The Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination Examined and Refuted Part 4

The amount is that a man may ascertain by exertion the fact of his election, but he can do nothing towards securing it. Thus Mr.

Wesley's famous consequence is established. "The elect shall be saved, do what they will; the reprobate shall be d.a.m.ned, do what they can." It is plain from these reasonings that this doctrine tends to spiritual inactivity, and countenances licentiousness.

But we are told, by Dr. Boardman, that the Divine "decrees are not the rule of our duty;" that "we are not held responsible for not conforming to them;" that "we are not bound to act with the least reference to them." (p. 45.) What! The subjects of a government not bound to act with the least reference to the decrees of its sovereign!--not responsible for not conforming to them!! This is surely a strange doctrine. It is an indirect concession that the practical bearing of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees cannot be defended. But it is said that we have no right to make G.o.d's secret decrees our rule. Very true. We are not arguing from his secret decrees, but from what our brethren profess to know. If the doctrine in question be a secret, we would like to know by what authority it is so confidently stated in the _Confession of Faith_ and the _Catechism_. How did they come by the knowledge of G.o.d's secret decree? They may claim to be better educated than we are, and more intelligent, to have minds of a superior natural const.i.tution; but we protest against their claiming to be intrusted with the secrets of heaven.

26. This wonderful doctrine makes out the devil and his angels to be faithful servants of G.o.d. They have done, throughout the past, and are doing now, precisely what G.o.d, in his wise and holy counsel, foreordained they should do.

27. It leads to Universalism. If all beings do as G.o.d has decreed, upon what ground can G.o.d punish any of them, then, in futurity? You have only to connect with this doctrine the declaration that G.o.d is benevolent, or just, and Universalism follows.

28. It leads to rank infidelity. It is to my mind more reasonable to believe that G.o.d has made no written revelation of his will, than that he has revealed such a doctrine as this. Let the opinion 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 disputant to maintain a respectable argument against infidelity while standing upon this ground. He must a.s.sume the opposite ground, as the basis of his argument, or he will fail signally. The infidel objects to the Bible that it represents G.o.d as sanctioning crime, and making favorites of its perpetrators, and hence concludes that it cannot be true.

The usual reply is that, so far from having sanctioned vice and its perpetrators, he has solemnly prohibited it; that he holds the perpetrator guilty, condemns him to severe punishment, and will remit that punishment only in view of repentance, and reformation, and an atonement which fully vindicates the Divine government, and most impressively manifests its abhorrence of the course pursued by the transgressor. But what says this doctrine?

That G.o.d has freely, and from all eternity _willed, decreed, foreordained, whatsoever_ comes to pa.s.s. The infidel objects that the Bible contains contradictions, and hence cannot be the word of G.o.d. The usual answer admits that G.o.d cannot contradict himself, but denies that the Bible is chargeable with self -contradiction. Whereas, this doctrine declares that G.o.d has decreed and brought to pa.s.s all the contradictions that were ever uttered. Can it be that G.o.d is the author of a book which represents him as ordaining and bringing to pa.s.s all the acts of crime and folly that were ever committed, including all the lies that were ever uttered, as having two hostile wills in relation to the same event, as decreeing that his creatures should pursue a certain course, and yet commanding them to pursue a contrary course, and then, d.a.m.ning them, thousands upon thousands, for doing what he decreed they should do? It is impossible for the infidel to frame a stronger argument than this doctrine supplies him with.

I have shown, unanswerably, I think, that this doctrine leads, by obvious deduction, to the doctrine that G.o.d prefers sin to holiness in every instance in which sin takes place, and that sin is the necessary means of the greatest good. I will now quote an eminent Calvinistic minister upon the tendencies of this doctrine. He is commenting upon what he calls "the third solution" of the question, "For what reason has G.o.d permitted sin to enter the universe?" which he states to be that "G.o.d chose that sin should enter the universe as the necessary means of the greatest possible good. Wherever it exists, therefore, it is, in the whole, better than holiness would be in its place"--the very doctrine which we are told by high Calvinistic authority, has been a "common sentiment among New England divines since the days of Edwards." He says:--

"The third solution has been extensively adopted by philosophers, especially on the continent of Europe; and its ultimate reaction on the public mind had no small share, we believe, in creating that universal skepticism which at last broke forth upon Europe, in all the horrors of the French Revolution. While the profoundest minds were speculating themselves into the belief that sin was the necessary means of the greatest good, better on the _whole_, in each instance, than holiness would have been in its place--common men were pressing the inquiry, 'Why, then, ought it to be punished?'

Voltaire laid hold of this state of things, and a.s.suming the principle in question to be true, carried round its application to the breast of millions. In his _Candide_, one of the most amusing tales that was ever written, he introduces a young man of strong pa.s.sions and weak understanding, who had been taught this doctrine by a metaphysical tutor. They go out into the world, to 'promote the greatest good' by the indulgence of their pa.s.sions; certain that, _on the whole_, each sin is better than holiness would have been in its place. But when Candide begins to suffer the natural consequences of his vices, he feels it to be but a poor consolation, that others are now reaping the benefit of his sin. Is it surprising that such a work induced thousands to disbelieve in the holy providence of G.o.d, and prepared mult.i.tudes to 'do evil that good might come?'" (_Christian Spectator_, vol. i. pp. 378, 9.)

It would be easier, and more reasonable, to believe in a plurality of G.o.ds, than that one G.o.d should be capable of such conflicting counsels. And this would bring us to the verge of Atheism.

29. This doctrine covers with the wing of its sanction all the errors that were ever promulgated or conceived. I do not say that they all grow out of it, but that it justifies them. Why should I oppose Romanism, or Universalism, or Socinianism, or Puseyism, or Infidelity, when they are all decreed by Jehovah? Christendom presents the strange spectacle of men prying into systems, bringing to the light, condemning, and holding up to public odium their errors of theory and practice, and, yet, holding as a fundamental article of their own creed that G.o.d from all eternity freely decreed, whatsoever comes to pa.s.s. Let them first reject and refute the error which vindicates all errors. What right has a Calvinist to find fault with anything?

30. Again: It clearly follows, from this theory, that any attempt to prevent the commission of sin in our neighbors, is not only in opposition to the primary--the original will, the eternal purposes of G.o.d, but is also in opposition to the highest good of the universe; and that we should, as reasonable beings, rejoice in every instance of sin--of lying, robbery, uncleanness, and murder--as in every instance of holiness.

31. I do not identify this doctrine with pagan fatalism, but I hold that it is akin thereto, and that it tends to the same practical results. It is, in my opinion, worse than pagan fatalism. That doctrine represents all events and actions as strictly necessary, but it binds the G.o.ds as well as men. All bow to that mysterious power called fate. Thus it relieves the G.o.ds of all blame. But Calvinism a.s.serts the freedom of Jehovah, and then imputes to him the foreordination of whatever occurs in the whole universe, and thus, by plain logical consequence, fastens upon him all the just blame of whatever is exceptionable.

Calvinism is not pagan fatalism. It is Christian fatalism. It is fatalism baptized.

DISCOURSE III.

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will."--EPH. i. 11.

IN the preceding discourse, I showed that the Calvinistic doctrine of the Divine decrees leads to the following consequences, namely, that man is not a free agent; that he is not properly accountable for his conduct; that there is no sin in the world; or, that, if there be sin, G.o.d is the author of it; or, that, if he be not strictly and properly the author, he is at least the prime mover of it; that, if sin exist, G.o.d prefers sin to holiness in every instance in which sin takes place; that sin is not an evil, but a real good; that whatever is is right; that there is no reasonable ground for repentance, or for prayer, or for pardon; that regeneration is nothing else than a change from perfect conformity to the will of G.o.d in one way, to perfect conformity to the will of G.o.d in another way; that the doctrines of the fall and redemption by Christ are gross and palpable absurdities; that man is not in a state of probation; that G.o.d has two hostile wills relative to the same thing; that, not only are his secret decrees and his written laws at variance, but he has also decreed and brings to pa.s.s opposite and contradictory events; that civil government is wholly unreasonable; that there is in fact no moral government; that G.o.d is not holy, or just, or wise, or truthful, or benevolent; or, that if G.o.d be nevertheless holy, and wise, and true, and just, and good, we have the foundation of a new system of morals, which, if adopted, must reverse all our estimates of moral character; that man cannot contribute anything to his personal salvation; that the devil and his angels are as faithful servants of G.o.d 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 it furnishes a complete justification of the worst conduct of the worst men, that ever lived, tends to paralyze all effort to resist temptation, and condemns as impious any opposition to the commission of sin by our neighbors, and, finally, that it is worse than the pagan doctrine of fatalism.

I shall now endeavor to present the true doctrine. As has been said, we do not object to the doctrine of predestination, but to the Calvinistic doctrine. The question is not whether G.o.d is a Sovereign, or whether he has his purposes or decrees, but how does he exercise his sovereignty--what are his purposes and decrees? We deny that he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pa.s.s.

For all our information upon this great question we must inquire of the sacred oracles. We understand them to teach that G.o.d, foreseeing, though not ordaining, the transgression of our first parents, decreed that it should subject them to the penalty of death--eternal death. "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." He also decreed that their condition should not be at once irremediable, but that a second probation should be allowed them. He also decreed that an atonement should be made, by which the claims of his government should be vindicated, while he granted to the offenders a respite, and the advantages of a new trial, and which should lay a firm foundation for whatever acts of mercy should be extended to them and their posterity. He further decreed that this atonement should be effected by the suffering and death of his Son, who, for the purpose of effecting this atonement, should a.s.sume our nature, and become G.o.d-man. The apostle instructs us that he was "delivered" to suffering and death, "by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of G.o.d." It was also decreed that the benefits of this atonement should extend to all Adam's posterity--that Christ should die for all. He gave him "a ransom for all," that he, "by the grace of G.o.d, should taste death for every man." It was also predetermined in the counsels of Heaven, that a change should take place in the administration of the Divine government.

The first administration, sometimes called the Adamic law or covenant, was suited to beings perfectly innocent and pure, but not to fallen beings, as it made no provision for pardon or moral restoration. Under its authority the sinner could have no hope.

Another decree provides that the Son of G.o.d shall bear the sceptre of authority--that the government shall be upon his shoulders. To this arrangement we suppose the words of the Psalmist to refer: "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." (Ps. ii. 6, 7, 8.) Also the prayer of the apostle Paul, in which he speaks of "the mighty power" of G.o.d, "which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all princ.i.p.ality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all." (Eph. i. 21, 23.) It is further ordained that, under this new arrangement, faith shall be the condition of the sinner's acceptance with G.o.d--that whosoever believeth shall be pardoned justified from all things; that the act of faith which secures the pardon of one sin shall secure the pardon of all then chargeable; that whosoever is pardoned shall be made holy, conformed to the image of the Son of G.o.d, and made a child of G.o.d by adoption. "For whom he foreknew, them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." "Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will;" that the great mediatorial scheme should be developed in successive dispensations, usually distinguished as the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations; that one nation of people should be selected as the depository of the sacred oracles, and as a theatre for the exhibition of the true religion; that in the fulness of time, Jews and Gentiles should be placed upon one common ground of religious privilege, the part.i.tion wall being broken down. It is also decreed that there shall be a general judgment. G.o.d hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world; that there shall be a resurrection of the bodies of men; that the bodies of the saints at the resurrection shall be made very glorious; that the righteous of every age and country shall ultimately be gathered into one glorious place, from which all sin and pain shall be excluded, and shall const.i.tute one undivided family forever. "Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory." "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in Heaven and which are on earth." And, finally, it is decreed that while the righteous shall have life eternal, the wicked, the finally impenitent, and unbelieving, and unholy, shall go away into everlasting punishment--shall be imprisoned in a place originally prepared for the first rebels against 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 in sustaining this doctrine by Scripture. It is not liable to any of the objections which menace fatally the Calvinistic scheme. There is no difficulty in perceiving its harmony with man's free agency and moral accountability. It does not give the slightest occasion for the question whether G.o.d is the author of sin. He has issued decrees respecting it; but they are all condemnatory. None of them preordain it. It does not admit the supposition of his being a partic.i.p.ant in any unholy deed or device. The question never came up among Methodist divines, whether G.o.d prefers, in any instance, sin to holiness? They would not, could not, consider it a debatable question. Nor that other question--Is sin the necessary means of the greatest good? Calvinism is justly ent.i.tled to the honor of originating such questions as these. No one would ever think of affirming upon Arminian principles that whatever is is right. Arminianism lays a firm basis for Divine moral government, and also for civil government--for rewards and punishments. It not only relieves the Divine attributes from the fearful suspicions and imputations with which Calvinism dishonors them, but surrounds them with a transcendent glory. It protects the morality of the Bible from the devastating incursions to which Calvinism exposes it, and presents the most powerful incentives to piety. It does not throw the protecting s.h.i.+eld of the Divine decrees over every form of error and outrage with which earth is filled, or represent G.o.d as having two hostile wills. It forms no entangling alliances with heathen fatalism. We are not under the necessity of warning inquirers against committing themselves to the practical influence of the Arminian doctrine of Divine decrees, by saying, with Dr. Boardman, that "These decrees are not the rule of our duty. We are not held responsible for not conforming to them. We are not bound to act with the least reference to them."

The practical bearing of the Arminian doctrine is eminently and obviously salutary. It has not a single aspect which is not favorable to piety and morality. Does a sinner tremble at the word of G.o.d? He is made to feel the force of the inspired declaration that the way of transgressors is hard, and to ponder the advantages of reformation? Is he not appalled and paralyzed by the terrible announcement that all his misdeeds, the tendency, if not the nature of which he now contemplates with horror, are the result of a power which he cannot successfully resist; that he is bound to the hateful course of conduct which he deplores, by eternal decrees and that, in despite of any feelings or desires he may have, his course may be predestined to be worse in the future than in the past. O, no! He is a.s.sured that G.o.d never preordained sin. That he commands all men everywhere to repent, and that what he requires of men he will enable them to do. He is told that nothing binds him to sin but his depravity, that he may avail himself of the powerful influences of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which can make him free from the law of sin and death; and that whom G.o.d foreknew, as repenting, and believing, and availing themselves of remedial provisions, he "predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son"--he hath chosen "to be holy and without blame before him in love."

Has the man who is seeking with penitence and prayer the favor of G.o.d profoundly humbling views of himself? Does he think it to be a wonderful stretch of condescension and mercy in G.o.d to forgive his innumerable and grievous offences? And does he wonder whether G.o.d will, in addition to pardoning him, raise him to those high relations.h.i.+ps to the G.o.dhead to which he has raised others? Will he extend to me the grace of adoption? Will he const.i.tute and call me his child? Shall I be favored with those blessed intimacies--those varied and manifold advantages of which that relation is the guaranty? How satisfactory the answer! You will.

You will be numbered with his sons and daughters, the coheirs with his eternal--his only begotten Son. G.o.d hath not left this an open question. "He hath predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself." "For unto as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d should confer upon you such blessedness and glory. Your faith almost staggers 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 a.s.surance that this is settled beyond dispute by G.o.d's eternal purpose. It is decreed.

"To him that overcometh will I give to sit down with me on my throne." "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." Nor has this measure been forced upon Jehovah. It is sometimes the case that sovereigns are compelled to yield privileges to restless and revolted subjects. Sometimes contemporary sovereignties combine to force a reluctant ruler into arrangements contrary to his preconceived and preferred policy. Sometimes potent rulers yield their preferences to the sway of sage and influential counsellors, and find themselves committed to a policy which they execute with reluctance, and with exceptions. It is not so with any of the decrees of the Most High. Who, being his counsellor, hath taught him? He "worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will." "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 they also that thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory." And he has power to carry out his purposes to their entire fulfilment. O, how precious is this doctrine of Divine predestination!

You may have enemies. There may be those who would deny you a place in the church on earth. You may have been excommunicated and cursed for wors.h.i.+pping the G.o.d of your fathers after the manner which some call heresy. Your enemies would fain keep you out of heaven. They profess to be able to do so. But they are mistaken. G.o.d has not left it to them to determine who shall enter heaven and who shall not. He has fixed the conditions of salvation independently of their counsels--long before they existed--before the sun began his course. "He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy." To accomplish their end, they must be able to go behind all human arrangements to the decrees, the purposes of heaven, and revoke them. Will they be able to do that? Or, if unable to revoke, or induce him to revoke his decrees, will they be able to defeat them by machinations or physical resistance? Surely not. He will show them "the immutability of his counsels." He will say to them, "My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure." "There is no wisdom, or understanding, or counsel, against the Lord." "He will make the devices of the people of none effect." "The Lord of Hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it." "Hallelujah, for the Lord G.o.d omnipotent reigneth!"

And how glorious are the prospects which the decrees of G.o.d unfold! These bodies must decay. One of those decrees consigns us to the grave; another provides that we shall be recalled--that death shall be conquered--shall be swallowed up of victory. The prearrangements of Heaven respecting the bodies of the saints, are thus disclosed: "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body."

Religion does not extinguish or impair our social feelings, but rather refines and invigorates them; and, among the hopes that we have been led to cherish, is that of a reunion with departed friends in heaven, and a partic.i.p.ation in the society of the good of other climes and ages; and it is expressly declared that the redeemed of subsequent ages shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the Kingdom of G.o.d.

And while this doctrine is so full of consolation to the Christian, and so fraught with healthful stimulus to piety, it is terrible to the sinner. He need not think to find anything in it to justify or to apologize for his crime, or his impenitency. Nor may he indulge the hope that whatever may be the destiny of other sinners, he will escape the d.a.m.nation of h.e.l.l. There can be no influence brought to bear upon Jehovah sufficient to induce him to swerve in a single instance from his plans. The decrees of G.o.d are against him. He that believeth shall be saved. He that believeth not shall be d.a.m.ned. "These shall go away into everlasting punishment." And he has power to execute his decrees.

All attempts at resistance will be as nothing. "The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble."

I have now presented the two rival theories. There is the Calvinistic doctrine, and there are the consequences to which it leads. We can easily detect the wisdom of the requisition that the teachers of it shall handle it with "special caution," and account for their studiously keeping it out of sight during revivals, and in their ordinary ministrations, and then seeking to divert attention from its practical tendencies by denying that the decrees of G.o.d are to be taken as the rule or test of our conduct.

But do I not repeat an Arminian slander when I charge them with partially concealing or disguising the doctrine? No! We have high Calvinistic authority for the imputation. The following is the testimony of a distinguished Congregational minister of New England, the Rev. Dr. Harvey:--

"There is a large number of orthodox ministers in New England who, from family alliances, from const.i.tutional delicacy of temper, &c. &c., as I hinted above, will temporize and make _smooth work_, from an honest conviction that a full disclosure of the truth would _alienate their hearers_. The bitter revilings of base men have been gradually and insensibly leading Calvinistic ministers to _hide their colors_, and _recede_ from their ground.

Dr. Spring's Church, at Newburyport, Park Street, especially in Dr. Griffin's day, and a few others, have stood like the Macedonian Phalanx. But others have gone backward. _Caution_, CAUTION, has been the watchword of ministers. When they do preach the old standard doctrines, it is in so guarded a phraseology that they are not understood to be the same." (_Harvey on Moral Agency_, p. 174.)

This is clear and indisputable. The Methodist preachers are probably included among the "base men" whose "bitter revilings"

have brought about this state of things, as none have done more to bring Calvinism into discredit.

And yet, with all this caution, this doctrine is a.s.siduously taught to little children in Sabbath-Schools. It is presented to them and inculcated without disguise. I almost shudder when I think of it. Were all the wealth of this great city offered to me for the privilege of teaching this doctrine to my children, with the understanding that I would withhold counter-instruction, I would spurn the offer. At least, I would do so until my mind had become reconciled to the proposition by a slow and painful process of self-depravation, which, I acknowledge, would not be an 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 that they are in advance of us in learning and intelligence, but it is to be hoped that they will not offer their holding this doctrine as proof of the justness of the claim. And if it be the case that some minds are determined, by peculiarities in their original formation, to the belief of Calvinism, I thank G.o.d that mine does not belong to that cla.s.s. And, further, it may be a source of consolation to us, in our imputed inferiority, that it does not require much learning or intelligence to refute Calvinism, or to make its supporters ashamed of it.

And when Calvinists ascribe our opposition to their doctrines to depravity, and call our objections to it "impious cavillings," as does Dr. Musgrave, we offer this apology, that our objections are not alleged against what we understand to be the Scripture doctrine; and that if their doctrine be true, and ours false, we are, after all, doing nothing but what G.o.d has wisely foreordained we should do. We would also suggest to them that any opposition to our course is resistance to the will of Heaven, so that it is a fair question whether the charge of depravity should not take the opposite direction, But I do not retort it. Methodists never, so far as I know, seek to raise the slightest suspicion of the piety of their Calvinistic brethren on the ground of their being Calvinists.

The a.s.sertion that Calvinism is specially and exclusively favorable to civil and religious liberty, is a _sheer_ pretence.

I will just state a few facts. When the Presbyterians obtained the ascendency in England, they proceeded to establish themselves by law. The _Westminster Confession of Faith_ was intended for the English Establishment. Presbyterianism is the established religion of Scotland at this day, and also of Holland, Geneva, and some parts of Germany. Presbyterian ministers in Ireland are supported, in part, by the British Government. They thus consent that Methodists, Baptists, and others, shall be taxed for their support. That Presbyterianism is not the Established Church in this country may be owing altogether to the fact that it has always been too weak to place itself in that position. When the Independents, in Cromwell's time, obtained the ascendency, they followed the example of the Presbyterians. The Congregationalists of New England, who are Calvinists, established their system, by law, in several of the colonies, and continued to be the Established Church after the Revolution, and until the other sects, combining with unbelievers, became strong enough to put them down and change the State const.i.tutions in favor of equal rights. And, within five or six years of the present time, a Presbyterian Church, in one of the States of this Republic, applied to the legislature, and obtained a grant of one thousand five hundred dollars to be expended upon a Presbyterian church edifice. Many Calvinists have held, and many do yet hold doctrines highly intolerant; and the history of Calvinism is crimsoned by records of blood spilled in support of its tenets.

It would be great wisdom on the part of our Calvinistic brethren to allow the question of the bearing of Calvinism upon civil and religious liberty to sleep, undisturbed.

A very strong presumption of the unsoundness of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees arises from the fact that its advocates are compelled, in answering objections to it, not only to disguise, but also flatly contradict it, and to subst.i.tute for it Arminian positions; thus virtually conceding that it is indefensible. Dr.

Musgrave, as we have seen, a.s.serts explicitly that G.o.d has foreordained whatsoever comes to pa.s.s. He argues that to deny this, would be in effect to deny that G.o.d is infinitely wise, benevolent, and powerful. He says: "We have proved, both by reason and revelation, that all things that come to pa.s.s are foreordained." He applies this doctrine to sinful actions in the following manner: "Now, that the whole of Pharaoh's conduct had not only been foreknown but foreordained is indisputable." Again, he says: "In connection with the foregoing statements concerning the crucifixion of the Saviour, let us single out the case of one of the individual actors in that awful tragedy, one whose part was the most perfidious and execrable, and see whether his crime was not before ordained, and he the individual predesignated as its perpetrator." He proceeds to the proof of this proposition.

But, when it becomes necessary to meet the palpable and irrefutable objections that this doctrine makes G.o.d the author of sin, and takes away the responsibility of the creature, he is compelled to change entirely his ground. He subst.i.tutes _permission_ for _foreordination_, and defines permission to mean simply not preventing. "And is there no difference," says he, "between G.o.d's making, or exciting men to sin, by his power or influence, and his _permitting_, or _not preventing_ them from sinning? Between his determining to produce the evil himself, or to 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 less than the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. He is led to deny his own doctrine, and take refuge in the one he has tried so hard to refute.

The Rev. Dr. Baker, of Texas, in a tract published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, and ent.i.tled _The Standards of the Presbyterian Church a Faithful Mirror of the Bible_, attempts to establish by Scripture the proposition--"G.o.d from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably foreordain whatsoever comes to pa.s.s." But in another, published by the same inst.i.tution, and ent.i.tled _The Sovereignty of G.o.d Explained and Vindicated_, the design of which is to present the doctrine of Divine decrees in such a light as will obviate the usual objections to the Calvinistic view, he says: "Certain things G.o.d _brings to pa.s.s_ by a positive agency.

Others he _simply permits_ to come to pa.s.s. And let it be remarked, permission and approbation do not, by any means, mean the same thing." Again: "Does any one ask what is the difference between _bringing_ to pa.s.s, and _permitting_ to come to pa.s.s? I answer: G.o.d brought to pa.s.s the incarnation of his Son. He permitted to come to pa.s.s his crucifixion. The difference is as wide as the east is from the west."

But if G.o.d simply permits some things, why do the creed and the catechism of the Presbyterian Church a.s.sert, so unequivocally, that he has from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes to pa.s.s, and that he executes, or brings to pa.s.s all his decrees?

The contradiction is manifest.