one, and he cannot well dowithout it; but when we come to examine its meaning, we find thatlie has no claim to it whatever. He may hold on to the name, butnothing more. The substance is as different from the view whichforms a part of his creed, as a city on the Atlantic coastdiffers from a small village in the backwoods. " (pp. 55, 56. ) Again: "The principles which lie at the foundation of theArminian doctrine of _ability_ and _grace_, are not onlycalculated to destroy the energies of the Church, and unhinge theinstitutions of society, as I have endeavored to show, but theygo still further; they enter the Christian's closet, and destroythe life and soul of his private devotions. They are calculatedto dry up every fountain, and destroy every spring of religiousfeeling and action. " (p. 86. ) Again: "Arminians are without any consistent and harmonioussystem of doctrine. It is true that, on speaking of the doctrinesof those who hold to Arminian sentiments, we are in the habit ofusing the word _system_, but it is only as a matter of convenienceand courtesy. Some of those doctrines may sustain a logicalconnection with others--such as the doctrine of falling from grace, and the denial of divine efficiency in conversion and sanctification--but Arminianism, as a whole, is a coat of many colors, that hasbeen patched and pieced since the days of Pelagius, according tothe taste and caprice of the man that wears it. " (p. 156. ) Again: "It requires but half an eye to see, that the view of thefall of man and the relation we sustain to Adam, as found in thestandards of the Methodist Church, vitiate the whole Gospelscheme; that the principles growing out of the view therepresented, lead to fundamental error with regard to the nature ofvirtue and vice, and destroy all human accountability; that thenature of the remedy found in the same standards necessarilydestroys all motive to intelligent action and labor upon the partof the Church in the great work before her, holds out noencouragement to prayer; degrades the character of God to that ofa debtor and apologist for injuries he has done to the creature;and exalts the creature to heaven by a kind of semi-omnipotenceof his own. Such consequences as these I say are _dangerous andruinous_. " (p. 157. ) This book derives its importance from its being adopted by thePresbyterian Board of Publication, and its bearing the _imprimatur_of that institution. It is commended by their catalogue as "wellworthy of perusal by those who have doubts as to the scripturalcharacter of those doctrines which ignorance and prejudice brandas the horrible dogmas of Calvinism. '" It was published in 1852. A writer in the _Presbyterian_, of June 25, 1853, thus expresseshis views of Arminianism: "Did we preach Arminianism to thepeople, we could get ten into our churches where we now get one;for it must be remembered that Arminianism is far more palatableto depraved nature than Calvinism. " Again: "These brethren go toofast, get men into the visible kingdom too soon; lull them toeverlasting sleep by their soporific measures and doctrinalanodynes, thereby breaking down the barriers which separate theChurch from the world, and ruining hundreds of souls where theysave one. Let our young men be made to feel rather thatArminianism is a dangerous delusion wherever it is preached, anduphold with all their might and main real old-fashionedCalvinism. " It is a very common thing with Calvinists to refer opposition toCalvinism to depravity, as its source. The _Presbyterian Banner_, for Nov. 5, 1853, contains the following: "The natural heartrecoils from predestination. The ungodly hate it. Our wholesystem is too humbling to human pride to find friends even amongthe vicious. This is to us a strong affirmation of its truth. " They also claim for Calvinism that it is not only speciallyconducive to civil and religious liberty, but that it isessential thereto. The Rev. Dr. Wilson, of the New SchoolPresbyterian Church, in an address delivered before the literarysocieties of Delaware College, in 1852, went out of his way toeulogize Calvinism in these terms: "Calvinism and human libertyflourish side by side, or rather the latter is not found withoutthe former; and nowhere at this hour is there _true freedom_, true independence of opinion in Church or State where Calvinismis not the foundation. " Calvinists must be very forgetful oftheir history, or they must suppose that all others are ignorantor forgetful of it. But it is not my intention, at present, toreply to this extravagant pretension. I do not object to the publication of these views from the pulpitand the press. If our brethren entertain them, they have a rightto publish them. It is manly to do so. But it may be obligatoryupon us to stand up for what we believe to be the truth, and tooppose what we believe to be error. I shall endeavor to do so, the Lord being my helper. DISCOURSE II. "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, beingpredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh allthings after the counsel of his own will. "--EPH. I. 11. IN the preceding discourse, I called attention to the fact that theopponents of Calvinism are frequently charged with misunderstandingthrough ignorance, or grossly misrepresenting it. I read passagesfrom several, charging us with calumny, defamation, slander, andeven blasphemy. In view of these charges, often made and reiterated, and widelyspread, with high official sanction, and likely to be repeatedwhenever Calvinism is boldly investigated, I deemed it necessaryto show, by numerous quotations, that I do not misrepresent itwhen I impute to it the doctrine that God has willed, proposed, and decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and that, in some way orother, he brings to pass whatever occurs. For this purpose, Ireferred to the acknowledged publications of the Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, and Reformed Dutch Churches. I noted, particularly, that this doctrine is held by the New SchoolPresbyterians, because it is supposed by many that they haveabandoned it, and that their rejection of it constitutes one ofthe points of difference between them and the Old School. I also quoted largely to show that earnest efforts are inprogress to exalt Calvinism, and disparage Arminianism andArminians. We now propose to test this dogma of Calvinism by reason andScripture. We shall not, at present, enter upon the examinationof the proof-texts, though we hold the Holy Scriptures to be theultimate authority on all theological questions, but shallcompare it with acknowledged Scripture principles. And, yet, itmay be very reasonably expected that some attention will be paidto the passage which, according to custom, has been selected aspresenting the subject of discourse. It is the very first proof-text adduced by the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, but itfails to meet the demand made upon it. It does not contain thedoctrine sought to be proved. It does, indeed, assert thepredestination of believers to certain blessings, a point not indispute, and also that they are predestinated to these blessingsaccording to God's purpose; but all this is very far fromteaching that _God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass_. The proof is supposed by some to be contained in the remainingportion of the passage--"who worketh all things, " &c. But we musttake the entire expression of the apostle in order to get hismeaning, "who worketh all things after the counsel of his ownwill. " By this he means to say, merely, that, in whatever Goddoes towards men or angels, he is uncontrolled. He carries outhis own free purposes. He does not conform to the counsels ofothers. He does not yield to the clamors of discontentedsubjects, or make concessions to contemporary and independentpowers. The words are thus paraphrased by McKnight, a Calvinisticcommentator: "According to the gracious purpose of him, whoeffectually accomplisheth all his benevolent intentions, by themost proper means, according to the wise determination of his ownwill. " We may, with as much propriety, argue from the apostolicinjunction, "Do all things without murmurings and disputings"(Phil. Ii. 14), that Christians are required by the law of God to_do all things_ absolutely, as, from the clause under consideration, that God has decreed and executes whatsoever comes to pass. But, ifour brethren insist upon so understanding the apostle, we shallhold them to their interpretation. We shall not allow them tocontradict it whenever the exigencies of the argument may render itconvenient. 1. In the first place, this theory of predestination isinconsistent with the doctrine of man's free moral agency. Theforce of this objection is readily perceived. It is _impossible_that we should be free agents, when all the _external circumstances_that affect us, and all our _mental_ and _bodily acts_, arepredetermined and brought about by God. Man is thus reduced to, amere passive instrument. He is nothing more than a complicate andcurious machine--a man-machine, an automaton--whose every movementis conceived, determined, directed, controlled by a supervisor. Itavails nothing to apply to him terms which signify freedom. We maysay that he has _the power to will_; that he _actually wills_; butthe difficulty is not relieved. The being who endowed him with thisfaculty has foreordained and brings to pass, by a well-directedagency, every movement of that faculty. We may say that he _willsaccording to his inclinations_, and is therefore free; but God hasdecreed and brings to pass all his inclinations. We may say that heacts according to his will, and not against his will; still nothingis gained, since all his purposes, and the movements by which heexecutes them, are equally preordained and brought to pass byGod. We may say that he is _conscious_ of _acting freely_, butthis is a mere delusion, if the doctrine we are considering betrue. By the very logic which reconciles it with free agency inman, I will undertake to prove that every steamboat and everyrailroad-engine is a free agent. Calvinistic free agency must besomething analogous to Bishop Hughes's freedom of conscience, indestructible and inviolable, in its very nature and essence; sothat a man may be denied the privilege of reading the Bible, orof propagating or entertaining any opinions contrary to theChurch of Rome--he may be thrown into prison, and put to torture, for refusing to subscribe to its dogmas, or to worship accordingto forms which he holds to be idolatrous--and yet he enjoysfreedom of conscience. So, according to the teachings of modernCalvinism, man is a free agent, notwithstanding all the_circumstances_ which _surround_ him, with all his _sensations, emotions, desires, purposes, volitions_ and _acts_ were _decreedfrom eternity_, and brought to pass by a power which he can_neither control_ nor _resist_. This free agency must then besomething absolutely inviolable in its nature and essence, something which God himself cannot destroy or impinge except byterminating the existence of the being in whom it inheres. AsBishop Hughes's freedom of conscience is very different from whatis generally understood to be freedom of conscience, so the freeagency which may be made to harmonize with this doctrine, isdifferent from what is usually understood to be free agency. Itis not the power to act otherwise than as we do act, or to chooseor will otherwise than as we do choose or will. 2. This doctrine, being at variance with man's free agency, is, by necessary consequence, at variance with his _moral accountability_. There would be as much reason in holding the _atmosphere_ accountable, or the _trees_, or the _grass_, or the _clods_, or the _stones_. Allhis _views_, _feelings_, and _volitions_, being thus predetermined, he can no more be accountable for them than for the _circumstances_of his _birth_, or the _natural color_ of his _skin_. He cannotreasonably be made the subject of commendation or censure--of rewardor punishment. 3. It also follows, from this doctrine, that there is not, andcannot be any such thing as sin. If man be not a free agent--ifhe be incapable of acting otherwise than as predetermined byJehovah--he is incapable of either virtue or vice. It would be asreasonable to predicate virtue or vice of the flux and reflux ofthe tides, or the circulation of the blood, as of man or angelunder such circumstances. And, mark! if we, for the sake of the argument, should admit thatman is capable of _virtue_, notwithstanding all his acts areforeordained and rendered infallibly certain by a power which hecannot successfully resist, he is still incapable of _vice_. Hecannot sin, for this plain, all-sufficient reason--he cannot actotherwise than according to the will of God. "Nothing comes topass in time but what was decreed from eternity. " "None of thedecrees of God can be defeated or fail of execution. " SoCalvinism explicitly affirms. Further, while the inference that there is and can be no sin isfairly deducible from the supposition that man is not a freeagent, it does not depend upon that supposition. Let it beadmitted, for the purpose of the argument, that man is a freeagent, and capable of sinning, notwithstanding all his actionswere predetermined, and what is the state of the case? _Still hehas not sinned_. He has done nothing but what God freely willedand ordained he should do. The perfect obedience of Christconsisted in his doing in all respects the will of the Father. Either, then, it may be sinful to do the will of God, or thereis--there can be no sin. I do not know of any way in which thisconsequence can be avoided. I do not believe that it can. Let us take another view of this point. Let the advocates of thisdoctrine succeed in proving that man is a free agent, in theproper sense of the term, and capable of sinning, notwithstandingall his actions are decreed and brought to pass by God, and wehave before us this remarkable result: _Every individual of thehuman race, while in a state of probation, without a knowledge ofGod's predetermination respecting him, and without any controllinginfluence brought to bear upon him, has, in every instance, willedand acted in accordance with the will of God_. The result is_universal voluntary holiness_. Here, then, is a dilemma. Eitherthere is _no possibility of sin or of holiness_, or, if there bea possibility of sin or of holiness, there is, in fact, _no sin_--there is, in fact, _universal holiness_. 4. If it be asserted that sin exists, notwithstanding thisperfect coincidence between the will of God and the conduct ofhis creatures, it will follow, most conclusively, that _God isthe author of sin_. He has decreed and brings to pass all thesensations, perceptions, emotions, inclinations, volitions, andovert actions, of the whole human race. Various attempts havebeen made to avoid this result, but they are all futile. The_Confession of Faith_ says: "God, from all eternity, did, by themost wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeablyordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is Godthe author of sin. " We pay all respect to this as a disclaimer. OurPresbyterian brethren do not intend to charge God with being theauthor of sin. But we are compelled to regard these propositionsas directly contradictory to each other. Is not a being the authorof that which he originally designs and decrees, and subsequentlybrings into existence? and is it not maintained that he decreedfrom all eternity, and brings to pass whatever occurs? Either sinhas not come to pass, or God is the author of it. It is uselessto say that God has brought to pass the act, but not the sinfulness. The sinfulness has come to pass. It is useless to say that sin isman's, and not God's act. Man does nothing but what God has decreed, and, in some infallible way leads him to do. "God's power, " says Dr. Chalmers, "gives birth to _every purpose_; it gives impulse to_every desire_, gives shape and color to _every conception_. " SaysFisher, in his _Catechism_: "God not only efficaciously concurs inproducing the action as to the matter of it, but likewise predeterminesthe creature to such or such an action, and not to another, shuttingup all other ways of acting, and leaving only that open which hehad determined to be done. " We might, with vastly more plausibility, deny that Paul was the author of his Epistles, because he employed anamanuensis, or, for the same reason, deny that Milton was the authorof _Paradise Lost_. It is useless here to speculate upon the reasonswhich induced God to ordain and bring sin to pass. We are now concernedwith the fact merely, and we hence conclude that he is the author ofsin and the only being properly answerable for it. 5. If the advocates of this doctrine should still insist that itdoes not make God the author of sin; that man is a free agent, and properly responsible for his actions, notwithstanding theyare foreordained; I press them with this plain consequence--Godis, to say the least, a participant in the sinning. And he is notmerely a _coadjutor_, but the _principal_--the principal in_every instance of sinning_. He originates the first conceptionof the sinning act. He forms the plan. He arranges all thecircumstances. He, by his providence, applies the influence bywhich the result is effectuated. Here, then, is a dilemma fromwhich there is no escape. Either God is, _strictly and properly_, the _author of sin_, or he is a _participant_ therein, and notmerely accessory, but _the principal_, the _plotter_, the _primemover_, the RINGLEADER thereof. 6. Another inevitable consequence of this doctrine is that, admitting the existence of sin, God _prefers sin to holiness_ inevery instance in which sin takes place. This consequence is tooplain to require much illustration. If God _freely_ ordainedwhatsoever comes to pass; if he was not under a fatal necessityof ordaining just as he did; if he had it in his power to ordainotherwise, he could have ordained holiness in the place of sin. The fact that he was free and unnecessitated in his decrees, andcould ordain the one or the other, according to his goodpleasure, is proof substantial that he prefers sin to holiness inevery instance in which sin occurs. Had he preferred holiness, hecould have decreed it, and it would have come to pass. Thisconsequence has been admitted, and is, by many Calvinists at thisday, maintained as a doctrine. In fact, it has been a matter ofdispute amongst Calvinists--Dr. Taylor, of Connecticut, takingone side, and Dr. Tyler, of Connecticut, taking the other. Butwhat a shocking conception! (See _Christian Spectator_, vol. Iv. P. 465. ) 7. Nor can we resist the further conclusion, from these premises, that sin is not a real evil, but, on the contrary, a good, andthat in every instance in which it is preferred to holiness, itis worthy of such preference. This reasoning proceeds upon theassumption that God is a being of infinite goodness and wisdom, and, therefore, always prefers good to evil, being, of course, always able to distinguish the one from the other. This inference also has been admitted by many of the advocates ofCalvinistic predestination. They distinctly affirm that sin isthe necessary means of the greatest good, and, as such, so far. As it exists, is preferable on the whole to holiness in itsstead--that its existence is, on the whole, for the best. I giveas authority for this affirmation, a publication of thePresbyterian Board, entitled _Old and New Theology_. On the firstpage we find this explicit statement: "It has been a commonsentiment among New England divines, since the time of Edwards, that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good, and assuch, so far as it exists, is preferable, on the whole, toholiness in its stead. " I do not charge Dr. Musgrave with holding this inference as adoctrine, and yet it is very clearly asserted in an argumentdesigned to prove the Calvinistic doctrine of foreordination. "There must, " says he, "have been a time when no creatureexisted, as God alone is from everlasting. Before creation, andfrom all eternity, all things that are possible, as well as allthings that actually have or will come to pass in time, must havebeen perfectly known to God. He must, therefore, have known whatbeings and events would, on the whole, be most for his own glory, and the greatest good of the universe; and therefore, as aninfinitely wise, benevolent, and Almighty Being, he could not buthave chosen or determined, that such beings and events, and SUCHONLY, should come to pass in time. " "The conclusion is, therefore, to our minds, irresistible, that if God be infinitelywise, benevolent, and powerful, and perfectly foreknew whatbeings and events would, _on the whole_, BE BEST, he must havechosen and ordained that they should exist, or be permitted tooccur; and that, consequently, everything that does actually cometo pass in time, has been eternally and unchangeably foreordained. " Here it is argued that God, as an infinitely wise, benevolent, and powerful being, must have _known_ and _preferred_, and_decreed_, that just such beings should exist and events occur, as would, on the whole, be most for his own glory, and the_greatest good_ of the universe, _and such only_; and that, consequently, he has eternally, and unchangeably foreordainedeverything that does actually come to pass in time. Now it isplain that all the events which have come to pass in time mustanswer this description--must be for the best, for his highestglory--or the argument falls to the ground. The Rev. Jas. McChain, one of the editors of the _CalvinisticMagazine_, in a discourse published in that periodical, December, 1847, thus undertakes to prove that God "has foreordainedwhatsoever comes to pass:" "Jehovah is infinitely _wise_; does henot, therefore, know what it is BEST should take place? He isinfinitely _benevolent_; will he not choose, then, that _shalltake place_ which he knows is FOR THE BEST? He is infinitely_powerful_; can he not, therefore, cause _to take place_ what he_chooses shall take place_? The Most High is infinitely wise, and_knows_ what it is BEST should come to pass--benevolent, and_chooses_ to bring to pass WHAT IS BEST--powerful, and _does_bring to pass what he chooses as BEST. " "Surely his infinitewisdom and goodness will choose and determine whatsoever it isbest should take place, and his almighty power will perfectlycarry out his plan. " It is not my intention, at this time, to point out the fallacy ofthese arguments. I quote them to show that the consequence whichI have deduced from the doctrine that God has decreed whatsoevercomes to pass--that sin is not an evil, but a good, and worthy ofbeing preferred to holiness in every instance in which it occurs--is actually recognized as a truth, and used as a premise inproof of the Calvinistic doctrine of the decrees. 8. And how can we avoid adopting as a legitimate conclusion, thelicentious infidel maxim, that "WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT"? 9. It is obvious, at the first glance, that this doctrinedestroys all reasonable ground for repentance. Of what shall werepent? Of sinning? Let it first be proved that, according tothis doctrine, any one has sinned, or can sin. But, if sin bepossible, yet in every instance of sinning we have done the willof God. He freely and unchangeably predestinated the act from alleternity. His providence brought it to pass. Before we feelourselves authorized to repent we should be sure that God hasrepented of his purposes and acts. And, even then, there would beno good reason for repentance upon the part of his creatures. For, if we, for the sake of the argument, allow that they areable to act otherwise than as they do, notwithstanding the Divinedecrees, they are morally bound to submit cordially to thosedecrees, leaving to God the responsibility of decreeing wisely. Hence there is no room for repentance. This is precisely the application made of this doctrine by anintelligent Calvinistic lady of New England, Mrs. ElizabethStuart Phelps, daughter of the late Prof. Stuart, of Andover, andauthoress of certain very popular works. In the memorial of her, prefixed to _The Last Leaf of Sunny Side_, she is quoted assaying in her diary: "I never _could_ understand or divinebefore, my claim upon the Deity's overruling care. Now I do get aglimpse of it--enough to make me feel like an infant in itsmother's arms. Every event, of every day, of every hour, isunalterably fixed. Each day is but the turning over a new leaf ofmy history, already written by the finger of God--every letter ofit. Should I wish to re-write--to alter--one? Oh, no! no!! no!!!"Here, you perceive, is no ground for repentance. It is repudiated. She would not alter an event of her life, a letter of her history. She carries this acquiescence in the Divine decrees so far as tosay in another place: "I have no hope but in my Saviour and if Hehas not saved me, then this too, I know, is just, and God'sdecrees I would not change. " 10. Nor can prayer be more reasonable than repentance. For whatshall we pray? That God would reverse his eternal decrees? Thiswould be to reflect upon his attributes. Are his decrees wrong?Besides, the doctrine in question affirms them to be unchangeable. Shall we pray that God may accomplish them? This can add nothingto the certainty of their accomplishment; for they cannot bedefeated. So we are distinctly assured by the advocates of thistheory. The only apology that can be offered for prayer, on thepart of those who believe this doctrine, is that it is decreedthey shall pray. But a prayer offered in strict logical accordancewith this theory would be a manifest absurdity. 11. Another legitimate consequence of this doctrine is that manis not in a state of probation. There is a flat contradictionbetween the idea that man is in a state of probation and theaffirmation that the whole series of volitions, states, actions, and events of his life is fixed, unchangeably, by the Divinedecree, before he comes into existence. I have long regarded thisas an inevitable deduction from the Calvinistic doctrine ofdecrees, but it was not until lately that I found it actuallyadvanced as a doctrine by a Calvinistic writer. On page 77 of_Fisher's Catechism_, the following occurs:-- "_Q_. Is there any danger in asserting that man is not now in astate of probation, as Adam was?--_Ans_. No. " "_Q_. What, then, is the dangerous consequence of asserting thatfallen man is still in a state of probation?--_Ans_. Thisdangerous consequence would follow, that mankind are herebysupposed to be still under a covenant of works that can justifythe doer!" I do not mean to be understood that this dogma is held by allCalvinists, but, whether held or not, it is a legitimateinference. 12. Let us now notice the bearing of this strange tenet upon someof the leading doctrines and facts of Christianity. Take thedoctrine of the Fall--which is understood to be that God made manin his own image--holy; righteous, capable of standing in hisintegrity, yet liable to be seduced from it; and that manvoluntarily transgressed, brought guilt and depravity uponhimself, and involved his posterity in moral degradation andruin. But, if the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees be true, therewas obviously no fall in the case. There was a change in thecondition of Adam, but that change was a part of God's eternalplan. Nothing occurred but what belonged to the divinelypredetermined series of events. If Adam had acted otherwise thanas he did, God's original purposes would have been frustrated. Ifthere were any fall, it should be predicated of the Divinedecrees rather than of the human subject thereof. 13. Again: The plan of redemption, it is supposed, was designedto rescue him from a deplorable, desperate condition, in whichhis perverseness had placed him; but, if the doctrine we areconsidering be true, the redemption, so called, is nothing but apart of a chain of predetermined events. He _was, and is, at notime_, in _any other condition_ than was _devised_ and _decreed_by _Jehovah as most conducive to his own glory_ and _the highestgood of the universe_. Thus, the redemption, about which so muchis said, is resolved into a mere nullity. 14. Again: The glorious doctrine of Christ crucified thrills thebosom of the church with intense emotions of fear, and penitence, and hope, and gratitude, and joy. Paul attached so muchimportance to it as to say: "For I determined to know nothingamong men save Christ and him crucified. " But, view it in thelight of the doctrine that God has decreed whatsoever comes topass, and what does it amount to? The sufferings and death ofChrist derive their importance from the fact of their beingpropitiatory--an atonement. But for what shall they atone? Foracts which were determined upon, as a part of God's plan, for hisglory, and the good of the universe, millions of ages before thehuman actors were born; for acts which no more need to be atonedfor than the actions of Jesus Christ himself. To say that thoseacts were wrong is to reflect upon the decrees of God, since"nothing has come to pass but what was decreed by him;" since, according to Mr. Barnes, we are "to interpret the decrees of Godby facts, and the actual result, by whatever means brought about, expresses the design of God. " If men need atonement, they need itfor doing the will of God, and for nothing else. Need I add that, in view of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees, the doctrine ofatonement by the sufferings and death of Christ is absolutenonsense? 15. Again: I affirm of this doctrine that it renders utterlybaseless the _doctrine of pardon_, or the remission of sins. Itrenders the offer of pardon a mockery. For what is pardonoffered? For _doing the will of God_--for doing just _what hedecreed_ we should do; for _carrying into effect_ his _eternalcounsels_. How can any man need pardon if this doctrine be true?Should it be said, in reply, that although the decrees of Godhave been invariably fulfilled, yet his _precepts_ have beenviolated, I rejoin that the violation of these precepts was, according to the Calvinistic hypothesis, specifically _decreed_. Unless decreed, it could not have come to pass. Hence, theviolation was inevitable, from the very nature of the case. Godoffers pardon to his creatures, who have invariably, from thecommencement of their being, fulfilled his decrees. He offerspardon to them for violating commands which it was impossible forthem to keep, inasmuch as he had eternally decreed that theyshould not keep them, and his decrees are infinitely wise andholy, and cannot be, frustrated. Further, if God's decrees are righteous (and we are toldexplicitly by the creed we are reviewing that they had theirorigin in his "wise and holy counsel"), it follows that hisprecepts must be unrighteous, whenever they are assumed to be inopposition to his decrees; and surely no one can need pardon forpursuing a righteous course in opposition to an unrighteous one. If it be said that his precepts and his decrees are all equallyrighteous, it follows that a course in direct opposition, in allrespects, to a righteous law is, nevertheless, a righteouscourse, and thus the distinction between righteousness andunrighteousness is destroyed. View the subject in whatever lightyou may, and the offer of pardon in connection with theCalvinistic doctrine of decrees, becomes an impertinence and anabsurdity. 16. And what is the effect of the Calvinistic theory ofpredestination upon the doctrine of _regeneration_? Regenerationis usually understood to be a change by which unholy dispositions--dispositions at variance with the character and will of God--are substituted by those in accordance therewith. But, ifCalvinism be true, regeneration is nothing more than a preordainedchange from doing the will of God perfectly in one way, to doingit perfectly in another way. 17. A consequence of this theory has been incidentally brought toview in illustrating a preceding argument, which deserves adistinct statement. It is that God has two hostile wills, inrelation to the same thing--his decrees, and his publishedcommands and prohibitions. He has enjoined certain modes ofaction, by the most solemn legislation, and yet decreed, from alleternity, that multitudes of those whom he has subjected to thoseobligations, shall constantly act at variance therewith; so thatmultitudes of human beings are doing his will perfectly, and yetviolating his will at the same time. 18. This theory makes all civil government manifestly unreasonable. Civil government proceeds upon the supposition that man is a freeagent, capable of choosing and acting otherwise than as he does;but this theory, as we have seen, is incompatible with free agency. And should we admit, for the sake of the argument, that it is notincompatible with free agency, it is still irreconcilable withcivil government. Civil legislation prohibits various modes ofacting. It assumes that the forbidden actions are wrong--injurious to society--whereas, this theory represents that allthe actions that have been performed, or will be performed, werefreely willed, purposed, decreed, foreordained, and brought topass by God himself--that there are no events, and can be none, but what are in precise harmony with his eternal purposes--sothat, unless we suppose that God has from all eternity freelydecreed what is wrong and injurious, thereby subjecting humanlegislators to the necessity of opposing his will in order toprevent outrage and injury, civil legislation admits of nojustification or apology. And if this theory is incompatible with civil legislation, it isnot less so with civil jurisprudence. Men assume the right toinflict severe punishment upon their fellow-men for doing whatcannot be avoided, or for not doing what they cannot possibly do. Or, if it be admitted, for the sake of the argument, that theycould act otherwise, still they are punished for doing andsuffering, in all respects, the will of God, for merelyexemplifying his eternal unchangeable decrees. Take eitheralternative, and human jurisprudence is palpably iniquitous. The only plausible apology that can be offered in behalf of civilgovernment is, either that human legislators and judges, andjurors, and counsel, and sheriffs, and constables are passiveinstruments in the hands of God, in which case their proceedingsare ludicrous, the actors being mere puppets, exhibiting all theappearance of self-determined motion, and yet, like those famouscharacters called _Punch_ and _Judy_, acting only as determinedand effected by the wire-worker; or, admitting that they arefree, and executing their own determinations, they too are doingprecisely what God has foreordained; so that, in this respect, the jury who pronounce the verdict of guilty, and the judge whopronounces the sentence of death, are upon a level with thealleged criminal. All have done, and are doing, just the thingswhich God has decreed they should do, neither more nor less. 19. I cannot but regard this theory as subversive of everyrational idea of a Divine moral government. Moral governmentimplies precepts or prohibitions, or both, enforced by rewardsand penalties, and addressed authoritatively to beings capable ofeither obedience or disobedience. But of what use are precepts orprohibitions if every act of every individual is fixed beforehandby the Divine decrees? As well might moral codes be addressed tosteam-engines or to whirlwinds. The only plausible attempt thatcan be made to reconcile this theory of predestination with aDivine moral government, is to apply the term moral government toa certain class of preordained influences designed to bring abouta certain class of preordained results. But this is moralgovernment in name merely. The process which the advocates ofthis theory call moral government is just as mechanical as thatby which the motions of the planets are controlled. The judiciarysystem of the Divine government, with all its solemn pageantry, is thus reduced to a mere farce. Beings are arraigned, with greatjudicial pomp, and condemned, or approved, punished or rewardedfor actions which were decreed innumerable ages before they wereborn, and brought to pass by influences beyond their control, foractions which were devised, decreed, and irresistibly brought topass by the judge himself. 20. We are now prepared for another consequence, which hangs likea millstone around the neck of this theory, and is sufficient, ofitself, to sink it to the depths. It represents God not only asdecreeing one thing and commanding another directly adversethereto, but also as decreeing and bringing to pass opposite andcontradictory events. He ordained that one man should believe theHoly Scriptures, and reverence them, and that another man should, at the same time, deny, and hate, and vilify them. He ordainedthat men should at one period of their lives preach the gospel, and write in favor of Christianity, and at another period becomeinfidel lecturers and disputants. He decreed that some shouldbelieve the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees, and teach it, andthat others should, at the same time, regard it as false andoppose it. He has ordained that men shall take opposite sides onall great questions, religious, philosophical, or political. Heordained the fugitive slave law and the recent Nebraska andKansas enactment, and all the opposition from ministers andlaymen, with which these measures have been regarded. He hasordained that one party shall laud them as just and patriotic, and that another party shall condemn and hate them as diabolical. He ordained the arrest of that man on the suspicion of murder, with all the conflicting opinions as to his guilt or innocence, the contradictory testimony of the witnesses, the contrarypleadings of the counsel, the verdict of the jury pronouncing himguilty, the sentence of the judge condemning him to death, andthe pardon of the governor under the full conviction of hisinnocence. All the conflicting opinions and acts in the fiercestcontroversy that ever raged, this theory traces up to the Divineforeordination. 21. It must have appeared to the audience, by this time, that thecharacter of God is fearfully involved in this inquiry. (1). We have already seen that this theory draws after it thelogical consequences that God is the author of sin, or, if notthe author of it in the strict and proper sense of the term, atleast the plotter--the prime mover of it; that he prefers sin toholiness in every instance in which sin takes place; that heregards sin as the necessary means of the greatest good; that hehas, at the same time, two hostile wills relative to the samething. And now what shall we say of his _wisdom_, when we findhim decreeing acts, and bringing them to pass, and yet, peremptorily forbidding them--enjoining acts, by formal solemnlegislation, which, from all eternity he has foreordained shallnever be performed? When we find him ordaining measures for thepromotion, and measures for the counteraction, of his own plans?When we find him ordaining all the contradictions and vacillationsby which human conduct is diversified and disgraced?--when everyexample of the most contemptible folly that ever turned the laugh, or the sneer, or the frown, or the sentiment of pity upon itsimmediate perpetrators, can be traced to the free counsels anddesigns of God, and finds its origin there? (2). What shall we say of the _sincerity_ of God when we find himenjoining one class of actions on pain of eternal damnation, while yet he has decreed, and by unfailing means brings to pass, in the same subjects, an entirely opposite class?--when we findhim threatening, and expostulating, and professing to be grieved, on account of conduct which had its origin in his own freepurposes, and is effected by his own providence?--when we findhim engaged in enforcing two wills respecting the same thing, onedirectly the opposite of the other, one of which must necessarilyfail of accomplishment, and then, wrathfully charging the failureupon those who have acted in all respects as he ordained theyshould?--when we find him offering salvation to all men, andsolemnly asseverating that it is his will that all men shouldcome to the knowledge of the truth, while yet the sinning, andultimate damnation of myriads, were decreed innumerable agesbefore they existed? (3). What shall we say of his _holiness_, when the vilest crimesthat ever caused the blush of shame, or the feeling of indignationor horror--_fornication, adultery, bestiality, fraud, oppression, lying, murder_--are in perfect coincidence with his eternalpurposes, parts of his great plan, when he chose them in preferenceto their opposites, with all the means and appliances, great andsmall, by which they were brought to pass? (4). And what shall we say of his _equity_ and _justice_, when wefind him placing his subjects under the necessity of violatinghis will in one way or another, either his secret decrees or hispublished enactments? When we find him rewarding one class of hissubjects for fulfilling his decrees, and damning another classwith everlasting tortures for doing precisely the same thing? (5). And where is his _benevolence_, when he freely chooses, prefers, ordains, and brings to pass all the sin and misery inthe universe? 22. Again: It is obvious that this theory lays the foundation ofa new system of morals. If it be insisted upon that, notwithstandingGod has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, he is perfectly sincere, just, holy, and benevolent, we shall have obtained certain ethicalprinciples which, if carried out into universal practice, wouldsubvert all social order, and destroy all confidence. For instance, it will follow:-- First. That a ruler may secretly will, purpose, decree, foreordain, that his, subjects shall act in a certain way. He mayput into operation effective measures to secure their concurrencewith his designs. Meantime, he may profess a profound andinsuperable dissatisfaction with a very large proportion of theactions which he has predetermined and induced; he may indignantlycondemn and threaten to punish the actors; he may do all this, and yet be perfectly sincere. In other words, what men usuallyregard as the most thorough-paced duplicity, is in entire accordancewith perfect sincerity. By this principle, the worst hypocrite thatever lived may be fully vindicated from the charge of hypocrisy. Again: A being may give existence to a vast multitude of otherbeings, inferior, dependent, but yet intelligent. He may assertover their actions the most absolute control. He may predetermineand bring to pass every one of their actions. He may "shut up allother ways of acting, and leave that only open which he haddetermined to be done. " Meanwhile, he may issue laws peremptorilyrequiring conduct directly opposite to his unchangeablepredeterminations, thus placing his creatures under the direnecessity of violating his secret decrees, or his published laws;and yet he may, with perfect justice, arraign, condemn, andpunish them for the violation of these laws, consigning them toeternal misery. This theory will furnish us with a criterion ofmoral character--a code by which the Neros, Domitians, Caligulas, and Diocletians, whom men have reprobated and abhorred astyrants, may be triumphantly vindicated and made honorable. Again: A being may be the author, or, if not, in the strictestsense, the author, at least the planner, the prime mover of allthe wickedness that ever existed. He may use effective influencesin bringing it to pass, so that it may be said, in truth, that hefreely and unchangeably preordained and produced it, and yet hemay be perfectly holy. And again: A being may purpose, foreordain, and bring to pass allthe sin and misery in the universe, and yet be perfectlybenevolent. Here is a principle of ethics which will more thancover and vindicate the most atrocious cruelties of the Romishinquisition. The rum-seller, so called, who is the agent ofincalculable mischief, may find under it the most ampleprotection. His designs terminate upon the sale of his liquors, and the gains which result. If he could sell his fiery commodity, and secure his gains without the misery, he would. But, accordingto our new code of ethical principles, he might go much further. He might design, as an end, all the wretchedness that results, and prosecute his traffic as a means to secure that end, and yetbe perfectly benevolent. Is it not plain that this theory, if adopted and carried out toits legitimate logical results, must revolutionize and reverseall our established conceptions of wisdom, sincerity, holiness, equity, justice, and benevolence, and introduce an entirely newestimate of moral conduct? 23. Further: This theory furnishes the most completejustification of all the conduct of the worst men that everlived, both by the ethical principles which may be deduced fromit, and by the single consideration that their every action is inperfect harmony with the Divine will. The New Testament speaks ofmen being without excuse; but I ask, what better excuse can bedesired than that the conduct in question is in preciseaccordance with the will of God? Men sometimes think it anapology to say that they acted hastily--that they were misled byothers--that they were not aware of the mischief likely to resultfrom their course; but this doctrine puts them at once upon thehighest possible ground of justification. The poor reprobate maybe silenced, at the day of judgment, by the terrors whichsurround him, and by the stern authority of the judge, but _notby the want of a valid plea_. When the sentence shall go forthconsigning him to perdition for the deeds done in the body, hewill have in readiness, whether allowed to utter it or not, theunanswerable answer: "Lord, the deeds for which I am condemnedwere in all respects what thou didst predetermine. I haveexecuted from first to last thy wise and holy counsels. Had Iacted otherwise, I should have frustrated thy free purposes, formed before the foundation of the world. I have, indeed, gonecontrary to thy published law, but that thou didst renderinevitable by making that law antagonistic to thy eternal decree, which thou dost not allow to be thwarted, in any instance, by manor angel. " This plea would be equally conclusive before any human tribunal. There are Calvinistic lawyers, or lawyers who are members ofCalvinistic churches or congregations. The names of some of theseare appended to a note soliciting for publication Dr. Boardman'ssermons on _Election_. In defending alleged criminals, men oftheir profession often tax their ingenuity to the utmost forarguments. If the insanity of the prisoner can be established, they expect his acquittal, though he may have perpetrated thefatal violence. But why do they never offer, in behalf of theprisoner intrusting his case to them, that he has done nothingbut what God willed and decreed from all eternity he should do?that, from the beginning to the end of the affair, he was butexecuting the counsels of Heaven--counsels which Heaven neversuffers to be frustrated, either as to the end, or the instrument. Some of them believe the doctrine, and desire that the publicshould believe it. Why, then, do they never plead it when pledgedto give their client the benefit of every available argument? Isit nothing to be able to say for him that he has not swerved ahair's-breadth from the designs of the great Sovereign of theuniverse, at whose judgment-seat all the decisions of humantribunals will be reviewed? They dare not offer such a plea. They know that common sense would laugh them out of countenance, if not out of court. And if all present were believers in thedoctrine, they could not attempt to reduce it to its legitimatepractical application without laughing in each other's faces--such is its essential absurdity. They may circulate it insermons, in which eloquent nonsense is drivelled with impunity, but they will not venture to propound it in a court, where commonsense and equity bear sway. 24. If this doctrine be true, it is wholly unnecessary for any ofyou to impose any restraint upon your passions or wills. Are youtempted to indulge in sensuality, or to defraud your neighbor, and even to assassinate him? And does the inquiry arise in yourmind whether the act to which you are tempted is according to thewill of God? You have only to do it, and the result proves thatit is decreed. So says Mr. Barnes: "The result, by whatever meansbrought about, expresses the design of God. " If the act be notdecreed, you cannot do it, though you try. If you can, it isdecreed _that you should_; and your doing it is as inevitable asdestiny itself. So you may just go forward, and the result willbe right; that is, if God's decrees are right. 25. It is also an obvious consequence of this doctrine that noman can contribute anything to hip personal salvation; that hissalvation or damnation is fixed wholly by the Divine decrees. He. Cannot influence his destiny by any effort he can make. There isno use in his trying. Indeed, the _Westminster Confession ofFaith_ informs us directly that man is "altogether passive" in"regeneration, " and that his "perseverance" "depends not upon hisown free will, but upon the immutability of the decree ofelection. " So that all the exhortations of the gospel and of thepulpit, are utterly irrelevant. There is a very significantpassage bearing upon this point in Chalmer's discourse onPredestination: "And now, " says he, "you can have no difficultyin understanding how it is that we make our calling and electionsure. _It is not in the power of the elect to make their electionsurer in itself than it really is, for this is a sureness whichis not capable of receiving any addition_. It is not in the powerof the elect to make it surer to God--for all futurity issubmitted to his all-seeing eye, and his absolute knowledgestands in need of no confirmation. But there is such a thing asthe elect being ignorant for a time of their own election, andtheir being made sure of it in the way of evidence and discovery. "The amount is that a man may ascertain by exertion the fact of hiselection, but he can do nothing towards securing it. Thus Mr. Wesley's famous consequence is established. "The elect shall besaved, do what they will; the reprobate shall be damned, do whatthey can. " It is plain from these reasonings that this doctrinetends to spiritual inactivity, and countenances licentiousness. But we are told, by Dr. Boardman, that the Divine "decrees arenot the rule of our duty;" that "we are not held responsible fornot conforming to them;" that "we are not bound to act with theleast reference to them. " (p. 45. ) What! The subjects of agovernment not bound to act with the least reference to thedecrees of its sovereign!--not responsible for not conforming tothem!! This is surely a strange doctrine. It is an indirectconcession that the practical bearing of the Calvinistic doctrineof decrees cannot be defended. But it is said that we have noright to make God's secret decrees our rule. Very true. We arenot arguing from his secret decrees, but from what our brethrenprofess to know. If the doctrine in question be a secret, wewould like to know by what authority it is so confidently statedin the _Confession of Faith_ and the _Catechism_. How did theycome by the knowledge of God's secret decree? They may claim tobe better educated than we are, and more intelligent, to haveminds of a superior natural constitution; but we protest againsttheir claiming to be intrusted with the secrets of heaven. 26. This wonderful doctrine makes out the devil and his angels tobe faithful servants of God. They have done, throughout the past, and are doing now, precisely what God, in his wise and holycounsel, foreordained they should do. 27. It leads to Universalism. If all beings do as God hasdecreed, upon what ground can God punish any of them, then, infuturity? You have only to connect with this doctrine thedeclaration that God is benevolent, or just, and Universalismfollows. 28. It leads to rank infidelity. It is to my mind more reasonableto believe that God has made no written revelation of his will, than that he has revealed such a doctrine as this. Let theopinion become prevalent that it is a doctrine of the Bible, and, as the consequence, the Bible will be rejected by thousands, yea, hundreds of thousands. It is impossible for the ablest disputantto maintain a respectable argument against infidelity whilestanding upon this ground. He must assume the opposite ground, asthe basis of his argument, or he will fail signally. The infidelobjects to the Bible that it represents God as sanctioning crime, and making favorites of its perpetrators, and hence concludesthat it cannot be true. The usual reply is that, so far from having sanctioned vice andits perpetrators, he has solemnly prohibited it; that he holdsthe perpetrator guilty, condemns him to severe punishment, andwill remit that punishment only in view of repentance, andreformation, and an atonement which fully vindicates the Divinegovernment, and most impressively manifests its abhorrence of thecourse pursued by the transgressor. But what says this doctrine?That God has freely, and from all eternity _willed, decreed, foreordained, whatsoever_ comes to pass. The infidel objects thatthe Bible contains contradictions, and hence cannot be the wordof God. The usual answer admits that God cannot contradicthimself, but denies that the Bible is chargeable with self-contradiction. Whereas, this doctrine declares that God hasdecreed and brought to pass all the contradictions that were everuttered. Can it be that God is the author of a book whichrepresents him as ordaining and bringing to pass all the acts ofcrime and folly that were ever committed, including all the liesthat were ever uttered, as having two hostile wills in relationto the same event, as decreeing that his creatures should pursuea certain course, and yet commanding them to pursue a contrarycourse, and then, damning them, thousands upon thousands, fordoing what he decreed they should do? It is impossible for theinfidel to frame a stronger argument than this doctrine supplieshim with. I have shown, unanswerably, I think, that this doctrine leads, byobvious deduction, to the doctrine that God prefers sin toholiness in every instance in which sin takes place, and that sinis the necessary means of the greatest good. I will now quote aneminent Calvinistic minister upon the tendencies of thisdoctrine. He is commenting upon what he calls "the thirdsolution" of the question, "For what reason has God permitted sinto enter the universe?" which he states to be that "God chosethat sin should enter the universe as the necessary means of thegreatest possible good. Wherever it exists, therefore, it is, inthe whole, better than holiness would be in its place"--the verydoctrine which we are told by high Calvinistic authority, hasbeen a "common sentiment among New England divines since the daysof Edwards. " He says:-- "The third solution has been extensively adopted by philosophers, especially on the continent of Europe; and its ultimate reactionon the public mind had no small share, we believe, in creatingthat universal skepticism which at last broke forth upon Europe, in all the horrors of the French Revolution. While the profoundestminds were speculating themselves into the belief that sin was thenecessary means of the greatest good, better on the _whole_, ineach instance, than holiness would have been in its place--commonmen were pressing the inquiry, 'Why, then, ought it to be punished?'Voltaire laid hold of this state of things, and assuming theprinciple in question to be true, carried round its application tothe breast of millions. In his _Candide_, one of the most amusingtales that was ever written, he introduces a young man of strongpassions and weak understanding, who had been taught this doctrineby a metaphysical tutor. They go out into the world, to 'promote thegreatest good' by the indulgence of their passions; certain that, _on the whole_, each sin is better than holiness would have beenin its place. But when Candide begins to suffer the naturalconsequences of his vices, he feels it to be but a poor consolation, that others are now reaping the benefit of his sin. Is it surprisingthat such a work induced thousands to disbelieve in the holyprovidence of God, and prepared multitudes to 'do evil that goodmight come?'" (_Christian Spectator_, vol. I. Pp. 378, 9. ) It would be easier, and more reasonable, to believe in aplurality of gods, than that one God should be capable of suchconflicting counsels. And this would bring us to the verge ofAtheism. 29. This doctrine covers with the wing of its sanction all theerrors that were ever promulgated or conceived. I do not say thatthey all grow out of it, but that it justifies them. Why should Ioppose Romanism, or Universalism, or Socinianism, or Puseyism, orInfidelity, when they are all decreed by Jehovah? Christendompresents the strange spectacle of men prying into systems, bringing to the light, condemning, and holding up to public odiumtheir errors of theory and practice, and, yet, holding as afundamental article of their own creed that God from all eternityfreely decreed, whatsoever comes to pass. Let them first rejectand refute the error which vindicates all errors. What right hasa Calvinist to find fault with anything? 30. Again: It clearly follows, from this theory, that any attemptto prevent the commission of sin in our neighbors, is not only inopposition to the primary--the original will, the eternalpurposes of God, but is also in opposition to the highest good ofthe universe; and that we should, as reasonable beings, rejoicein every instance of sin--of lying, robbery, uncleanness, andmurder--as in every instance of holiness. 31. I do not identify this doctrine with pagan fatalism, but Ihold that it is akin thereto, and that it tends to the samepractical results. It is, in my opinion, worse than paganfatalism. That doctrine represents all events and actions asstrictly necessary, but it binds the gods as well as men. All bowto that mysterious power called fate. Thus it relieves the godsof all blame. But Calvinism asserts the freedom of Jehovah, andthen imputes to him the foreordination of whatever occurs in thewhole universe, and thus, by plain logical consequence, fastensupon him all the just blame of whatever is exceptionable. Calvinism is not pagan fatalism. It is Christian fatalism. It isfatalism baptized. DISCOURSE III. "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, beingpredestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh allthings according to the counsel of his own will. "--EPH. I. 11. IN the preceding discourse, I showed that the Calvinisticdoctrine of the Divine decrees leads to the following consequences, namely, that man is not a free agent; that he is not properlyaccountable for his conduct; that there is no sin in the world; or, that, if there be sin, God is the author of it; or, that, if he benot strictly and properly the author, he is at least the primemover of it; that, if sin exist, God prefers sin to holiness inevery instance in which sin takes place; that sin is not an evil, but a real good; that whatever is is right; that there is noreasonable ground for repentance, or for prayer, or for pardon;that regeneration is nothing else than a change from perfectconformity to the will of God in one way, to perfect conformity tothe will of God in another way; that the doctrines of the fall andredemption by Christ are gross and palpable absurdities; that manis not in a state of probation; that God has two hostile willsrelative to the same thing; that, not only are his secret decreesand his written laws at variance, but he has also decreed and bringsto pass opposite and contradictory events; that civil government iswholly unreasonable; that there is in fact no moral government; thatGod is not holy, or just, or wise, or truthful, or benevolent; or, that if God be nevertheless holy, and wise, and true, and just, andgood, we have the foundation of a new system of morals, which, ifadopted, must reverse all our estimates of moral character; that mancannot contribute anything to his personal salvation; that the deviland his angels are as faithful servants of God as any of his elect. It was shown that it leads to Universalism and to rank infidelity;that it sanctions all the errors that were ever promulgated; that itfurnishes a complete justification of the worst conduct of the worstmen, that ever lived, tends to paralyze all effort to resisttemptation, and condemns as impious any opposition to the commissionof sin by our neighbors, and, finally, that it is worse than thepagan doctrine of fatalism. I shall now endeavor to present the true doctrine. As has beensaid, we do not object to the doctrine of predestination, but tothe Calvinistic doctrine. The question is not whether God is aSovereign, or whether he has his purposes or decrees, but howdoes he exercise his sovereignty--what are his purposes anddecrees? We deny that he has foreordained whatsoever comes topass. For all our information upon this great question we must inquireof the sacred oracles. We understand them to teach that God, foreseeing, though not ordaining, the transgression of our firstparents, decreed that it should subject them to the penalty ofdeath--eternal death. "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thoushalt surely die. " He also decreed that their condition shouldnot be at once irremediable, but that a second probation shouldbe allowed them. He also decreed that an atonement should bemade, by which the claims of his government should be vindicated, while he granted to the offenders a respite, and the advantagesof a new trial, and which should lay a firm foundation forwhatever acts of mercy should be extended to them and theirposterity. He further decreed that this atonement should beeffected by the suffering and death of his Son, who, for thepurpose of effecting this atonement, should assume our nature, and become God-man. The apostle instructs us that he was"delivered" to suffering and death, "by the determinate counseland foreknowledge of God. " It was also decreed that the benefitsof this atonement should extend to all Adam's posterity--thatChrist should die for all. He gave him "a ransom for all, " thathe, "by the grace of God, should taste death for every man. " Itwas also predetermined in the counsels of Heaven, that a changeshould take place in the administration of the Divine government. The first administration, sometimes called the Adamic law orcovenant, was suited to beings perfectly innocent and pure, butnot to fallen beings, as it made no provision for pardon or moralrestoration. Under its authority the sinner could have no hope. Another decree provides that the Son of God shall bear thesceptre of authority--that the government shall be upon hisshoulders. To this arrangement we suppose the words of thePsalmist to refer: "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill ofZion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thouart my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I willgive the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost partsof the earth for thy possession. " (Ps. Ii. 6, 7, 8. ) Also theprayer of the apostle Paul, in which he speaks of "the mightypower" of God, "which he wrought in Christ, when he raised himfrom the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenlyplaces, far above all principality, and power, and might, anddominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things underhis feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to thechurch, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all inall. " (Eph. I. 21, 23. ) It is further ordained that, under thisnew arrangement, faith shall be the condition of the sinner'sacceptance with God--that whosoever believeth shall be pardonedjustified from all things; that the act of faith which securesthe pardon of one sin shall secure the pardon of all thenchargeable; that whosoever is pardoned shall be made holy, conformed to the image of the Son of God, and made a child of Godby adoption. "For whom he foreknew, them he also did predestinateto be conformed to the image of his Son. " "Having predestinatedus to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will;" that the greatmediatorial scheme should be developed in successive dispensations, usually distinguished as the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christiandispensations; that one nation of people should be selected as thedepository of the sacred oracles, and as a theatre for the exhibitionof the true religion; that in the fulness of time, Jews and Gentilesshould be placed upon one common ground of religious privilege, thepartition wall being broken down. It is also decreed that there shallbe a general judgment. God hath appointed a day in the which he willjudge the world; that there shall be a resurrection of the bodies ofmen; that the bodies of the saints at the resurrection shall be madevery glorious; that the righteous of every age and country shallultimately be gathered into one glorious place, from which allsin and pain shall be excluded, and shall constitute one undividedfamily forever. "Father, I will that they also whom thou hast givenme be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory. " "Havingmade known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his goodpleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensationof the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all thingsin Christ, both which are in Heaven and which are on earth. " And, finally, it is decreed that while the righteous shall have lifeeternal, the wicked, the finally impenitent, and unbelieving, andunholy, shall go away into everlasting punishment--shall beimprisoned in a place originally prepared for the first rebelsagainst the Divine government--the devil and his angels. Such, as I understand it, is the Methodistic, or Arminian, doctrine of the Divine decrees. There is no difficulty insustaining this doctrine by Scripture. It is not liable to any ofthe objections which menace fatally the Calvinistic scheme. Thereis no difficulty in perceiving its harmony with man's free agencyand moral accountability. It does not give the slightest occasionfor the question whether God is the author of sin. He has issueddecrees respecting it; but they are all condemnatory. None ofthem preordain it. It does not admit the supposition of his beinga participant in any unholy deed or device. The question nevercame up among Methodist divines, whether God prefers, in anyinstance, sin to holiness? They would not, could not, consider ita debatable question. Nor that other question--Is sin thenecessary means of the greatest good? Calvinism is justlyentitled to the honor of originating such questions as these. Noone would ever think of affirming upon Arminian principles thatwhatever is is right. Arminianism lays a firm basis for Divinemoral government, and also for civil government--for rewards andpunishments. It not only relieves the Divine attributes from thefearful suspicions and imputations with which Calvinism dishonorsthem, but surrounds them with a transcendent glory. It protectsthe morality of the Bible from the devastating incursions towhich Calvinism exposes it, and presents the most powerfulincentives to piety. It does not throw the protecting shield ofthe Divine decrees over every form of error and outrage withwhich earth is filled, or represent God as having two hostilewills. It forms no entangling alliances with heathen fatalism. Weare not under the necessity of warning inquirers againstcommitting themselves to the practical influence of the Arminiandoctrine of Divine decrees, by saying, with Dr. Boardman, that"These decrees are not the rule of our duty. We are not heldresponsible for not conforming to them. We are not bound to actwith the least reference to them. " The practical bearing of the Arminian doctrine is eminently andobviously salutary. It has not a single aspect which is notfavorable to piety and morality. Does a sinner tremble at theword of God? He is made to feel the force of the inspireddeclaration that the way of transgressors is hard, and to ponderthe advantages of reformation? Is he not appalled and paralyzedby the terrible announcement that all his misdeeds, the tendency, if not the nature of which he now contemplates with horror, arethe result of a power which he cannot successfully resist; thathe is bound to the hateful course of conduct which he deplores, by eternal decrees and that, in despite of any feelings ordesires he may have, his course may be predestined to be worse inthe future than in the past. O, no! He is assured that God neverpreordained sin. That he commands all men everywhere to repent, and that what he requires of men he will enable them to do. He istold that nothing binds him to sin but his depravity, that he mayavail himself of the powerful influences of the Spirit of life inChrist Jesus, which can make him free from the law of sin anddeath; and that whom God foreknew, as repenting, and believing, and availing themselves of remedial provisions, he "predestinatedto be conformed to the image of his Son"--he hath chosen "to beholy and without blame before him in love. " Has the man who is seeking with penitence and prayer the favor ofGod profoundly humbling views of himself? Does he think it to bea wonderful stretch of condescension and mercy in God to forgivehis innumerable and grievous offences? And does he wonder whetherGod will, in addition to pardoning him, raise him to those highrelationships to the Godhead to which he has raised others? Willhe extend to me the grace of adoption? Will he constitute andcall me his child? Shall I be favored with those blessedintimacies--those varied and manifold advantages of which thatrelation is the guaranty? How satisfactory the answer! You will. You will be numbered with his sons and daughters, the coheirswith his eternal--his only begotten Son. God hath not left thisan open question. "He hath predestinated us to the adoption ofchildren by Jesus Christ unto himself. " "For unto as many asreceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believe in his name. " Christians, you entertain high hopes of heaven. And yet, sometimes, it seems too much for your faith that God shouldconfer upon you such blessedness and glory. Your faith almoststaggers at the promise. You are ready to say-- "How can it be, thou Heavenly King, That thou should'st us to glory bring-- Make slaves the partners of thy throne, Deck'd with a never-fading crown?" Let your faith be invigorated by the assurance that this issettled beyond dispute by God's eternal purpose. It is decreed. "To him that overcometh will I give to sit down with me on mythrone. " "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, beingpredestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh allthings after the counsel of his own will. " Nor has this measurebeen forced upon Jehovah. It is sometimes the case thatsovereigns are compelled to yield privileges to restless andrevolted subjects. Sometimes contemporary sovereignties combineto force a reluctant ruler into arrangements contrary to hispreconceived and preferred policy. Sometimes potent rulers yieldtheir preferences to the sway of sage and influential counsellors, and find themselves committed to a policy which they execute withreluctance, and with exceptions. It is not so with any of thedecrees of the Most High. Who, being his counsellor, hath taughthim? He "worketh all things according to the counsel of his ownwill. " "It is the Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. "It is no less the pleasure of the Son: "Father, I will that theyalso that thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they maybehold my glory. " And he has power to carry out his purposes totheir entire fulfilment. O, how precious is this doctrine of Divinepredestination! You may have enemies. There may be those who would deny you aplace in the church on earth. You may have been excommunicatedand cursed for worshipping the God of your fathers after themanner which some call heresy. Your enemies would fain keep youout of heaven. They profess to be able to do so. But they aremistaken. God has not left it to them to determine who shallenter heaven and who shall not. He has fixed the conditions ofsalvation independently of their counsels--long before theyexisted--before the sun began his course. "He will have mercy onwhom he will have mercy. " To accomplish their end, they must beable to go behind all human arrangements to the decrees, thepurposes of heaven, and revoke them. Will they be able to dothat? Or, if unable to revoke, or induce him to revoke hisdecrees, will they be able to defeat them by machinations orphysical resistance? Surely not. He will show them "theimmutability of his counsels. " He will say to them, "My counselshall stand, and I will do all my pleasure. " "There is no wisdom, or understanding, or counsel, against the Lord. " "He will makethe devices of the people of none effect. " "The Lord of Hostshath purposed, and who shall disannul it. " "Hallelujah, for theLord God omnipotent reigneth!" And how glorious are the prospects which the decrees of Godunfold! These bodies must decay. One of those decrees consigns usto the grave; another provides that we shall be recalled--thatdeath shall be conquered--shall be swallowed up of victory. Theprearrangements of Heaven respecting the bodies of the saints, are thus disclosed: "It is sown in corruption; it is raised inincorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. Itis sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a naturalbody; it is raised a spiritual body. " Religion does not extinguish or impair our social feelings, butrather refines and invigorates them; and, among the hopes that wehave been led to cherish, is that of a reunion with departedfriends in heaven, and a participation in the society of the goodof other climes and ages; and it is expressly declared that theredeemed of subsequent ages shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of God. And while this doctrine is so full of consolation to theChristian, and so fraught with healthful stimulus to piety, it isterrible to the sinner. He need not think to find anything in itto justify or to apologize for his crime, or his impenitency. Normay he indulge the hope that whatever may be the destiny of othersinners, he will escape the damnation of hell. There can be noinfluence brought to bear upon Jehovah sufficient to induce himto swerve in a single instance from his plans. The decrees of Godare against him. He that believeth shall be saved. He thatbelieveth not shall be damned. "These shall go away intoeverlasting punishment. " And he has power to execute his decrees. All attempts at resistance will be as nothing. "The Lordreigneth; let the people tremble. " I have now presented the two rival theories. There is theCalvinistic doctrine, and there are the consequences to which itleads. We can easily detect the wisdom of the requisition thatthe teachers of it shall handle it with "special caution, " andaccount for their studiously keeping it out of sight duringrevivals, and in their ordinary ministrations, and then seekingto divert attention from its practical tendencies by denying thatthe decrees of God are to be taken as the rule or test of ourconduct. But do I not repeat an Arminian slander when I charge them withpartially concealing or disguising the doctrine? No! We have highCalvinistic authority for the imputation. The following is thetestimony of a distinguished Congregational minister of NewEngland, the Rev. Dr. Harvey:-- "There is a large number of orthodox ministers in New Englandwho, from family alliances, from constitutional delicacy oftemper, &c. &c. , as I hinted above, will temporize and make_smooth work_, from an honest conviction that a full disclosureof the truth would _alienate their hearers_. The bitter revilingsof base men have been gradually and insensibly leading Calvinisticministers to _hide their colors_, and _recede_ from their ground. Dr. Spring's Church, at Newburyport, Park Street, especially inDr. Griffin's day, and a few others, have stood like the MacedonianPhalanx. But others have gone backward. _Caution_, CAUTION, hasbeen the watchword of ministers. When they do preach the oldstandard doctrines, it is in so guarded a phraseology that they arenot understood to be the same. " (_Harvey on Moral Agency_, p. 174. ) This is clear and indisputable. The Methodist preachers areprobably included among the "base men" whose "bitter revilings"have brought about this state of things, as none have done moreto bring Calvinism into discredit. And yet, with all this caution, this doctrine is assiduouslytaught to little children in Sabbath-Schools. It is presented tothem and inculcated without disguise. I almost shudder when Ithink of it. Were all the wealth of this great city offered to mefor the privilege of teaching this doctrine to my children, withthe understanding that I would withhold counter-instruction, Iwould spurn the offer. At least, I would do so until my mind hadbecome reconciled to the proposition by a slow and painfulprocess of self-depravation, which, I acknowledge, would not bean impossibility. The apostle Paul speaks of those who through"love of money" have "erred from the faith. " Our Calvinistic brethren may have some ground for claiming thatthey are in advance of us in learning and intelligence, but it isto be hoped that they will not offer their holding this doctrineas proof of the justness of the claim. And if it be the case thatsome minds are determined, by peculiarities in their originalformation, to the belief of Calvinism, I thank God that mine doesnot belong to that class. And, further, it may be a source ofconsolation to us, in our imputed inferiority, that it does notrequire much learning or intelligence to refute Calvinism, or tomake its supporters ashamed of it. And when Calvinists ascribe our opposition to their doctrines todepravity, and call our objections to it "impious cavillings, " asdoes Dr. Musgrave, we offer this apology, that our objections arenot alleged against what we understand to be the Scripturedoctrine; and that if their doctrine be true, and ours false, weare, after all, doing nothing but what God has wisely foreordainedwe should do. We would also suggest to them that any opposition toour course is resistance to the will of Heaven, so that it is afair question whether the charge of depravity should not take theopposite direction, But I do not retort it. Methodists never, sofar as I know, seek to raise the slightest suspicion of the pietyof their Calvinistic brethren on the ground of their being Calvinists. The assertion that Calvinism is specially and exclusivelyfavorable to civil and religious liberty, is a _sheer_ pretence. I will just state a few facts. When the Presbyterians obtainedthe ascendency in England, they proceeded to establish themselvesby law. The _Westminster Confession of Faith_ was intended forthe English Establishment. Presbyterianism is the establishedreligion of Scotland at this day, and also of Holland, Geneva, and some parts of Germany. Presbyterian ministers in Ireland aresupported, in part, by the British Government. They thus consentthat Methodists, Baptists, and others, shall be taxed for theirsupport. That Presbyterianism is not the Established Church inthis country may be owing altogether to the fact that it hasalways been too weak to place itself in that position. When theIndependents, in Cromwell's time, obtained the ascendency, theyfollowed the example of the Presbyterians. The Congregationalistsof New England, who are Calvinists, established their system, bylaw, in several of the colonies, and continued to be theEstablished Church after the Revolution, and until the othersects, combining with unbelievers, became strong enough to putthem down and change the State constitutions in favor of equalrights. And, within five or six years of the present time, aPresbyterian Church, in one of the States of this Republic, applied to the legislature, and obtained a grant of one thousandfive hundred dollars to be expended upon a Presbyterian churchedifice. Many Calvinists have held, and many do yet holddoctrines highly intolerant; and the history of Calvinism iscrimsoned by records of blood spilled in support of its tenets. It would be great wisdom on the part of our Calvinistic brethrento allow the question of the bearing of Calvinism upon civil andreligious liberty to sleep, undisturbed. A very strong presumption of the unsoundness of the Calvinisticdoctrine of decrees arises from the fact that its advocates arecompelled, in answering objections to it, not only to disguise, but also flatly contradict it, and to substitute for it Arminianpositions; thus virtually conceding that it is indefensible. Dr. Musgrave, as we have seen, asserts explicitly that God hasforeordained whatsoever comes to pass. He argues that to denythis, would be in effect to deny that God is infinitely wise, benevolent, and powerful. He says: "We have proved, both byreason and revelation, that all things that come to pass areforeordained. " He applies this doctrine to sinful actions in thefollowing manner: "Now, that the whole of Pharaoh's conduct hadnot only been foreknown but foreordained is indisputable. " Again, he says: "In connection with the foregoing statements concerningthe crucifixion of the Saviour, let us single out the case of oneof the individual actors in that awful tragedy, one whose partwas the most perfidious and execrable, and see whether his crimewas not before ordained, and he the individual predesignated asits perpetrator. " He proceeds to the proof of this proposition. But, when it becomes necessary to meet the palpable andirrefutable objections that this doctrine makes God the author ofsin, and takes away the responsibility of the creature, he iscompelled to change entirely his ground. He substitutes_permission_ for _foreordination_, and defines permission to meansimply not preventing. "And is there no difference, " says he, "between God's making, or exciting men to sin, by his power orinfluence, and his _permitting_, or _not preventing_ them fromsinning? Between his determining to produce the evil himself, orto cause others by his power to do it, and his predetermining to_permit_ men to abuse their liberty and to commit the evil by the_unprevented_ exercise of their own voluntary efficiency?" I reply--there is a very great difference. It is nothing lessthan the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. He is ledto deny his own doctrine, and take refuge in the one he has triedso hard to refute. The Rev. Dr. Baker, of Texas, in a tract published by thePresbyterian Board of Publication, and entitled _The Standards ofthe Presbyterian Church a Faithful Mirror of the Bible_, attemptsto establish by Scripture the proposition--"God from all eternitydid, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freelyand unchangeably foreordain whatsoever comes to pass. " But inanother, published by the same institution, and entitled _TheSovereignty of God Explained and Vindicated_, the design of whichis to present the doctrine of Divine decrees in such a light aswill obviate the usual objections to the Calvinistic view, hesays: "Certain things God _brings to pass_ by a positive agency. Others he _simply permits_ to come to pass. And let it beremarked, permission and approbation do not, by any means, meanthe same thing. " Again: "Does any one ask what is the differencebetween _bringing_ to pass, and _permitting_ to come to pass? Ianswer: God brought to pass the incarnation of his Son. Hepermitted to come to pass his crucifixion. The difference is aswide as the east is from the west. " But if God simply permits some things, why do the creed and thecatechism of the Presbyterian Church assert, so unequivocally, that he has from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes topass, and that he executes, or brings to pass all his decrees?The contradiction is manifest. The Rev. Dr. Fairchild, in his famous _Great Supper_, says:"Calvinists do not regard the decrees of God as extending to allevents in the same manner. Some things God has determined to_effect_ by his own agency, and other things he has decreed to_permit_ or _suffer_ to be. " But, if the Calvinistic doctrine be that his decrees merely"extend to all events" (a very different thing from his decreeingall events), and that while he "decrees" and "effects" some hemerely "permits" or "suffers" other events, what must weunderstand to be the Arminian doctrine, against which they arecalled to contend so earnestly? Are they prepared to acknowledgethat they have abandoned Calvinism and run into Arminianism? Dothey mean to say that there is no difference between thesesystems on the point in question? Not at all. How then do theypreserve the antagonism of the two creeds? What is the Arminianismagainst which they are arrayed? Dr. Musgrave thus attempts thesolution of this question. "Now, I submit, whether the difficulty, thus confessedly pressingagainst both systems, is not capable on our principles, of a muchmore full and satisfactory conclusion. For we not only say, asWesley does, that 'God knew that it was best, on the whole, notto prevent the first sin of Adam, ' but we add, that, knowingthis, he determined not only to permit that, but all the sinsthat he knew would follow from it, and to limit and overrule thewhole for his most excellent glory. " It seems, then, that the difference between Calvinism andArminianism respecting the Divine decrees is that Calvinismaffirms that God knew it was best, on the whole, not to preventthe sins which he has not prevented, but to permit, and limit andoverrule them, while Arminianism affirms that God knew it wouldbe best, on the whole, not to prevent the _first_ sin, butdetermined to prevent all the sins that he foresaw would flowfrom it. What a strange statement! To what shifts are these mendriven by their unfortunate creed! Where does Mr. Wesley, or anyother Arminian writer, say this directly or indirectly? Ourauthor very wisely declines any references at this point. Mr. Wesley does, indeed, deny that God permitted sin, even the "firstsin of Adam, " in the sense of approving or tolerating it; butwhoever denied that God permits, in the sense of suffering--notforcibly preventing, the sins which actually occur? He appropriatesto himself, unfairly, Mr. Wesley's doctrine, and then imputes to Mr. Wesley a tenet so perfectly foolish that it may be doubted whetherany man ever advanced it, whether sane or insane, drunk or sober. No! these are not the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianismrespectively. The reader will see the importance of the painstaken, in the first discourse, to identify Calvinism. I provedbeyond dispute, that Calvinistic creeds, Catechisms, and othertheological treatises, teach explicitly, that God has purposed, decreed, foreordained, whatsoever comes to pass; that in some wayor other he brings to pass all events; that nothing will, or can, come to pass but what he has ordained; that none of his purposescan be defeated; that it cannot, with truth, be said of anyevent--it may or may not occur; and that all actual results, bywhatever means obtained, are expressions of the design, or decreeof God. Arminianism teaches on the contrary, that God has notordained whatsoever comes to pass--that some things he haspreordained; that other things he has not, but has, nevertheless, approved and commanded them, leaving it to the free agency of thecreature to fulfil his requisitions; that other things, he notonly has not foreordained, but, has condemned and prohibitedthem, and yet permits or suffers them to be, in preference tothat violent interference with free agency which would benecessary to their forcible prevention. Dr. Fairchild tells us that "this distinction between a decree to_effect_ and a decree to _permit_ has been adopted by Predestinariandivines in all ages. " Yes, in all ages Predestinarian divines have been compelled toabandon and contradict their creed in the progress, and for thepurpose, of its defence. But Calvin himself formally discards andprotests against this distinction. He says respecting it: "Aquestion of greater difficulty arises from other passages, whereGod is said to incline or draw according to his own pleasure, Satan himself and all the reprobate. For the carnal understandingscarcely comprehends how he, acting by their means, contracts nodefilement from their criminality, and even in operations commonto himself and them, is free from every fault, and yet righteouslycondemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence was invented thedistinction between _doing_ and _permitting_; because to manypersons this has appeared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satanand all the impious are subject to the power and government of God, so that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and usestheir crimes for the execution of his judgments. The modesty ofthose who are alarmed at the appearance of absurdity, might perhapsbe excusable, if they did not attempt to vindicate the Divinejustice by a pretence utterly destitute of any foundation in truth. They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the willand command of God, and afterwards be punished for his blindness. They therefore evade the difficulty, by alleging that it happensonly by the permission of God, and not by the will of God; but Godhimself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects thissubterfuge. " But Calvin protests in vain against resorting to this "evasion"and "subterfuge. " It is the only way in which the advocates ofhis doctrine can make a plausible show of argument when pressedwith certain objections. Hence we find the Westminster divinesemploying it. They tell us in their Confession of Faith, that Godwas pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to _permit_the sin of our first parents. Lest, however, the faithful shouldfall into a serious mistake, another part assures them that theprovidence of God "extendeth itself to the first fall, and allother sins of angels and men, and that not by a _bare permission_, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them, &c. " The nature ofthat "ordering and governing" is explained in the declaration that"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of hisown will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. "But how learned men can talk of God's permitting what he haseternally and unchangeably ordained, is a mystery to some of theunlearned. Is it necessary to tell us, gravely, that God permitsto come to pass that which from all eternity he freely ordainedshall come to pass? He permits men and angels to do what he haspredetermined they shall do, and what they cannot avoid doing!Wonderful!! The apology for this gross misapplication of language, on thepart of men whose learning is sometimes magnified almost intoinfallibility, is found in their distressing emergency. In noother way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents. The usefulness of this term "permit" is admirably indicated bythe account which a Presbyterian colporteur gives of an interviewwith some who objected to the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees. Hesays:-- "I felt myself, however, sometimes compelled to combat with theopponents of our Calvinistic creed. On one occasion entering ahouse, the members of which all attended the Presbyterian Church, but were not members, I sold a Confession of Faith to thegentleman; his lady inquired what the name of the book was and onbeing told, after turning over its pages in a hasty manner, exclaimed: 'I could never allow that book to be under my roof--itshould not be read, and it never ought to have been printed. ' "What was I to do? The doctrine of our Church, so far as electionis concerned, was attacked. After some little conversation on thesubject, I found that she and her son charged our Confession withteaching that God passed a decree which put the fall of Adambeyond the possibility of escape. " Here was an exigency. Let us see how he meets it. That theConfession does teach the doctrine which the lady and her sonascribed to it, is as plain as anything can be. He _decreedwhatsoever comes to pass_, and _executes_ his decrees. Does heask her what objections she has to this doctrine and offer torefute them? Does he directly and promptly deny that Calvinismteaches this doctrine? No! Such a course would be ratherhazardous, considering the character of the books he was seekingto distribute, and did actually leave with them. What course, then, does he take? "I told her, " says he, "if the chapter on thefall of man said so, I was as loath to believe it as she was; andif she could find it so, I would condemn the doctrine. " Mark! Hedoes not say, unconditionally and unequivocally that he condemnedthe doctrine, and was as loath to believe it as she was, but _ifthe chapter which treated on the fall of man said so_. Well, whatfollows: "On turning to the 6th chapter, how surprised was she toread--This their sin God was pleased according to his wise andholy counsel to _permit_. '" This word _permit_ helped him out ofhis difficulty. "Here was a fact, " says he, "of which they hadnever heard before, and which gave them no little satisfaction. "He doubtless left them under the impression that the Confessionof Faith does not teach that God decreed and brought to pass thesin of Adam. However, he did not leave them until they willinglypurchased the _Confession of Faith, the Great Supper_, and_Fisher's Catechism_, which asserts, as I have already shown, that "the very reason why anything comes to pass in time is, because God has decreed it, " that "none of the decrees of God canbe defeated, or fail of execution;" and that God "predeterminesthe creature to such or such an action, and not to another, shutting up all other ways of acting, and leaving that only openwhich he had determined to be done. " Another presumption in favor of Arminianism results from thereadiness with which Methodist preachers are installed as pastorsof Calvinistic churches, both old and new school, with theunderstanding, if their own statements be reliable, that they arenot required to renounce or contradict the Arminian creed. Arminian ministers are coming into great demand by Calvinists. They are admitted into the Methodist ministry with the understandingthat they are sound Arminians. They remain for years withoutexciting the least suspicion of their orthodoxy. When, all at once, without any prior change of ecclesiastical relations, or intimationof a change of theological views, they walk into Calvinistic pulpits. I make no remarks at present upon the morality of this course, butdeduce that Arminianism preaching, to some extent, is necessary tokeep up Calvinistic congregations. Methodists, you may well prize your creed. Your ministers canpreach it without reserve. You can defend it. The water of lifecomes to you through no corrupting medium. You are in no dangerof inhaling poisonous sediment. It will bear analysis. It comesto you fresh and abundant. Drink it, and dig channels wide andlong for its diffusion, that others may be blest as you are.