The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted Part 1

The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted.

by Francis Hodgson.

Rev. FRANCIS HODGSON, D. D.

DEAR SIR: We, whose names are hereunto annexed, having heard your recent series of discourses upon the "Divine Decrees," and believing that their publication at this time would be of great service to the cause of truth, earnestly desire that such measures may be taken as will secure their publication at an early period. We therefore respectfully solicit your concurrence, and that you would do whatever may be necessary on your part to further 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 their publication, as you propose. I have taken the liberty to rearrange 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, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."--EPH. i. 11.

IT would very naturally be expected of a preacher, selecting this pa.s.sage as the foundation of his discourse, that he would have something to say upon the subject of predestination. It is my purpose to make this the theme of the occasion; and this purpose has governed me in the selection of the text. The subject is one of great practical importance. It relates to the Divine government--its leading principles and the great facts of its administration. Some suppose that the Methodists deny the doctrine of Divine predestination, that the word itself is an offence to them, and that they are greatly perplexed and annoyed by those portions of Scripture by which the doctrine is proclaimed. This is a mistaken view. We have no objection to the word; we firmly believe the doctrine; and all the Scriptures, by which it is stated or implied, are very precious to us.

There is a certain theory of predestination, the Calvinistic theory, which we consider unscriptural and dangerous. There is another, the Arminian theory, which we deem Scriptural and of very salutary influence. My plan is, _first_, to refute the false theory; and, _secondly_, to present the true one, and give it its proper application.

My discourse or discourses upon this subject may be more or less unacceptable to some on account of their controversial aspect.

This disadvantage cannot always be avoided. Controversy is not always agreeable, yet it is often necessary. Error must be opposed, and truth defended. What I have to say, is designed chiefly for the benefit of the younger portion of the congregation.

I feel that there devolves upon me not a little responsibility in reference to this cla.s.s of my hearers. Many of them, I am happy to learn, are eagerly searching for truth, and they have a right to expect that the pulpit will aid their inquiries, and throw light upon their path.

The theory of predestination to which we object affirms that G.o.d has purposed, decreed, predetermined, foreordained, predestinated, whatsoever comes to pa.s.s, and that, in some way or other, he, by his providence, brings to pa.s.s whatever occurs.

The advocates of this doctrine complain loudly that they are misunderstood and misrepresented. The Rev. Samuel Miller, D. D., late of Princeton College, N. J., in a tract on _Presbyterian Doctrine_, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, complains thus: "It may be safely said that no theological system was ever more _grossly misrepresented_, or more _foully_ and _unjustly vilified_ than this." "The gross misrepresentations with which it has been a.s.sailed, the _disingenuous_ attempts to fasten upon it consequences which its advocates disavow and abhor; and the _unsparing calumny_ which is continually heaped upon it and its friends, have _scarcely been equalled_ in any other case in the entire annals of theological controversy." "The opponents 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, to inquire." "The truth is, it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker, who has distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism, who has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared to understand it. They are forever fighting against a _caricature_.

Some of the most grave and venerable writers in our country, who have appeared in the Arminian ranks, are undoubtedly in this predicament: whether this has arisen from the want of knowledge or the want of candor, the effect is the same, and the conduct is worthy of severe censure." "Let any one carefully and dispa.s.sionately read over the _Confession of Faith_ of the Presbyterian Church, and he 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 in the ignorance of their authors."

He places himself in very honorable contrast with those whom he thus severely condemns: "The writer of these pages," says he, "is fully persuaded that Arminian principles, when traced out to their natural and unavoidable consequences, lead to an invasion of the essential attributes of G.o.d, and, of course, to blank and cheerless atheism. Yet, in making a statement of the Arminian system, as actually held by its advocates, he should consider himself inexcusable if he departed a hair's-breadth from the delineation made by its friends." (pp. 26, 27, 28.)

This writer reiterates these charges, with interesting variations, in his introduction to a book on the Synod of Dort, published by the same establishment. "They," says he, "are ever fighting against an imaginary monster of their own creation. They picture to themselves the consequences which they suppose unavoidably flow from the real principles of Calvinists, and then, most unjustly, represent these consequences as a part of the system itself, as held by its advocates." Again: "How many an eloquent page of anti-Calvinistic declamation would be instantly seen by every reader to be either calumny or nonsense, if it had been preceded by an honest statement of what the system, as held by 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 from an opponent;" and, after specifying some alleged instances of misrepresentation, he adds: "It is needless to say that falsehoods _more absolute_ and _entire_ were never stereotyped in the foundry of the father of lies, or with greater industry worked off for gratuitous distribution from age to age."

The Rev. Dr. Musgrave, in what he calls a _Brief Exposition and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees, as taught in the a.s.sembly's Larger Catechism_, another of the publications of the Presbyterian Board, charges the opponents of Calvinism in general, 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 "wholesale traduction of moral character, involving the Christian reputation of some three or four thousand accredited ministers of the gospel." His charity suggests an apology for much of our "misrepresentation of their doctrinal system" on the ground of our "intellectual weakness and want of education;" but, for our "dishonorable attempts to impair the influence" of Calvinistic ministers, and "injure their churches," he "can conceive of no apology."

The Rev. A. G. Fairchild, D. D., in a series of discourses ent.i.tled _The Great Supper_, likewise published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, complains in these terms: "Sectarian partisans are interested in misleading the public in regard to our real sentiments, and hence their a.s.sertions should be received with caution. Those who would understand our system of doctrines, must listen, not to the misrepresentations of its enemies, but to the explanations of its friends." (p. 40.) Again: "As these men cannot wield the civil power against us, they will do what they can to punish us for holding doctrines which they cannot overthrow by fair and manly argument. G.o.d only knows the extent to which we might have to suffer for our religion, were it not for the protection of the laws! For, if men will publish the most wilful and deliberate untruths against us, as they certainly do, for no other offence than an honest difference of religious belief, what would they not do if their power were equal to their wickedness?" (p. 73.)

This writer expresses his sense of the "wickedness of those who oppose Calvinism" in still stronger terms: "If, then, the doctrines of grace [Calvinism] are plainly taught in the Scriptures, if they accord with the experience of Christians, and enter largely into their prayers, then it must be exceedingly sinful to oppose and misrepresent them. Those who do this will eventually be found _fighting against G.o.d_. We have recently heard of persons praying publicly against the election of grace, and we wonder that their tongues did not cleave to the roof of their 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, ent.i.tled _Search for Truth_, published by the same high authority, discourses as follows:--

"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; more when he is constantly at it, and manifests in all that he does a feeling of uneasiness and hostility towards those who oppose him.

During my brief sojourn in the c.u.mberland Church, I was called upon to witness many such exhibitions, that, in the outset of my ministerial labors, made anything but a favorable impression on my mind. I found there, in common with all others who hold to Arminian sentiments, the most uncompromising and _malignant_ opposition to the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, while there was _not_ a man that I met in all my intercourse, that _could_ state fairly and fully what those doctrines are. Their views were entirely one-sided; the truth was garbled to suit their convenience; and the creations of their own fruitful fancy were constantly being presented before the minds of the people, thereby deepening their prejudices, and drawing still closer the dark folds of their mantle of ignorance and bigotry." (pp. 65, 66.)

Again: "It is painful to witness the ignorance and stupidity of men--their malignity and opposition to the truth--who have learned to misrepresent and abuse Calvinism with such bitterness of feeling, till, like a rattlesnake in dog-days, they have become blinded by the poison of their own minds." (p. 156.)

In this attempt to destroy confidence in the veracity of Arminians, so far, at least, as it is connected with their representations of Calvinism, leading individuals are singled out for special animadversion. Dr. Miller a.s.sails the moral character of Arminius. He says of him that, "On first entering upon his professors.h.i.+p, he seemed to take much pains to remove from himself all suspicion of heterodoxy, by publicly maintaining theses in favor of the received doctrines; doctrines which he afterwards zealously contradicted. And that he did this contrary to his own convictions at the time, was made abundantly evident afterwards by some of his own zealous friends. But, after he had been in his new office a year or two, it was discovered that it was his constant practice to deliver one set of opinions in his professional chair, and a very different set by means of private confidential ma.n.u.scripts circulated among his pupils." (_Synod of Dort_, p. 13.)

Dr. Fairchild speaks thus of a pa.s.sage by Mr. Wesley: "In the doctrinal _Tracts_, p. 172, is an address to Satan, which we have no hesitation in saying is fraught with the most concentrated blasphemy 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 ever found their way into the mind of man; I am not willing to transfer the language to these pages; but the work is doubtless accessible to most readers, having been sown broadcast over the land."

(_Great Supper_, p. 150.) He also indorses the charge of forgery which Toplady made against Mr. Wesley. (See p. 111.)

The late Dr. Fisk is charged with garbling the _Confession of Faith_ for sinister purposes (p. 111); and with "scandalous imputations" against Calvinism. (p. 150.)

It is not impossible that our Calvinistic brethren should be misrepresented. Nor is it impossible that they should misrepresent both themselves and others. I do not admit that they are thus misrepresented by their Methodist opponents, but it is not my intention to refute these charges at this time. I refer to them now to justify the special caution which I shall observe in presenting their tenets. They make it necessary for us to prove beyond the possibility of doubt that they hold the doctrines which we impute to them. I shall give their views in their own words.

Calvin says, in his _Inst.i.tutes_: "Whoever, then, desires to avoid this infidelity, let him constantly remember that, in the creatures, there is no erratic power, or action, or motion, but that they are _so governed _by the secret counsel of G.o.d, that _nothing can happen_ but what is subject to his knowledge, and DECREED _by his will_." (Vol. i. p. 186.)

Again: "All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, as though they might happen either one way or another.

Yet, this remains a _fixed principle_ in our hearts, that _there will be_ NO _event which G.o.d has not_ ORDAINED." (_Ib_. p. 193.)

Again: "They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will and command of G.o.d, and afterwards be punished for his blindness. They, therefore, evade this difficulty, by alleging that it happens only by the permission of G.o.d, and not by the will of G.o.d; but G.o.d himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge. That men, however, _can effect_ NOTHING but by the secret _will_ of _G.o.d_, and can _deliberate_ upon nothing but what he has _previously decreed_, and DETERMINES by his _secret direction_, is proved by express and innumerable testimonies." (_Ib_. p. 211.)

Again: "If G.o.d simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not also _dispose_ and _fix_ them by his _determination_, there would be room to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight rendered them at all necessary. But, since he foresees future events only in consequence of _his decree that they shall happen_, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that ALL _things come to pa.s.s rather_ by ORDINATION and DECREE." (Vol ii. p. 169.)

Again: "I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess plainly, with Augustine, 'that the _will_ of G.o.d is the _necessity of things_, and that _what_ he has _willed_ will _necessarily come to pa.s.s_.'

" (_Ib_. p. 171.)

Again: "With respect to his secret influences, the declaration of Solomon concerning the heart of a king, that it is inclined hither or thither according to the Divine will, certainly extends to 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 G.o.d." (_Ib_. p. 213.)

Finally, for the present: "_What G.o.d decrees_," says this celebrated writer, "must NECESSARILY _come to pa.s.s_." (_Ib_. p.

194.)

I think it will not be said, by any one who has heard me attentively, that I either misrepresent, or misunderstand, Calvin, when I impute to him the doctrine that G.o.d has purposed, decreed, determined, foreordained, predestinated whatsoever comes to pa.s.s, and that he in some way or other brings to pa.s.s whatever occurs.