CONTROVERSY

CALVINISTIC

SERMON

EMBRACING

'

ON

PREDESTINATION

AND

FORMERLY

AND

SEVERAL

PUBLISHED

IN

ELECTION,

NUMBERS,

THE

CHRISTIAN

ADVOCATE

AND

T^TTT,KT.T

BY

REV.

WILBUR

D.

FISK,

D.

NEW-YORK,
PUBLISHED

For

the Methodist

BY

B.

WAUGH

AND

T.

MA.XV,

Episcopal Church at the Conference

200 Mulberry -street.
J.

Collord,Printer.
1835.

0'ii":e,
,

LIBRARY]

PUBLIC

610000
LENOX

ASTC",

AND

FOUNDATIONS

1"LDEN

1901

"Entered

Waugh
the

according
and

Southern

T.

to

Mason,

District

in
of

New-

Act
the

of
Clerk's
York."

Congress,
Office

in

of

the
the

year
District

1S35,
Court

by

B.
of

CONTENTS.

Page

Advertisement
Sermon

and

Predestination

on

Election'

7
.

No.

I.

Reply

to

the

Spectator

Christian

63
.

II.

proposition

81

Calvinists

to

IV.

of

Indefiniteness

III.

sketch

Brief

Calvinism

of

the

of

state

present

changes

past

Calvinism

in

and

this

try
coun-

97
V.

VI.

Same

subject

105

continued

." !

Predestination

117

VII.

Predestination,

131

continued
'.

Moral

VIII.

Moral

IX.

and

agency

and

agency

149

accountability

accountabilitv,

con-

163

tinued

X.

Moral
the

XI.

XI

XIV.
XV.

subsequent

Same

XII

affected

provisions

subject

Objections
II.

as

agency

by
of

the

fall,

.183

grace

gracious

ability

answered

Regeneration,

226

252

Regeneration

Regeneration,

205

continued
to

and

continued
continued

...'.".

271

....."

291

ADVERTISEMENT.

The

the
following

numbers

tination and

times, and in
from

notice.
it may

instances

some

This

other.

each

at

apologyfor any
of style,
which
uniformity

it is hoped,as
or

written

election,were

And

an

if any farther

predes-

on

sermon

different

at

quitedistant
will be

received,

of

want

tervals
in-

tion
connec-

the reader may

apologybe

necessary,
be found in the fact,that the entire conit is

were
presented,
duties.
written in the midst of other pressing
has preventedmy giving
And the same
reason
such a thoroughrevision,as it should
the work
have had, before it was
presentedto the public,
of a book.
in the more
set and imposing form
Such
not originally
a form
was
thoughtof and

tents

of the volume

as

now

"

"

now

that this is called

that the

aware

revision and

for,tho author

publicmight expect

correction

of

this however, he must, of

has

the

errors.
typographical

it must
therefore,
on

go

"

whole.

careful

From

be excused.
necessity,

able to do littlemore

He

been

the

is well

than

correct

publichave it,
all its imperfections

If the
with

/
it^^c^"'^-^i^Je!2i7bji4U^^rsto"

XUISW

THBM

do

ADVERTISEMENT.

send

not

called

for

which

It

at

in

rate,

any

Calvinistic

stand

if

election
to

of

found

be

but

that

be

to

one

farther
had

enough

point

and

and

agency

the

ration
regene-

the

fallacious,

that

and

predestination,
moral

fective.
de-

added

upon

that

rne

on

Calvinian

found

reason

arguments

have

to

of

the

may

design

sermon

views

were

of

The

go.

test

is

it

say

may

the

some

appeared
the

it

defended

on

it

said

will

are

numbers

reflection,

that

consent

original

my

two

been

publishers

although

they

was

The

out.

believe,

Scripture,

by

or

and

doctrines
and

it

whole

must

superstructure

points

therefore,

question

between

we

us

fall

may

and

of

safely
the

On

course.

the

rest

University,

April

entire

Calvinists..
W.

Wesleyan

these

28,

1835.

Fisk.

DISCOURSE

ON

According
foundation
without

he

as

of the

blame

ELECTION.

AND

PREDESTINATION

chosen

hath

world,

before

that

him

should

we

before

him

in

us

be

the?

holy

and

in love.

dren,
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of chilChrist, to himself, according to the
by Jesus
good pleasure of his will, Ephesians i, 4, 5.

In this passage,
and

To

discuss

them,
the

be

election

them,
and

the kindred

to

to

brought

are

notice

exhibit

of destinati
preinto view.

doctrines

errors

some

what

ing
respect-

is believed

to

be

trines,
Scripturaland rational view of these docis the proposed objectof the present discourse.
In doing this,much
that is new
cannot
expected. The whole ground of this contro-

been examined
very has
the various
arguments,

and
on

re-examined

both

sides,have

; and

been

urged and opposed,by the most able polemics in

philosophy and theology. The most, therefore,
that can
be expected,is to give a concise
now
suited
view of the subject,
in a form and manner
to

the present state

the circumstances

of

the

controversy, and

of the present

to

congregation.
be
It is hoped, at least,that the subject may
in the spirit
of Christianity
investigated
; and

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

there will be

loss of

brotherlyand
Christian candour, if there be no gain,
the
on
side of truth. Yet, in a desire to give no offence,
I must not suppress the truth,nor neglect
of error,
to point
able,the absurdity
out, as I am
and its unprofitable
the minds
influences on
of
tnat

those

who

no

propagate

receive it.

or

The

truth

should be

spoken,but itshould be spoken in love.

Neither the subject,
the age, nor the occasion,
nor
will admit of temporizing.With
these
to our
views,we come
by examining,
subject,
I. Predestination in general;
II. Predestination,
relation to
in its particular
the doctrine of election.
I. By predestination,
understand
we
to bringabout
predetermination

any

future

But

event.

or

God

as

an

cient
effi-

plish
accom-

alone has

and power to
knowledge to comprehend futurity,
direct and control future events; predestination,
in a 'proper and strictsense, can
onlybe used in
And
with respect to God,
reference to him.
is that efficient determination
predestination
which he has maintained from eternity,
ing
respectthe control,direction,and destiny
of the
of the

laws, events, and

creatures

That

of this kind,
predetermination

there

God
can

hath
be

no

"

this
on
therefore,
dispute. But the ground

doubt

and

be no
fact,there can
of controversy is,the unlimited

have

universe.

carried this idea

extent

of

to

which

predestination.
Calvin,on this subject,
Every action and
says,
motion of every creature
den
is governedby the hidcounsel of God, so that nothing
to
come
can

some

"

controversy.

calvixistic

ordained by him."
The Assembly's
pass, but was
"
God
is similar :
Catechism
did, from
"

alleternity,
unchangeablyordain whatever
to

pass."

for his

The

"

to mean,

are

seen,

defines

Mr. Buck

predestination
of God, whereby he hath,

decree

glory,foreordained

own

pass."

to

And

With

the

comes

whatever

comes

which, it is
definitions,
in substance, agree all the

these

same

Calvinistic divines in Europe and America.

To this view of predestination,
others,and
confess ourselves of that

we

number, have objected.

believe that the character

We

"

and acts of intelligent

beings,so far at least as their moral

is concerned, are
not
definitely
accountability
ble
fixed,and efficiently
produced,by the unalteraHere
purpose and efficientdecree of God.
with
therefore we
issue. We
at
are
believe,
hath fixed
that God
rigidpredestinarians,
and moral world, and
the laws of the physical
that he hath a generalplan,suited to all the
various circumstances and contingencies
of his
government ; but that it is no part of this plan,

the

will.
the human
to control and actuate
efficiently
So far,therefore,as these ultra-predestinaria
deny ; and
go beyond us, they affirm what we
the burden of proof falls upon them.
of course
shall first,
the arguWe
then,hear and answer
ments
in defence of their system, and then bring
our

up
*

it.*
arguments against

ers,
have been
made, by the reviewMany objections
of statingthe doctrine of predestito my
manner
nation.
It is objected,that the great body of Cal-

vinists

believe,no

more

than

the

Arminians, that

God

10

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

The

supporters of this system endeavour

establish their views by a threefold argument
the

to
"

the necessity
of God
of
foreknowledge
plan and Scripture
testimony.

"

"

1. The

first argument is founded on

contended
knowledge. It is sometimes

forethat

and foreknowledge
the same.
are
predestination
is not now
This,however, by the more
judicious,
insisted
and

to

in

For

it is

decree,are

that
self-evident,

distinct

to

operations
;

know,

and

to

with the common

definition
acquainted
the terms, they must
ferent
distinctand difconvey
ideas. And if these are distinctoperations
the human
mind, they must be also in the
one

every

of

on.

Divine

mind, unless it can

be shown

that these

terms, when
appliedto God, have an
different meaning from that by which
understood

among
the more
pretended,

men.

controls
efficiently

and

And

as

entirely
they are

this cannot

be

and

plausible
ment
arguthat
the
of
is,
rily
foreknowledge God necessa" For
how," they
impliespredestination.

"

On

careful, and

however,
is valid.

I
I

common

actuates

the

human

will."

ject,
hope, candid revision of the subcannot
satisfy
myself that the objection
God
control
must
the
am
quite sure

will, or he cannot,
end, by the

as

Calvinists

teach, secure

the posed
proIt is readily

prescribedmeans.
granted that Calvinists deny such a control as destroys
of the will.
But it is the objectof the
the freedom
of the following controversy to
and
show
sermon
that Calvinistic
is,on any ground of
predestination
dom.
consistency,utterlyirreconcilable with mental freefar this has been done, of course,
How
each
will judge for himself.

CALVINISTIC

ask, "

can

pass, be

action that is

an

II

CONTROVERSY.

if it be
foreseen,

not

reallyto

to

come

determined ?

God

foreknew
; but
every thingfrom the beginning
this he could not have known, if he had not so
determined

sees
God," says Piscator, " forenothingbut what he has decreed, and his

decree

it."

"

precedes his knowledge."

Calvin

And

"
God
therefore foreknows
all thingsthat
says,
he has decreed they
will come
to pass, because
shall come
to pass." But to this idea there are

Prescience
insuperable
objections.

is

But

attribute of the Divine nature.

do this

to

Divine
to

of his

mination
deter-

that,is not essentialto the

or

aught we can see, God

make
a
planetor
particular
in either ease
the perfection

For

nature.

mightdetermine
not

tial
essen-

an

to

make

it,and

nature

is not

affected.

But

essential to him, that the moment

know all that is,or will be, or

to

know, is

he

so

to

ceases

mightbe, under

he ceases
to be God.
contingency,
any possible
Is it not absurd,then, to say the least,
to make
an

essential attribute of

exercise of his

depend upon

Deity depend upon the

attributes ? the Divine prescience
"

his decrees and determinations

? It

would seem, by this argument, that,if not in the

order of time, at least,
in the order of thought,
and in the order

of

an

of

attribute

cause

and

precededthe

and,in short,the attribute must

a

cause,

monstrous
out

to

bring it

conclusion

this argument.

the
effect,

attribute itself;

be

exercised,as

into existence !
we

And

monstrous
another,
equally

are

cise
exer-

led

connected

To

this

by following
with

and absurd.

it is

If God

12

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

predetermineevents

must

in order

know

to

is in no case
them, then, as the cause
dependent
the effect,
the decrees of God must be passed
on
and his plan contrived, independently
of his

knowledge,which only had

effect of these decrees.
of that

What

plan,and

formed

were

and

existence

an

must

as

the

be the character

of those decrees,which

matured

without

knowledge,

will not stop to examine, for the idea borders

the ludicrous to be dwelt upon
too closelyupon
we

in

see
yet I cannot
how this conclusion can
be avoided,reasoning
from such premises. It seems
to us, therefore,
consistent to consider that, in
more
altogether
the order of cause
and effect,
the exercise of the
a

serious discourse.

And

Divine attributesis consequent upon

;

and

their existence

planof the Almighty is the

infinite knowledge; and that the

that the

result of his

decrees of his throne

flow forth from the eternal

fountain of his wisdom.

This

idea, moreover,

For whom
he
:
Scriptures
did foreknow, he also did predestinate
to be
conformed
Elect
to the image of his Son."
of God the Father."
accordingto the foreknowledge
and the
In these passages predestination
founded on
decree of election are
most
clearly
foreknowledge.This,therefore,must settle the
nate
question: God foreknows in order to predestiin order to
predestinate
; but he does not
accords

with the

"

"

"

foreknow.*
It seems,
better than
*

argument

on

to

the

author

of the

to object,
as
trifling,
foreknowledge,that

sermon,

some

"God

but

have,
must

little

to

this

prede-

CALVINISTIC

But

13

CONTROVERSY.

is pressedinto this arguforeknowledge

ment
The
form.
in another
foreknowledge
"

God," it is said," is tantamount

cannot
God
as
because, inasmuch
of

he foreknows

whatever
his

must

to

decree

be in
take

take,
mis-

place
"

knowledgemakes it certain." This

the argument ; for if God's
shifting

is indeed
ledge
know-

it is not
of course
certain,
his predetermination.
But, accordingto this
notion,everythingcontained in the idea of predestinati
makes

an

event

which is
impliedin foreknowledge,
only throwingthe subjectback on the ground
firstglancedat, that knowledge and decree are
absurd.
which
is obviously
both one,
Beside,
that
make
idea would
the scriptures
such
an
distinct from
as
representGod's foreknowledge
is

his

decree

and

antecedent

than
it, worse
did foreknow, them
to

he
unmeaning: "Whom
would
he
whom
he did predestinate,"
mean,
did predestinate,
them he did predestinate"
and,
of God,"
Elect according
to the foreknowledge
"

"

"

termine
what

his

would

works
take

before

place ;

he

and

could

certainlyknow

hence, in the order

of

decree
in order to know."
effect,he must
It is readilyconceded, that, in the order of nature, the
cause

and

that a world would

Being could not foreknow
it.
to create
certainlyexist,until he had determined
there no
But was
prescienceback of this ? Did he
determine
view
to create
a universe, independent of a
?
of all the bearings in the case
If so, he created at
and in ignorance. If not, then a view of all
random
the results preceded his determination
to create
; and
of the ser.
thus we
led irresistibly
to the doctrine
are
God
that
foreknows in order to predestinate,"
mon,

Divine

"

14

CALVINISTIC

would

onlymean,
was
accordingto
of which
absurdity
to

this

that the

decree of election

the decree

of election !" the

"

is too

apparent to need combe urged,farther,

in reply

it may

And

ment.

CONTROVERSY.

argument, that knowledgeor

cannot, in the

influence
possible

least

It is not
the

nature

at

of
certainty

in

ledge
foreknow-

of

have
things,
making an event

all difficult to conceive

an

the
tain.
cer-

how

begetknowledge;
knowledgeis the cause

event

can

but if any one thinks that

let him show
of certainty,

it

to

"

such

me

Whatever

is inconceivable.

nection
con-

God

knows
fore-

foresees,will undoubtedlycome
But
the simple questionis, Does

to

or

pass.

take

event

foreknown

it is foreknown,or is it
it will take place?
Or, in

placebecause
because

words, Does

other

God

know

event

an

does his
it is certain,
or

certain because

it to be certain make

it certain ?

The

stated,at

suggests the

true

thus

the

once

be considered

for he would

fool or

to

be

knowing
question
answer

madman

assert that a knowledgeof

seriously
a certainty
producedthat certainty.According
exist in order to be
must
to that, a
certainty

who

should

to exist !

From
can

future

be

and it must

foreknown

all which
have

certain.

event

foreknown
it appears

that foreknowledge

influence in

no

in order

making

knowledge
Since, therefore, fore-

predestination
; and does not,
follow predesor
reason,
accordingto Scripture
tination
is not

and

has

possible
influence in making an event certain,no proof
be drawn
from the Divine presciencein
can
as

consequence,

no

15

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

hath

of the doctrine that God

favour

whatsoever

to

comes

dained
foreor-

pass.

is arguedfrom the necessity

predestination
be conceived,"
of a Divine plan. It cannot
dom,
it is said, that God would leave thingsat ranand have no plan. But no alteration of his
tures
plancan take placeupon condition that his creathat way." But this arguact in this or
ment
is easily
answered, at least for the present.
what oughtto be proved; and what
For itassumes
been proved,
viz.
has not, to my knowledge,
ever
is to
that to deny Calvinian predestination,
ledge
deny that God has a perfectplan. We acknowand maintain that God has a plan,one part
of which is,to govern his responsible
subjects,
their will,by a fixed decree
without controlling
those who
and save
to punishthe incorrigible,
repent and believe. Does such a plan imply
the necessity
of a change, on condition that his
2. But

"

"

"

"

act

creatures

it was

in this or

necessary

order to foreknow

But

as

this is

seen

that way

for God

to

I"

decree

If,indeed,
an

event, in

this inference mightbe just.

it,
itfollows that a
to be false,

God, whose eye surveys immensityand

perfect
and who necessarily
knows
at a glance,
eternity
and contingencies
all possibilities
or
; all that is,
will be, can perfectly
clude
arrange his plan,and preof a disappointment,
the possibility
although
he does not, by a decree of predestination,
fix
all the volitions and acts of his subjects.Even
in human

have

no

governments, where

knowledge of

or of the
transgress,

the rulers

the individuals who

nature

and

extent

can

will

of the

16

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

the principles
and plan of govtransgressions,
ernment
undergo no change to accommodate
themselves to the contingent
acts of the subjects.

How

absurd,then, to suppose

Ruler

of the universe
unless he

that the all-wise

will be

pointmen
subjectto disapthe transgrespredestinate
sions

and the obedience

of sinners,
The

truth

of his saints !

is,in my view, this idea detracts from

the wisdom

of God

for the

of
perfection
predicatedon

his

the
plan,as they maintain it,is
view of
of his attributes. But our
imperfection
the Divine plan accords well with our idea of his
infinitenature.
Over the universe,
and through
he throws his all-pervading
eternity,
knowledge
he is in every pointof wide immensity,
so
as
of longeternityand can
he is in every moment
such a God be disappointed
?
3.
But," say the advocates of this system,
difficultiesin this subject,
there are
supposing
abound
with passages which
the Scriptures
at
"

"

"

"

once

prove

indeed

we

the doctrine."
submit.

must

If this is true, then

But the questionis,

these passages 1 After such a strong

it would probablyappear surprising
to
assertion,

where

are

with this subject,

to learn that
unacquainted
there is not
a
singlepassage which teaches
that God hath foreordained whatsoever
directly
one

Yet this is the fact. If this

pass.
itis in an indirect
doctrine is taughtin Scripture,

comes

manner.

to

Nor

will it follow,because

hath

that he hath, therefore,

things,
decreed
all things. All those passages
which have been so frequently
quotedas

some
predestinated

then

God

18

CALVINISTIC

which
acts

teach

CONTROVERSY.

that, in the results of the wicked

of wicked

God

men,

influence,and
controlling
subservient
wisdom

to

his

and

own
"

had

designand a
thereby made them
a

He
hath
purposes.
the wrath of man
make

to
power
praise him, and to restrain the remainder
But
does
he
therefore decree
wrath."

wrath

itself?

And

is this wrath

of
the

necessary

to

accomplishmentof his purposes? As well

might it be said,that because a government, in
its exchequer
quellinga rebellion,replenished

the

from

the

confiscated

estates

of

therefore that government decreed

and was
dependentupon it for the
the nation.

Let it be

that to overrule

and

the

rebels,
the rebellion,
of
prosperity

understood
distinctly

control the results of

then,
an

act

different from making the act itself

altogether
the result of an overruling
and controlling
power.
it
is
"The
Lord
hath made
all
said,
Again
thingsfor himself,yea, even the wicked for the
all
day of evil." That the Lord hath made
thingsfor his own
glory,is a proposition
easily
understood,and doubted, I trust,by none
; and
the meaning of the former
this is evidently
of this passage.
member
The latter clause, if
for which it is quotedat all,
it helps the cause
that the Lord has predestinated
must
men
mean,
them miserable.
to be wicked, that he might make
the text speak
But it is not necessary to make
this shocking sentiment.
We
should do the
violence to explainit thus
The
Lord
text
no
hath destined the wicked
for the day of evil,
and this shall be for his glory.
is

"

CALVINISTIC

But there
the

class of passages like

doeth according
to his will

is another

:
following

He

"

"

in the

19

COXTROVBRSY.

tants
the inhabi-

heaven, and among

of

army
of the

earth."

"

He

of his will."

after the counsel

all

worketh

things

I will do

"

all

pleasure." But these passages establish

to our
views, unless it
nothing,in opposition
should firstbe proved,
by other passages, or in
other way, that it is God's will and pleasure
some
all things,even
work
to
wickedness, in the
wicked.
These scriptures
prove that all GocVs

my

works

in accordance

are

with

his

will and

own

them
in
pleasure
; and that he will accomplish
If itpleases
of sinners.
spiteof the opposition

him to form his moral

government, so

as

to leave

of his subjectsunnecesacts
responsible
sitated by his decree,this he will do, for "he will
do all his pleasure."

the

are

But there is stillanother class of texts, which

supposed to favour the doctrine we are
than

opposing,more
which

passages

bringingabout
of the wicked.
will harden

any
to

seem

others, viz. those

as
represent God

procuringthe wickedness
And I
Like the following
:

and

"

"

heart,that he should

Pharaoh's

not

Now
therefore the Lord
peoplego."
hath put a lyingspirit
in the mouth
of all these
thy prophets." He hath blinded their eyes
and
hardened
their hearts."
Him, being
delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by
let the

"

"

"

wicked

On

hands

these and

ye

have

crucified

similar passages

and

it may

slain."
be

re-

20

CALVINISTIC

marked, that God

CONTROVERSY.

blinds

and hardens

men

a
as
justpunishmentfor
judicially,

hearts

their
their

And for this act of his,

abuse of their agency.
and hardeningthem, he does not
in blinding

responsible.But he holds them

for that degreeof wickedness which
responsible
to
made it justand necessary to givethem over

make

them

of heart

this hardness

And

since

there

and

blindness

wicked

are

men

of mind.
and

lying
deceiving

spirits,
they become fitinstruments in
and tormentingeach other ; and therefore God
to
gives them power and liberty
go abroad,
But how does
and beingdeceived."
deceiving
"

hath decreed sin 1

this prove that God

The

idea

the
spirits
instruments
of hardening and tormentingthe
the
of shutting
sinner,and finally
incorrigible
kind of
door of hope againsthim, has no
the sin
to the idea, that he decreed
affinity

that God

which

hath

occasioned

wickedness

sin and

made

this

of this

wicked

hardness,or ordained the

lyingspirit.

of us
the passage from the Acts, none
deny but that Jesus Christ was delivered up to
suffer and die,by the determinate counsel and
As

to

emphatically
denied, that this or any other scripture
of Jesus
proves, that the taking and slaying
the result of the
Christ by wicked
hands, was
of God.
determinate counsel and foreknowledge
foreknowledgeof

God

but it is most

otherwise,let them prove it.

Having stated and, as our time would permit,
ment
examined the arguments in favour of the sentithink

If any

we

are

we
opposing,

are

preparedto

urge

CALVINISTIC

21

CONTROVERSY.

this doctrine,not onlythat

against

its arguments

but also that the

unsound and insufficient,
system itselfis liable to the most serious and
are

objections.

formidable
God

author

the

of

doctrine

This

1.

makes
predestination
Some
acknowledge

of sin.

this, and

God

"

affirm it in

expresslyassert, that
cause"
of sin. Others
efficient
fact, while they deny it in word.
words

the

instance

of Calvin.

is the

Take
"I

will

for
not

scrupleto own," he says, "that the will of God

and that every
lays a necessityon all things,
to
pass."
thing he wills,necessarilycomes
In accordance

with

this,Piscator,Dr. Twiss,

Martyr and others tell us, that

and lyings"
cursings,
procures adultery,

Peter

"

"

author

is the

of

that

act, which

"

God
God

is evil"
"

God, by his working on the hearts of the

wicked, binds them and stirs them to do evil."
however, that God is the author of
They den)-,
sin,because they say, " God necessitates them
"

the act, and not to the depravity

of sin :" or,
does not sin when he makes
that " God
men

to

he is under

sin,because

sin."

cannot

Has

God

this,is

to

of the

Again,God
sin, and

shifts.

miserable

are

of sin come
to pass ?
deformity
has decreed this deformity.To deny
knowledge
give up the doctrine. But to ac-

it,is to
author

these

the

not

Then

But

law, and therefore

no

that God

own

deformity,as

he

doubtless decreed

not

holiness

sin,because it was

so

is

much

the

is of the act.

that sin should be

and it came

decreed.

as

to

pass

Is he not

as

then

22

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

0
,

cause?

the direct procuring

of this kind,therefore,
are

fiatof

The

the world.

We

often

are

told,when

that
contemporaries,

his

they ought not

But

writers.

this

on

to

comes

hinge,
pass."

"

certainly

as

these

old authors ;

are

thus, and

be accountable

for these

not

is, we

them

make

countable
ac-

of

logical
consequences

the

The

doctrine.

own

evasions.

hold

the fact

only for
their

to

sin

turns

quote Calvin and

we

Calvinists do

that modern
that

nothingbut

broughtforth

God

it made

as

thousand

whole

system

foreordains

God

he

For

turns

whatsoever
his will and

that,by
sin,that makes

sin
decree, producesand causes
a necessary
part of his plan,and is the author

of the very elements

and

materials

of his

own

of sin,
be the proper and sole cause
have yet to learn the definition of common

plan,must
we

or

words, and the meaning of plain

propositions.
of ancient and modern,
distinctiontherefore,

The

rigid and

of

moderate

is
Calvinists,

word, than in reality.And

it would

more

in

add much

of this system, if all its

consistency
what is evidently
advocates would acknowledge,
is the
the premises,that God
deducible from
the

to

of sin.

efficient cause

doctrine of

destroys
predestination
the accountability
the free agency, and of course
That
it destroysfree will was
of man.
seen
of
and acknowledgedby many
predestinarians
2.

the

This

old

school.

And

the

Fletcher

Wesley

and

them

this subject.Mr.

on

Mr.

opposers

of

Mr.

violentlyassailed

Southeyinforms

us.

CALVIXISTIC

23

CONTROVERSY.

in his Life of Wesley,that the Calvinists called

this doctrine of free will," a cursed doctrine"
"

doctrine

and soul-destroying
God-dishonouring
of the day"
of the prominent
one

features

of the

"

the most

"
"

"

"

the

beast"

enemy of God"
"
the
one"
the wicked

of
offspring

"

"

the

"

Others, and the greater

Calvinists of the present day,

insolent brat of hell."

part of

the

endeavour
and

reconcile

to

therefore he is
sinners to

chooses

he
a

of

necessity

Man, they say, sins

freeagency.
because

ideas

the

or

wills

sin ;
they exhort

Hence

free agent.

repent,and tell them

tarily,
volun-

they can

to

repent

the only
By which they mean,
is in their will
of their repenting,
impossibility
if

they will.

"

This

is their will not.

their cannot

is no
think that there
to
many
the
between
their preachers and

But let

U3

look

at

if there is

not

dexterous

coil of

this

some

by

motion

hidden

difference,
Arminians.

and see
subjecta little,
concealed in this
sophistry
words.
God, according to

his decree

therefore,as

led

this

doctrine, secures

means,

has

Calvin

the end
of

as

creature
every
counsel of God."

as

the

And
predestination.

says, "every

of

well

is

action

governed by

The

and
the

will, therefore,

is governedand
in all its operations,

irresistibly

fixed
secret
impulse,some
by some
and all-controlling
arrangement. It is altothen, to talk about free agency
gether futile,
under such a constitution ; the very springof
intellectual machinery is
motion
the whole
to
controlled

under

the

influence

of

secret, invincible

24

CALVINISTIC

And

power.

move

as

consists
responsibility

whole

this is the
wills

he

that power directs,

of Omnipotencethat urges it
he wills,
it is true, but the
as

it must

for it is the hand

He can act
on.

He

CONTROVERSY

result

God's

of

is made

he

as

in the

to

and
volition,

propellingpower.
will

he chooses

"

choose, for the immutable

must

is upon

Jehovah
the known

him.

And

can

decree

man,

as

of

upon

and

universally
acknowledged principles
be accountable
of responsibility,
for such
I know, that man
volition? It is argued,
is
a
that he acts freely,
because he feels
responsible,
and that he might have
done otherwise.
To
this I reply,that this is a good argument, on our
that men
to prove
free but on
are
principles,
the Calvinistic ground,it only proves that God
"

deceived

hath

has

might do otherwise,but

we
"

He

us.

he has determined

we

fact, this argument

While
objectionable.
fact in the case,
Almighty. It is
this

doctrine,that

made

us

he knows

shall

makes

feelthat
we

cannot

So

that,in
the system more
not.

it does

change
to
deception
not

it attributes

the
the

true, therefore,from
logically
man

is not

free agent, and

moral agent, to be
a

responsible.A
free, must be possessedof a self-determinin
the will any
principle.Make
thingshort of
therefore

not

and of
this,and you put all the volitions,
the

whole

moral

man,

under

course

and
foreign

sistible
irre-

influences.
to the doctrine
strong objection
we
oppose, is,it arrays God's secret decrees
God commands
his revealed word.
men
against

3.

Another

26

CALVINISTIC

be made
and
of

CONTROVERSY.

to exist and

not

exist at the

explainthem by a reference
God's incomprehensible
nature.
In close connection

4.

be

it may

to

with the

time ;

same

the mystery

jection,
obforegoing

added, that this system

mars,

the moral attributes of

destroy,
If he holds men
for what is
God.
responsible
if he makes
laws and then impels
unavoidable
to break them, and finally
men
punishesthem for
if he mourns
their transgressions
the
over
evils of the world, and expostulates
with sinners,
I give thee up
can
saying, How
my
heart is melted within me, my
are
repentings
kindled together," O Jerusalem ! Jerusalem !
I have gatheredyou, and ye
how
oft would
would
not," and stillhe himself
impelsthe
if it does

not

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

if I say
men," to all this wickedness
where is his veracity
does all this,
? Where

will of
God

is his

"

Where

mercy?

is his

justice? What

could be said of the most

more

What, of the
Satan

most

merciless tyrant?
?
What, of
hypocrite

arrant

What

himself?

does this doctrine make

I shudder to follow it
heavenly Father?
to me,
out into its legitimate
bearings. It seems
to infidelity,
a belief of it is enough to drive one

of

our

to

madness, and

this system must

can

death.

to

adhere

their eyes againstits logical

consequences,
otherwise it would make them wretched

close

in the extreme,

or

drive them

theoretical and
in many
to

If the supporters of
I rejoice
that they
to it,

errors.
practical

instances it has done

another

into other
this
"

to this doctrine.
objection

ous
dangerIndeed,

which

leads

CALVOISTIC

5. It

puts

pleainto

27

CONTROVERSY.

the mouth

of sinners to

themselves in their sins,and leads to Unijustify

thus :
versalism and infidelity.
They reason
God decrees is according
Whatever
to his will,
and therefore right. And God will not punish
God
for doing right. Whatever
his creatures
decrees is unavoidable,and God will not punish
"

for

his creatures
"

every

action and

God

will not

of

motion

hidden

governedby the

But

is unavoidable.

what

is
every creature
fore
Therecounsel of God."

punishany
Now, who

of his creatures

for

pointout any
1
If therefore predesfallacyin this reasoning
tination
be true, Universalism is true, according
of
to the universally
acknowledgedprinciples
justice.And it is a notorious fact,that modern
so
Universalism,which is prevailing
generally
throughthe country, rests for its chief support
the doctrine of predestination.
Others having
on
would
that the Scriptures
seen, as they thought,
any

of their acts.

not

support the doctrine

that
above

of

matter

of

can

Universalism,and

fact seemed

inasmuch
reasoning,

to
men

as

contradict the
made to
are

in this life,
for their sins,have leaped
and phibounds into infidelity
all Scriptural
losophi

even
suffer,
over

necessity.I

known
personally
who
have been driven,by the doctrine
numbers
And it is well
we
to, into open infidelity.
object
which is closely
known, that the doctrine of fate,

have

is the element
predestination,
and has its
lives and moves
infidelity

allied to Calvinian
in which

"

being." And
Bible ?

How

can

much

this be the

is it

to

doctrine

be

of

the

that
regretted,

28

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

worthy pilgrimfathers should have sowed

this Geneva
seed in our
happy country ! The
our

evils done

the Church

to

incalculable.

are

These, candid hearers, are

have

we

to this

of the

some

doctrine

"

jections
ob-

so
objections

serious,and, as we think,so obvious,that you

has induced good men
to
may well ask, What
It is,doubtless,because
advocate it so long?
it stands connected

of unconditional
called
But
would

by

for

with
intimately
and what
election,

Calvinists

"

be

doctrines

the

doctrine

have

been

of

grace."
election,predestination

unconditional

not

the

by those who now

tional
uncondipredestination,

desired,even

hold to it ; and but for

election could not be maintained.

Hence

"
twin
very properlybeen called
and must stand or fall together.Let
doctrines,"

these

us

have

pass then to the next proposition.

II. We
in its
to examine
come
predestination

relation
particular
Several

to

election.

kinds of election

Scriptures.There
to perform certain

is

an

are

spoken of

election of

in the

individuals,

appointedby God :
thus Christ was
God's elect,for the redemption
of the world ; and Cyrus was
elected by him to
rebuild the temple. There
election of
is an
whole communities
and nations to the enjoyment
of certain peculiar
and ecclesiastical,
political
privileges,
of course
thus
to this life :
relating
duties

"

"

Jacob

and

his descendants

were

God's

chosen

and national
enjoymentof religious
which
Esau
and
his
from
privileges,
descendants,
togetherwith the whole Gentile

people,to

the

excluded ; and

world, were

the middle
decree

the former

29

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

wall

of

quently,
thus, too, subsemade
partition,

of election between

Jew

by
and

Gentile,beingbroken down, the Gentiles became

with the Jews

equalsharers
the

called

covenant,

new

grace."

This

in the
the

of
privileges
"election

of

election is

and is
unconditional,
believed to be the one
spoken of in our text,
of Scripture. Of
and many
other passages
these,however, I shall speak more
particularly
in another place.
There
eternal

is

third election

"

election unto

an

rise to

and this is the one

which has given
life,
the great controversy in the Church.

Those

who

"

for

contend

jected
obas
predestination,
to by us, maintain that,
By the decree
of God, for the manifestation of his glory,
some
and angelsare predestinated
ing
unto everlastmen
and others foreordained to everlasting
life,
death. Those of mankind that are predestinated
"

life,God, before the foundation of the

world, hath chosen in Christ,unto everlasting

unto

glory,without
works."

"

elect,or
unto

from his

foresight
of faithor

Others, and

hold that
to

any

own

God

this also is

did decree from

choose

our

the

good
doctrine,
beginning,

in

lieve
Christ,all that should beand this decree proceeds
salvation,
and
goodness,

is not

built

on

any

goodnessof the creature ; and that God did from

all who should*
the beginningdecree to reprobate
continue
in unbelief."
finallyand obstinately
it is seen, from the statement
of the two
that ours is an election of character,
doctrines,

Thus

30

CALVINISTIC

and
to

far

so

them

only

reference

any

absolute act of

elects them

for

because

chooses.

other

no

to

possess

the other relates

; whereas

an

he

foreseen

they are

as

without
individuals,

It is

itrelates
individuals,

it relates to

as

that character
to

CONTROVERSY.

ter.
charac-

sovereignty God
"

reason

He

to

directly

condition than

or

makes

of

account

no

man's

in this decree of
agency or responsibility
but it precedesand is entirely
election,
dent
indepenof any knowledge of the character of the
elect. Our views of election,
the contrary,
on
it

make

conditionally
dependenton
of

agency
is made

In the

man.

one

the sible
responner
case, the sin-

receive

he is
Christ,because
elected ; and in the other,he is elected,
because
he receives Christ.
this difference,
From
too,

proceed

to

other

differences.

election,to be
that,as the end
must

be also

itself,
requires
fixed,so the means
arbitrarily

is

effectual

grace,

the doctrines of irresistible

and
calling,

Calvinian
allied to
intimately
the whole

forms

from
materially
we

have

opponents.

We

Calvinian

infallible perseverance.

stands
election,
therefore,

chain

of

predestination
; and
doctrines differing

And

ours.
a

Calvinistic

with

consistent

hence

"

The

here

we

ledge
acknow-

prove as well as our

that election to eternal

to
position
assert

life is conditional ;

they,that

it is unconditional.

We

will first attempt to prove our

then state and answer
the arguments
of unconditional election

"

and

position
"

in favour

finally,
urge

objectionsagainstunconditional
reprobation.

some

election and

31

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

firstargument in favour of conditional

1. Our

is drawn
from the posilife,
tion
that the decrees of God
alreadyestablished,

election to eternal

his

on
predicated

are

foreknowledge.And

that the decree

of

election to

cially,
espe-

salvation,

is founded on
the
accordingto the Scriptures,
Divine prescience. Elect accordingto the
of God, throughsanctification of
foreknowledge
the Spirit
of the
unto
obedience,and sprinkling
"

Christ."

of Jesus

blood

he also did
to

the

image

to

seem

us

of

"

Whom

he

to be
predestinate,

his Son."

These

decisive,that the decree

did foreknow,

conformed

scriptures
of election

and that this election is

foreknowledge,
act of God,
made, not accordingto the arbitrary
ence.
but on the ground of sanctification and obedirests

on

The

doctrine,therefore,that men
are
"
without any foresight
to eternal life,
predestinated
of faith or good works," must be false.
2.

The

demerit

of

rewardableness

disobedience,can

with

the

of

obedience,or
only exist in

unnecessitated

the
nection
con-

volitions of

free moral

abundantly
agent. The Scriptures
believe and
teach, that to be saved, man
must
obey ;

and

hence

and exhort men

theycommand
the reto believe and obey,and promisethem
ward
of eternal life if they do this,
and criminate
them, if theyneglectit. But, accordingto the
doctrine of free agency already
man's
explained,
obedience or disobedience,
tion
if ithas any justrelaand punishments,
to rewards
must
rest, in
its responsible
ing
character,upon the self-determinof the will. And if this view of
principle

32

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

the will be correct,

of

there is an

unconditional

an

utter

election.

For

impossibility
the very

act

of

God, impartingthis self-determining

principle
renders it impossible,
in the nature of
to man,
for the Almightyhimself to elect a moral
things,
The
agent, unconditionally.
argument stands
thus
The
a
Scripturesmake man
responsible
moral agent ; but this he cannot
be, if his will be
controlled by foreign
and unavoidable influences,
therefore it is not so controlled : that is,man
has
within himself a self-determining
in
principle,
the exercise of which
he becomes
responsible.
This being established,
we
again The
argue
doctrine of unconditional
election necessarily
impliesirresistiblegrace, absolutely
impelling
"

"

and

the
controlling
God's

counteract

man's

will.

But

work, and

own

accountability
; therefore

irresistiblegrace, and, of course,

election.
to

eternal

follows

And

this would
to

there is
no

such

since there is an

be

to

destroy
such

no

ditional
uncon-

election

it
life,
spoken of in the Scriptures,

if the foregoing
conclusively,
reasoning

be

sound, that this election is conditional.

Hence
whelming
overwe
bring forward, in one
may
"

and various
argument, all the numerous
Bible conditions of salvation,
as
so
many

Scripture
proofsof
3. The

conditional election.

cautions to the

tions
elect,and the intima-

of their
possibility
beinglost,are so many Scriptureproofsof a
conditional election.
Why should the saints be
lest
exhorted
lest they fall?"
to take heed
in
there be in them an evil heart of unbelief,
of their

"

danger,and

the

"

34

CALVINISTIC

comes
sarily

to

"because

he

and

event,
decree

pass,"and

has

decreed

decrees

therefore,God
sure,

CONTROVERSY,

talk of

to

it."

The

event,

an

danger of

sure,

moment,

it becomes

failure in that

falsehood,or that God's

broken.
But Calvinists,
I presume,

implieseither
be

can

is therefore

will not allow that there is any

dangerof

the planof the Almighty.

or
frustrating
counteracting
Hence there is no dangerof the elect's
All the exhortations,
coming short of salvation.
cautions,and warningstherefore,recorded
in the Scriptures,
false colours and deceptive
are
motives.
They are like the attempts of some
weak
their
to frighten
parents,who undertake
children into obedience, by superstitious
tales
and groundless
God
fears.
knows, when he is
givingout these intimations of danger,that there
is no such danger; his own
eternal,unchangeable
decree
means

had secured their salvation before the

planned

were

"

unconditional.
truth.

If he

But

all this if election

far be this from

exhorts

his creatures

their election sure,"he has

If he teaches

them

to

"

to

made

not

God

is

of

make

it suce.

"

fear,lest they failof the

grace of God, there is doubtless real danger.

The
conclusion
therefore is irresistible,
that

God

hath

eternal

suspended his

decree

of election to-

He

that believed*

conditions ;

on
life,

"

shall be saved."
4. Thus

accords

What

also with

is it that

Christian

producesmuch

ence.
experi-

fear and
sinner T

in the mind of the awakened

trembling
Why does he feel that there is but a step be-

tween

and

him

35

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

Is it fancy,
or

destruction ?

is

If it is imagination
merely,then all his
and he has either
is founded in deception,

it fact ?
alarm

deceived

the

or
himself,

God

of
Spirit

hath deceived

In either case, this alarm

in order to lead him to Christ.

him.

necessary,
is,it is necessary

for the conversion of

the elect that he be made

danger,then

we

replyagain,the

That
But

lie.

of

one

he is

in
really

decree

of God

lie,for

said,that it is no

if it be

believe

to

seems

his election sure, and of course,

therefore,it is conditional.
of Scriptureteach a
5. Express passages
hath not made

conditional election.
notice

few of

precedesit,teaches that the

to the call,and
subsequently

the

wedding

choice
was

wedding duly prepared.

the

that

made

was

groundedon
actuallyand

fact,that those chosen had

and had
fullycompliedwith the invitation,

the

to

to*

This-

chosen."

are

parableof

passage, with the

only

xxii, 14, "For

Matt,

called,but few

are

many

them.

time

have

We

John

come

xv,

19,

world,the world would love

you, but because ye are not of the world, but I
have chosen
you out of the world, therefore the
"

If ye

were

of the

you." This passage teaches that

of the world,and
were
once
disciples

world hateth
Christ's

that he had

chosen

this choice

refers
evidently

they became
world

for then

out

of the
to

world, and

that time

when

from the
of
and in consequence

different character

it was,

election,that the world hated them.

God hath from the
Thess. ii,13, "Because

that
2

of

them

"

36

CALVINISTIC

chosen
beginning,
sanctification of
truth."
This

Here

is not

election

an

is

CONTROVERSY.

to
salvation,through
you
the Spiritand belief of the
a

condition

election unto

an

plainly
expressed.
but
sanctification,

throughor by sanctificationand

faith

salvation.

unto

From

the whole

then it appears, that the Holy

the Divine
attributes and
Scriptures,
ment,
governand the agency
of man,
stand opposed to
and
unconditional,

an

are

in favour

of

tional
condi-

election.
In

to
opposition

these

arguments, however,
and in favour of unconditional
election,our
which, as
opponents urge various scriptures,
theythink,are strong and incontrovertible arguments
in favour of their system.
And as these
their strong and only defence,it
are
scriptures
is

proposed that they should

limits of
but

be

noticed.

this

discourse,however, will admit of

short notice,and that not of individual

texts, but of classes of texts.

first class of passages
1. The
examine,

now

which

idea of unconditional

of

The

that

supposedto

are

is those
election,

unto
predestination

holiness.

will

we

favour the
that

Our

speak

text

is

of the strongestinstances of this kind, " lie

hath chosen us from the foundation of the world,
one

that

should

be

us
holy havingpredestinated
the adoption
of sons,""c.
See also Rom.
unto
For whom
he did foreknow, he also
viii,
29,
did predestinate
to be conformed
to the image of
his Son," and
he did predestinatehe
whom

we

"

"

"

"

called
"

and
justified
"

sanctified."

The

argu-

CALVINI9TIC

37

CONTROVERSY.

upon these and similar passages is,that

the decree of predestination
could not be founded
their faith or holiness ; because
on
they were
ment

become
to
predestinated
holy the decree of
had their holiness for its object
predestination
"

and end.
to

But

if these passages had an allusion

personalelection to eternal life,
they would
unconditional

election, because," to
the languageof another, it would admit of
use
whether the choosing
in Christ,
beingquestioned,
not

prove

"

"

before

foundation

the

was

merely,or

as

be

world

here

tioned,
men-

of certain persons as men

which is certainly
believing
men,
choice

rational."

the most

of the

This

must
exposition

cessarily
ne-

given to

the passage from the mans,

Rosince those who were
the subjects
of predestinati

first foreknovm
:

were

foreknown,

for in this sense

all were
merely as existing,
foreknown, but foreknown, as possessing
thing
somewhich
operatedas a reason
why they

not

should

elected, rather than

be

doubtless

as

believers

others

in

to the planand
such, according

theywere

to be

made

here, and

And

same

the

to
according

of this work

was,

3. Glorification.
so

obviously
upon

of the passage

1. The

And

call;

to

this

image

which
interpretation,
of it is the meaning

Romans, would

the passage in
should be understood

election.
personal

the

2. Justification;

good meaning to
that passage

to

gloryhereafter.
Divine plan,the order

the face

from

known
fore-

Christ,and as
decree of God,

conformable

of Christ's holiness

But I do not

also be

if
Ephesians,
in reference
so

understand

38

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

it; and

I think

any unprejudicedreader,by
from the
lookingat the context, and especially
in this chapter,
9th to the 11th verses
inclusive,
and

of the

most

at

2d

is here
apostle

that the

chapter,will perceive
speakingof that general

plan of God, which had been fixed from the

of admitting
the Gentiles as well as
beginning,
of the covenant
the Jews
of
to the privileges
Thus the
grace, on equalterms and conditions.
middle wall of partition
down
to be broken
was
Jew

between

which

was

concealed

by the
by the Gospel was
the
to this plan,

understood

then

and Gentile ; and this was

Gentiles

even

were

chosen

the
privileges,
which

were

or

for ages,

the mystery

being
Jews
themselves,but
cording
brought to light. AcEphesiansandall other
not

elected to these

tian
Chris-

designand purpose of
them holy; and in the improvemen
to make
of which, accordingto the prescribed
very

faith in Christ,and
repentance
toward
his adopted
God, they should become
children.
conditions of

of the Gentiles to the

foreappointing
of the graciouscovenant, is the election
privileges
This

spoken of in the New Testament.

And the reason
why it was so often introduced,
of Paul, who was
in the writings
the
especially
chief apostleto the Gentiles,
the
was, because
Jews
so
uniformlyand earnestly
opposed this
feature of Christianity.They could not be
reconciled to the idea,that the peculiar
and distinctive
most

"

character of their

policyshouldbe

and ecclesiastical
theocracy
so
changed,or that the

CALVINISTIC

God

of
clealings

with the world

in such

superiorclaims,in
covenant,

the

over

themselves

as

but the

plained
ex-

to

be God's elect and

to

should be

give them no
the privileges
of the Divine
Gentiles.
They considered

manner

39

CONTROVERSY.

Gentiles

apostlesfelt themselves

favourite people,

reprobates.

were

under

The

gations
the strongestobli-

these

not onlybecause,
notions,
ii allowed,they would
operate as a barrier to
the diffusion of the Gospelamong
the heathens,
to

and

thus

world

oppose

the

would

Jewish

designsof

to the
mercy
be thwarted,but also because these

sentiments

the grace

of God.

designof
founded,not
but upon

some

Divine

God

in direct

to
opposition
that the original
They implied,
in favouring
the Jews, was

were

and grace,
mercy
goodnessin them or their fathers.

upon

his

mere

Hence

of
they not only limited the blessings
the Gospel,
its gracious
but they also corrupted
saic
Pharicharacter, and therebyfed their own
This will
God.
pride,and dishonoured
other
the
for explainingmany
open
way
which the Calvinists press into their
scriptures
service.
will it assist in explaining
those
Especially
speak of election as depending
passages which
The
solelyon the sovereignwill of God.
strongestof these are in the ninth chapterof the
This portionof reveto the Romans.
lation
Epistle
of Calvinism.
is the stronghold,as is supposed,
Whereas, we
humbly conceive that
of
there is not one
word in the whole chapter,
unconditional and personalelection to eternal
2.

40

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

life. It is

only necessary to read that epistle

that the apostleis combatting
to see
carefully,
that exclusive

and

Pharisaic

doctrine

Jews, already alluded to, and

of

the

is

provingin a
forcible strain of argumentation,
from reason
and Scripture,that the foundation of the plan
of salvation for sinners,was
the goodness and
unmerited

love of God

Gentiles,were
the

"

that

sinners,and

relation to

God

all,both Jews
therefore

stood

and
in

all

equallyeligible
and must, if saved at all,be saved
to salvation,
the same
To prove this,he argues
terms.
on
that God's favour to the Jews, as a
strenuously,
nation,was not of any goodnessin them, but of
his own
that his
so
sovereignwill and pleasure,
of favour with the Hebrews, and his
covenant
of grace which embraced
the Gentiles,
covenant
not of works, lest any man
should boast,"
was
of him that runneth,
not of him that willeth,
nor
but of God that showeth
mer^y." The apostle
shows
made
wkh
them, too, that the covenant
Abraham
for the
not for circumcision,
was
nor
"works of the law, so far as it affected him or
his posterity,
made
because
it was
while Abraham
tion
in uncircumcision,and on the condiwas
of faith. He argues farther,
that this election
of the Jews to the enjoyment of these national
and
ecclesiastical privileges,
because
not
was
children of Abraham, for Ishmael was
theywere
child of Abraham, and yet he and his posterity
a
the
were
rejected
; nor
yet because they were
children of Abraham
through Isaac, because
same

"

"

"

Esau

and

his

were
posterity

frona
reprobated

42

CALVmiSTIC

CONTROVERSY.

from that wholesome

especially
and consistent Scripture
doctrine,that it
is required
of a man
to what he hath,
according
and not accordingto what he halh not."
This
all complaintof Jew and Gentile,
at once
removes
and authorizes the reply,so
often misapplied,
Who
God 7"
art thou that repliest
against
God has a rightto make
As
his
a
sovereign,
differ in these things,
creatures
so
long as he
requiresonly as he gives. But this differs as
widely from the Calvinistic idea of sovereignty,
from injustice,
as
as justice
equityfrom iniquity.
In fact,God
where
in the Scripture,
no
places
the election of individuals to eternal life,
solely
the ground of his sovereignty,
but uniformly
on
the ground of their complyingwith the conon
ditions

enlargeupon

but

"

"

of the

peopleare

of grace.
Hence
his
peculiarpeople his sheephear his
covenant

"

followhim

voice and

they are chosen out of the

world
they are in Christ,not by an eternal
decree of election,but by faith for
if any
be in Christ,he is a new
and
creature"
man
of course,
he is not in him, until he is a
new
creature"
then, and not before,they become
his,and he seals them as such, In whom, after
that ye believed,
sealed with the Holy
ye were
elected
Spiritof promise." But if they were
from
eternity,
they would be his when they did
"

"

"

"

"

"

"

"

not

hear his voice,and were

what has been
3. From

answer

third

class

Calvinists dwell upon

of

not

new

said,we

creatures.
can

easily

which
scriptures

the

support their system

viz, those which declare salvation to be of gracg
to

"

CALVINISTIC

and
a

not

of works.

these there is

Of

of
largecatalogue

43

CONTROVERSY.

very express

Take two
passages.
of the whole, " Even

and
for

three

or

evidently
cal
unequivoan

ple
exam-

then, at the present

so

tion
time,there is a remnant, accordingto the elecof grace, and if it be by grace then it is no
of works, other wise grace
is no
more
more
grace ; but if it be of works, then it is no more
grace, otherwise work is no
"
saved."
grace ye are

work."

By
Having predestinated
more

"

adoptionof his children,"c, to the

Not
by
praiseof the gloryof his grace."
works
of righteousness
which we
have done,but
accordingto his mercy he saved us, by the
and renewing of the
washing of regeneration
Now
we
Holy Ghost."
professto believe
and as cordithese scriptures
ally
as
unqualifiedly

us

unto

the

"

as

the

Calvinists ; and

in accordance
For

with

views

them

perfectly
of election.

alreadystated,that
God's planfor savingsinners originated
entirely
his love to -his undeserving
There
creatures.
m
stances
was
nothingin all the character and circumof the fallen family,
except their sin and
deserved misery,that could claim the interposition
The way of executof God's savingpower.
ing
it available
his gracious
plan,and rendering
in any case, he of course, as a sovereign,
ved
reserwe

to

believe,as has

our

think

we

himself.
election

And

been

if he

saw

that

tional
condi-

best suited to the

principles
of his government, and the responsibility
of man,
shall it be said,this cannot
be, for it destroys
was

the idea of grace ?

Cannot

conditional elec

44

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

tion be of grace ?
Let the
Even
answer.
many

and
intelligent
of

the

did
can-

Calvinists

acknowledge that

and
salvation is conditional,

yet it is of grace

for

grace ye are saved."

if salvation is conditional and yet of grace,
Let Calvinists answer
this
not election 1

Now

by

"

why
question.
But

that

will appear

doctrine of election is of grace,

our

evident,I think,from

considerations.
that

moved

world.
its

to

The

following

pure unmerited love

providesalvation for our

1.

God

2.

It

the

was

Gospel plan,therefore,with

all

of grace.
Not
a
step in that whole system, but rests in grace,
is presented
by grace, and is executed through
is
and conditions,
provisions

3. Even the power of the will to choose

grace.
life,and the conditions of life,is a gracious

fallen man,
without grace, could no
than a fallen
choose
to submit
to God
A

power.
more

Herein

angel.

They
to

choose

heaven

tell us

If

life.

has

man

so,

widelyfrom

he

has

the Calvinists.

natural

power

power

to

get

the
say, on
grace ! We
unable
is utterly
to choose

without
that

differ

we

man

to

trary,
con-

the

to heaven, or
to
chosen,
pursue it when
way
It is grace
that
without the grace of God.
and strengthand convinces the sinner,
ens
enlightens

him
"

to

without

candid

system

Christ

after and
can

we

judge between
most

glory,that
rent

seek

power

robs

salvation,for

nothing."

Let

the

then,and decide which

of his
Redeemer
gracious
native and inhe.
a
givesman

our

which
to

us,

do

obtain

get

to

heaven

of himself,or that

CALVINISTIC

45

CONTROVERSY.

4. Finally,
when
attributesall to grace.
there is no merit
the sinner repents and believes,

which

in these

and
forgiveness
therefore,
though he is now,

acts

and

to

procure

regeneration,
and on

elected,and made an heir of

conditions,
salvation,yet it is for Christ's sake, and w not
these

which he has done."

righteousness
Thus we
bringforth the top stone with shouting,cryinggrace, grace, unto it." Havinggone

of

for works

"

and

over

examined

unconditional
of

our

was
subject
; which
this doctrine.
against

1. The

of

the arguments in favour of

to the last part
we
come
election,

tions
objec-

some

election

impliesthe unconditional
part,necessarily

the

God

of their sins.

some

who

hold

deny the latter; for

as
sinners,in
reprobating
all were
When
sinners,
they
to

passed by some, and elected others.

Hence, theysay the decree of damnation against
is just,
ners.
sinthe reprobates
because it is against
But this explanation
is virtually
giving
it givesup all the
as
up the system, inasmuch
principal
arguments by which it is supported.
In the firstplace,
it makes predestination
dent
depenfirst foresees
on
foreknowledge
; for God
that they will be sinners,and then predestinates
them to punishment. Here is one
then, in
case
which the argument for Calvinian predestination
is destroyed
by its own
supporters. But again:
if God must
fix by his decree all parts of his
then
plan,in order to prevent disappointment,
say

God

I know

rest.

former, seem

they represent
view

urge

doctrine of the unconditional

of the
reprobation
to

to

46

CALVINISTIC

he

fix the

must

the

CONTROVERSY.

destinyof

that lead to it.

means

the

and
reprobates,

But

if he did

not

do

this,then the Calvinistic argument in favour of

drawn from the Divine plan,
falls
predestination,
of
to the ground. Once
: this explanation
more
all the strongthe decree of reprobation
destroys
est
which

Scripturearguments
urge

Calvinists

the

in favour of unconditional election.

The

for instance,in the ninth of Romans,

often quotedin favour of Calvinian
so

passages,
which are

with
connected
others, equally
election,are
strong, in favour of unconditional reprobation.
When
whom
itis said, He will have mercy
on
he will have mercy," it is said also," Whom
he
"

will he hardeneth."

He

honour, maketh

unto

that

another

makes

"

one

sel
ves-

dishonour."

unto

He

that says, " Jacob have I loved," says also

"
in the same
Esau
have I hated."
manner,
if these relate to personal
election to eterNow
nal

life,
they relate also
to

eternal death.

by

which

But

these

to

if
are

personalreprobation
there is any explanation,
showed

not

to

prove

unconditional

to eternal death, the

reprobation
of explanation
same
will,and must
principle
show, that theydo not prove Calvinistic election.

From

henceforth,therefore,let all

those

vinists
Cal-

tional
professnot to believe in uncondito urge, in favour of
cease
reprobation,
their system, any
arguments drawn from the
of God, or the necessity
of a
foreknowledge
Divine plan,or from those scriptures
that are
trine.
most
commonly quoted in favour of their doctheir system must
But when they do this,
who

Calvinistic

fall;
necessarily

for all its main

I have

But

removed.

foreordained

done

not

maintains

Whoever

yet.

whatsoever
that

to pass,

ordained.

was

to

them

damn

these and

From

led

was

stand without

to

to

"

God

Then

lost1

sin necessary,
? Then
this was

say, that

of the

as

hold

to

to

the

vin
Calsubject,

"election

attempt

this

pretence
ordained.

could

and that itwas

reprobation,"
to

hath

to

are

other views

and childish"
silly
who
All, therefore,
election of

that

pass,"must
reprobation.Does it

some

Was

will be
pillars
with this objection

comes

also hold to unconditional

come

47

controversy.

not

"quite

separate them.
unconditional

?nusfy
partof mankind to eternal life,
be consistent with themselves,take into their

creed,the

horrible decree"

of

reprobation.
They must believe that in the ages of eternity
God determined to create men
and angelsfor the
them eternally
!
That
express purpose to damn
he determined
influence
to introduce sin,and
to commit
men
sin,and harden them in it,that
of his wrath ! That
they might be fitsubjects
for doing as they were
impelledto do, by the
irresistible decree
of Jehovah, they must
lie
down
for ever, under the scalding
phialsof his
trine
vengeance in the pitof hell ! To state this docin its true character,is enough to chill
one's blood
drawn by all that is
and we
are
"

"

"

rational within us, to turn away from such a God

with horror,as from the presence of an Almighty

Tyrant.
2.

This

doctrine

of

election,while it professes

to vindicate free grace

and the mercy

of

48

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

God, destroysthem
there

extended.
it

altogether.To
certainlyno grace

is

Their

is
necessarily

infinite

theyenjoy,the

or

mercy
existence,connected as

very

with eternal

The

curse.

the reprobates,

damnation, is

an

which
temporal blessings

insincere offers that

are

held out

with which
them, and the Gospel privileges
they are mocked, if they can be termed grace
be called damning grace.
For all
at all,must

to

this is

them for the slaughter,

and
only fattening
them
to suffer,to a
more
fitting
aggravated
that
extent, the unavoidable painsand torments
await

God

Hence

them.

Calvin's sentiment, that

calls to the

that they may be

reprobates,
kindles a light,
deaf
that they may
be
more
blind
more
bringshis doctrine to them, that
they may be more
ignorant and appliesthe
remedy to them, that they may not be healed,"
is an honest avowal of the legitimate
principles
of this system.
Surely,then, no one will pretend,
that, accordingto this doctrine,there is
perhaps a
any grace for the reprobate. And

"

"

"

"

moment's
or

none

of his

attention will show, that there is little

for the elect. It is said,that God, out

the creature
to

to

him

move

life.
everlasting

the creature
called

to

mercy

determine

any thing in
thereto,elects sinners

without
sovereignty,

mere

to

But
him

move
or

if there

thereto,how

compassion1

elect

miserable,but because

them

he

is

because

He

nothingin
can

did

they

it be
not
were

pleasedto elect them.

If misery had been the exciting
then as
cause,
all were
he would have elected
miserable,
equally

50

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

promisesinto scaldingmessages

of

aggravated

wrath.
The

3.

doctrine

and
partial
express
For it

makes

oppose

respecter of persons

God
to

contrary

repeateddeclarations of Scripture.
to save
as
determining
represents God
and

damn

and

some

we

others, without

reference

to

in the same
their character, all beingprecisely
is to acknowledgethat the
To deny this,
state.

of election and

decree

had respect
reprobation
is to give up the doctrine.
to character, which
indeed pretend,
that the decree of election
Some

unconditional,but

was

be

the decree

of bation.
reproBut this is impossible
; for there could
decree
of election,only in view of the

no

from

number

whole
made

such

and

the

which

very

and

number,

not

the choice

determination
those

to

was

to

be

select

only, impliedthe

If it be said, as the
tion
Sublapsarianscontend,that the decree of elecof all the rest.

exclusion
did

viewed

not

in

therefore

in until all

come

mind

the

God

of

fallen,or

were

fallen ;

as

and

been
justly
might have
who
to those
damned, there was
no
injustice
taken
of the guilty
were
were
left,though some
and saved ; we
reply,That even this would not
of partiality.
But
the objection
whollyremove
we

need

since

not

shorter and
this

all

dwell

decisive

more

argument.

way

have

we

to

ground

nothingto

do with

truth is,it does not

of our
objection.Had
until his

man
race

in

ruined

disposeof

The

the whole

beheld the whole

here, because

cover

God

prescient
eye
state

How

he

sin ?

to

God

because

And

ordained."

so

"

should all become

it was

should

so

"

he decreed

sinners and

He

so.

had

he

that

they

children of wrath

then decreed

that part of
constituted heirs of wrath,

taken, and

be

Calvin,

Taking all the links

pass.
God
stand thus :
decreed
to

together,they
create
beings
intelligent

those whom

came

to

comes

and

how

every one
soever
foreordained what-

say, that believes God

must

"

But

sinned," says

Adam

"

plungedthere

was

the sin of his federal head.

by
"

He

in this state ?

man

came

51

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

washed, and saved, and

the others left to

there is

perish; and then we are told

in God, since they
unjustpartiality
damned
to be
! What
a
singular

no

all deserve

evasion

is this !

portionof
he cannot

God

wishes

to

damn

To
avoid
charge of partiality.
plungesthem all into sin and ruin,and
declares

heirs

of

certain

the rest ; but

his creatures, and save
do this without subjecting
himself to

the
he

them

all children

But

hell.

grace, he snatches

some

in the
from

of

this,he
forthwith

wrath, and

plenitudeof his
the pit of ruin,

and leaves the rest in remediless wo ! Is such

supposition
worthy of our
righteousGod 1

"

Does

it accord

either with his

wisdom ?
or
justice
can
see
throughthe

Reason, with half an eye,

of the
flimsyveil,and discover the weakness
I know
device.
an
attempt has been often
made

to

charge

these

consequences
upon our
system, as well as upon the Calvinistic doctrine.
For
if it is acknowledged that man
is born

depraved,and

this

is damningin
depravity

its

52

CALVINISTIC

nature, does it

CONTROVERSY.

follow,it is asked, that all

not

perish? And therefore God may

elect some
and justlypass by the rest.
I
derived
answer
Althoughall moral depravity,
contracted,is damning in its nature, still,
or
by
deserve

to

"

virtue of the atonement, the destructive effects

counteracted ; and guilt
of derived depravity
are
of
imputed,until by a voluntary
rejection
makes
the Gospelremedy,man
the depravity
of
the objectof his own
choice.
his nature
Hence, although abstractlyconsidered, this
depravityis destructive to the possessors, yet
throughthe grace of the Gospel, all are bom
free from condemnation.
So the ApostlePaul,
As by the offence of one, judgment came
to condemnation, so by the righteousness
upon all men
of one, the free gift
came
upon all men,
of life." In accordance
with
unto
justification
these views also, the ground of condemnation,
is not our
native
accordingto the Scriptures,
the sinner is condemned
for
depravity
; but
to occupy
Christ, for refusing
rejecting
upon
the
talents given, for rejectinglight, for
quenchingthe Spirit, for unbelief.Here then
this pointbetween
the
is the difference on
Calvinists and
us.
They hold that God, by
and all his race
into
his decree, plungedAdam
of them had the
the pitof sin,from which none
act of
of escape ; but by an omnipotent
means
partial
grace, he delivers a part,and the remain,
der are left unavoidably
the
to perish. We, on
contrary,believe that by Adam's unnecessitated
sin he, and in him all his posterity,
became
is not

"

"

"

"

"

"

CALVINISTIC

obnoxious

the

to

53

CONTROVERSY.

of the Divine law.

curse

As

and actively,
he
personally
condemned
was
personally
; but as his posterity
had no agency or personal
existence,
theycould
seminallyin him.
By the
only have perished
promiseof a Saviour however, our federal head
restored to the possibility
of obtaining
was
And
salvation,
throughfaith in the Redeemer.
all the seminal generations
in this restoration,
of men
included.
Their possibleand
were
existence was
restored ; and their
prospective
personaland active existence secured. And
with this also, the possibility
of salvation was

sinned

the firstman

secured

to

all.

To

such

as

never

come

to

responsible
personally
age, this salvation was
secured unconditionally
by Christ ; to all those
arrived to the age
of accountability,
who
salvation was
made possible,
partial
on
equaland imconditions. Thus, while on our principle,
there is not the slightest
groundfor a chargeof
the Calvinistic principle,
the
on
partiality;
to liewith all itsweight. It makes
chargeseems
of the terms, partial,
God, in the worst sense
and a respecterof persons.
doctrine is objectionable,
4. This
because,
contrary to express and repeatedpassages of
limits the atonement.
it necessarily
Scripture,
be expected,that we
should
It will surely
not
attempt to prove that Christ

tasted death

"

for

gave himself a ransom

for all" that he " died for all" that he became
"
for the sins of the whole world"
a propitiation

every

man"

"

that he

"

"

"

"

because,these

are

so

many

express

Scripture
pro-

54

CALVINISTIC

and
positions,

CONTROVERSY.

rest

on
directly

the

of
authority

while these stand,the doctrine of particular

and unconditional election must
for
fall,

And

God.

incompatible.That particular election and partial

redemptionmust stand
has been
and is
fall together,
or
acknowledged,
Calvinists ; and therestillmaintained by most
fore
to explain away
they have endeavoured
those passages, which
so
clearlydeclare that
Christ died for all." But in this work
they
doctrines

the two

are

"

found

have

so

them

among

that others,and
difficulties,

many

New-England, have
and have
redemption,
it the doctrine

with

Calvinistic

of the

most

clergyin
acknowledgeda general
undertaken
of

reconcile

to

election
particular

this reconciliation is

reprobation.But

To

the other.

as

and
cult
diffi-

of the
nothingnow
uselessness of making an
utter
for
atonement
unless for the purpose of making
the reprobates,
damnation
their unavoidable
more
aggravated,
is the objectof the atonewould ask, What
ment?
we
as

Let
answer.

open

the

sinners
made

very Calvinists themselves

tell us, that its objectwas, to

these

They
way, by

to

be

say

which

saved.

it might be
But

has

the

for
possible
atonement

for the
it possible

reprobatesto be saved ?
fore
perhapsthey will be saved,and there-

If so, then
the idea of unconditional
is false.
made
it

was

election and bation

reprohas only
But if the atonement

for the elect to be

it possible
made

only

for the elect.

of this system choose which

dilemma they please
j either will

saved, then
Let

the porters
suphorn of this

their
destroy

For

doctrine.

55

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

it is absurd

as

talk about

to

and

Gospelprovisions,
sufficient
and effectually
those who are* eternally
to save
itis idle to talk
excluded from these blessings,
so
about
a
redemption for all, which includes
the elect. Not
sufficient onlyto save
provisions
in all men
the fiction of a natural ability
even
God and get to heaven, will help this
to serve
in the argument, that
For allowing,
difficulty.
God
and
have ability
to serve
the reprobates
of God's
gainheaven, without grace, and in spite
it
this is called a natural ability,
as
decree,still,
It
is plainit is not the fruit of the atonement.
irrelevant to argue that the atonement
is equally
redeeminggrace

be said to be

may

world,if they would

could embrace
sive
it,and it is only their excesfor
which
renders it impossible
depravity

enough
or

itcontains

universal,because

them

to

same

as

to

save

whole

the

receive the

remedy

say, that
his
to heal

he cannot

take it.

to

for which

that

which

the

to

And

if it docs not
case.

So

remedy for man's

for him.
provision
power

to

has an efficient
physician
patient,
onlyhe is so sick

This

weakness

excessive

is

physicianshould prescribe,
medicine
should be applied.

the

and

for this

For this is the

atonement.

come

to

this it is

the atonement,
extreme

If itdoes

no

medicine

if it is not

it is no
depravity,
not givea gracious

all sinners to embrace

ithas
salvation,

accomplishednothing for the depravedreprobate.

Since, therefore,
accordingto Calvinism,
the
atonement
provides for the reprobate
neither natural nor moral ability
to serve
God,

56

CALVINISTIC

makes

nor

it

for
possible

follows,that the
elect.

But

CONTROVERSY.

him

to

is made

atonement

be

saved, it

only for

the

God,

this is contrary to the word of

the doctrine that leads to this conclusion

must

be false.

as

5. If time would
at

I mighthere notice
permit,
length several objectionsto this

some

doctrine
to

Such

"

repentance, by
"

say,
I may

If I

and

do what

damnation

be

to

am

if I

am

saved, I shall be, do what

to be damned, I must
be,

it leads

;"

can

that ittakes away allmotives

givingthe sinner justcause to

as

"

it weakens

"

of which
for the

and

and

paralyzes

benevolence

it destroys

"

the original
punishment,
design

cording
prevent sin, but which, acthis doctrine,was
designedmerely

to

was

to

the idea of infant

the zeal

She efforts of devotion

the end of

to

God

glory of

fearthe purpose

of

*r

and

sin

was

ordained

of
givingGod an opportunity
in punishing
it. These
and

himself
glorifying
others might be dwelt upon
with effect ; but
passingthem all,I hasten to the conclusion of
objection
my arguments, by urgingonlyone more
to the system I am
opposing.
6. We
of this doctrine,
because
are
suspicious
its advocates
up and
and are

studious to cover
keep out of sightmany of its features,
of
constantly
changing their manner
themselves

seem

statingand defendingtheir system.

attention to the

historyof

the

little

tween
controversy be-

and
predestinarians

show

their opposers, will

the truth and force of this objection.
The

chargethat Calvinism

covers

up and

keeps out

58

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

do ; and that they are

spreadthe sentiment.
This

is

here

permitme
subject,

I toucli with

which

exertingthemselves
to

say, on
than upon

reluctance

more

to

pointinvolved in this controversy. To

much
like
so
represent the thingas it is,seems
and duplicity,
accusing our brethren of insincerity
that nothingbut a regard to truth would
any other

induce
from

an
or

allude to it.

to

me

excessive

this arises

but honest

zeal for their tem,

sysit is supposedthe cause
is so

whether

and
important,

Whether

the

at

same

time

so

difficultto be

that the end will justify

what, in other
sustained,

and
policy,
judged questionable
of a guileless
hardlyreconcilable with the spirit
is certainly
for me
not
to decide.
Christianity,
With respect to their motives,they will stand or
fall by the judgmentof Him that trieth the reins.
would

cases,

But

be

the course,

at

Take
are

told,may

therefore
Now

they

are

this mode

of

seems

very

hensible.
repre-

All

we
sinners,
to Christ if they will ; and
criminal if they do not
speech corresponds
very well

one

come

any rate,
instance

"

and reason.
And
who, that had
Scripture
instructed in the dialect of
not been
specially
would
this theology,
understand that this mode
of speech,accordingto Hopkinsian technics,
and an
of obtaining
impossibility
impliedan inability
with

yet this is the fact : for

though,accordingto this system, if we have a
will to come
to Christ,we
may, yet by a Divine
salvation ?

constitution it is
will

as

it is

to

as

And

much

to
impossible

break the decree

have

of Jehovah.

this
"

CALVIXISTIC

Hence

59

CONTROVERSY.

all such modes

of

than
speech are worse
a
deceptivemeaning.

unmeaning ; they have

one
They mean
thingin this creed,and another
to
occurs
thingin popularlanguage. It never
the generality
of mankind, when
they are told
that there
they may do thus and thus, iftheywill,
is a secret omnipotentinfluence impelling
and
the will.
pressions,
controlling
They suppose these exof
mean
that, independent
therefore,
all irresistible foreigninfluences,they have,
within themselves,the power to choose or not to
choose : and yet the real meaningof the speaker
differs as

from
In

from

much

as
this,

negativediffers

affirmative.

an

is
accordance
with the foregoing,
perfect
the common
trine
that is givento the docexplanation
of election and reprobation.Reprobation
is kept out of sight
heartily
; and yet it is as
believed by modern
as it was
Calvinists,
by John
It is taughttoo ; but it is taught
Calvin himself.
covertly. And yet when we quote old-fashioned
Calvinism, in its primitive
plaindress,we are

told these

are

with them

fathers,we
them

"

do not believe
old authors ; we
if we
had lived in the days of our

would

not

in their errors"
unto

of them"

have

been

and

yet

"

they

nesses
wit-

are

themselves,that theyare the children

who
their

they

They
taughtthese errors.
writings,
they garnishtheir
teach

their catechisms

rising generation
; they
Church

partakerswith

articles of

of grace,

as

say,

faith, We
"

held and

even

pulchres,
se-

the

to

in

commend
re-

their

trines
believe in the doc-

taughtby

the

fa-

60

CALVINISTIC

thers and

in
reformers

the

they hold

that root

do

of

whole

the

CONTROVERSY.

to

and

God

and cially
espefoundation

hath, from

whatsoever

alluded

I have

"

"

system,

eternity,foreordained
pass."
Since

Church,"

to

all
to

comes

Church

it
articles,

will be in support of this objection

to say that
the written creeds of Churches
partake of this

ambiguous character.
They
or
expressedin texts of Scripture,

same

and

obscure

tions

terms

be

can

faith of

the

in doubtful

that different construe

so

either

are

them, accordingto the

put upon

instances

And

subscriber.

have

known, in which articles of faith have been

pulous
scrualtered,againand again,to accommodate
candidates.
And
yet their candidates
for holy orders,and for professorships,
in their
to subscribe
are
institutions,
required
theological

been

rigidCalvinistic creed.
expected,doubtless,that the

to

maintained

and

introduced

among

In this way
doctrine

it is

will be

perpetuated,though in other
should be accommodated.
opinion
respectspublic
would honest John
How
Calvin,if he could be
he had when
that bear
them

"

on

his

with the

us,

earth,frown upon the Churches

name

He

would

and childish,"
but
silly

in

his

sentiments

same

bold, "blunt

he

manner,

not

only call

less,
would, doubt-

charge them

and
cowardice, if not
disingenuousness
for thus shunningand
with downright
duplicity,
sive
smoothingover and coveringup the more repul-

with

features
he chide

them

of their
for

system.

How

would

their ground,and
shifting

CALVINISTIC

61

CONTROVERSY.

changingtheir system, while they nevertheless

foundation of prepretendto build on the same
destinati
! He would, we
inquire
believe,sternly
of them what they meant
by saying,all
to
sinners,not exceptingreprobates,
may come
Christ and be saved?
why they pretendedto
and not to reprobation?how
hold to election,
they could reconcile generalredemptionwith
election?
and especially
would
he
particular
frown indignantly
doctrine,
lately
upon that new
preachedand defended,in what has been supposed
to be the head quarters of orthodoxyin
are
New-England, by which we
taughtthat
is not any taint or sinful corderived depravity
ruption
"

"

"

of

moral

but consists,
constitution,
in moral exercise ! But
entirely,

our

and
exclusively
he would get littlesatisfactionfrom those
probably
his creed and bear his name.
who profess
They

would

that the old forms of this system

the peoplewould not receive
repulsive,

tellhim

were

so

them

that, being hard pressedby their

and

antagonists,
they had

thrown

assumed

these

and

only
to

to

conceal
it.

defend

their

And

as

up

these

new

not
positions,
doctrine,but if possible
new

he could

faction
get littlesatis-

of them, he would
Could
thank

get less from us.

the venerable reformer,we would

meet

we

him

"

for his successful zeal and

the Protestant
with him

for

doubts,
re-

cause

; but

would

we

labour in

expostulate

and currency to his

would tellhim he had

givingsanction

We
horrible decree."
committed to his followers

"

to reason,

and

so

system

difficultto be

so

rent
abhor-

supported

62

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY".

that they had been driven into all

by Scripture,
and
these changes in hope of findingsome
new
safe ground of defence
con; and that,while we
sidered this as a striking and convincing argument
it as
viewed
we
against the doctrine itself,
these
auspicious of its final overthrow
; that
changes, refinements, and concealments, were
that the doctrine
was
waxing old,and
symptoms
was
ready to vanish away.
I must

But

conclude

this discourse.

consideration, Christian

serious

the

in it.

of the discourse
think
may
fail,I think, of escapingcensure.

accord

who

will of

with

the

sentiments

; and
approve
in predestination
will of course

the

course

preachingbecause

hath

to

come

pass

that

God

here

those
be
hath

have

mend
com-

ever
WhatI
itself,

you
cannot

your

brethren, I

contained

sentiments

To

Those

defended,

who

believe

reconciled

decreed

it.

preached

to

It

as

it is a part of the Divine

have, and therefore
that
Arminianism
come
plan. It hath
pass
exists,and therefore this is a part of the Divine

beg our brethren who differ from us,

to fightagainstGod's
not
plan. If they say it
is rightfor us to fightagainstit,
because
this also
I answer,
This
is decreed
only confirms
our
objectionsagainstthe system, for it arrays the
From
all such
sistencies,
inconDeity against himself.
God
the
of truth deliver us.
may
plan.

We

"

Amen.

NUMBER
REPLY

This
far

so

as

before

been

the

public
notice,
of the

After the third

predestination.
several passannounced, there were
ing

of

was

acrimonious

in

censures

did

istic periodicals,
which
of the

SPECTATOR.*

years before it received any

the author is informed,from any

advocates
edition

had

sermon

almost two

I.

CHRISTIAN

THE

TO

63

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

at
question

of the Calvin-

some

not

issue between

affect the merits

and the preMr. Tyler,of

us

lengththe Rev.
this city,
mon
(Middletown,
Conn.,)publisheda serwhich
was
evidentlywritten in reference
This sermon
to the sermon
on
predestination.
noticed ; but its
been
of Mr. T. might have
and
its
were
so
indefinite,
general positions
of illustrationso vague, it seemed hardly
modes

destinarians.

the held of controversy or

For
decision of the question
at issue.

calculated
hasten

example
eternal
save

At

to

narrow

Mr.

T. defines
of God

purpose

every

others."

whom

man

With
be

can

such
no

election

to

be

"the

and
sanctify,
he wiselycan, and no
there certainly
proposition
to renew,

controversy, for it leaves the

more
pointin dispute
confused than before a definition was
attempted.
the antipodesof each
There
two
are
errors,
other,which, in all controversy,and especially

subjectmore

The

vague, and the

review

of the

sermon,

to be
Spectator,is understood
of divinity
in
Fitch, professor

in

the

Christian
of Doctor

from

the pen

Yale

College.

64

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

religious
controversy, ought to be carefullyguarded against.The one is an attempt to
the subjects
of difference more
make
numerous
and consequential
than they are
in truth ; and
the other is an
under

up real differences
and
ambiguous
propositions

attempt to

indefinite
Both

terms.

these

cover

errors

may

be

the result of

may arise from a

jealousregardto the truth,and the latter from

motives

honest

the

former

however, are injurious

;
of
promote the cause
a permanent
truth,nor does the other secure
Indeed, bringingantagonist
principles
peace.
love of peace.
Both,
for neither does the one

into contact

additional

givesan

that

forces,so
repellent
in the

impulseto

transient

end, greaterdiscord.

their

union

produces,
Though the

Calvinists
controversy in the Church, between
and Arminians, has been longand injurious;
yet,
I never
an
can
as
individual,
signa union creed
of doubtful
I deem

can

such

terms

and

ambiguousarticles.

my while to contend about

articles. I should fear the

it worth

terms

and

of Him
searchinginterrogatory
Job

"

Nor

Who

is this that

who

darkeneth

questioned
counsel by

troversy
knowledge?" In the presentconthere is danger of this ambiguityalso
than a love
from a less commendable
principle
to old symbolsof
of peace, viz. an adherence
of a change ; while,
faith to avoid the imputation

words

without

swerable
time, to escape the force of unanous
ambiguargument, vague propositions,
made the
and equivocal
terms
are
definitions,
alluded
bulwark of defence. This principle
was

at

the

same

66

CALVOISTIC

CONTROVERSY,

bears upon it,if not the " rugged/'

at least the
decided " aspect of controversy"
with my sermon,
he is nevertheless in principle
Armian
nian.
of

I allude

greater difference between

strikes

when

me

us

former

are

to

reviewer

If

correct

should

carded
be dis-

of the
settling
strong bearing
myself in this
certain that

not

his

but

believe that

and
frankly,

oughtto

he

will

candour

explain

if I misunderstand

me

agreed on this pointwe

the controversy.
know
it,and giveover
not, let us know the precise
groundof

difference.
the

the

me

him.

we

have

I am
predestination.

authorizes
himself

the

very
other, I shall confine

I understand

yet it

predestinati
requirethat the

rate, as

any

will
question

the
upon
article to

If

At

and

discards Calvinian

man

would
consistency
of Calvinian election
peculiarities
also.

his views

election there is evidently

On
predestination.
a

to
especially

more

now

better

we

And

are

in

either

preparedto

case

pursue

the

shall be

we

questionof

election.
The

in dispute
is simplythis :
question

relation is there
of God

and

between

the

the decrees

or

What
poses
pur-

acts of man
?
responsible
The
Arminian
views
this question,
I
on
as
understand
reign,
them, are these: God, as a Sovehis works, had a right
in decidingupon
such a system as pleasedhim ;
to determine
on
wise and good,he would of
but,beinginfinitely
of all possicourse
choose, in the contemplation
ble
such a one
systems, to create
as, all things
would bringthe most gloryto himconsidered,

CALVINISTIC

the universe.

and the greatestgood to

self,

he decided that such

infinitewisdom
would

be

of

In

system

of himself,
government,consisting
and

Governor,and
rightful
strained
subjects,
having full and unreintelligent
power to obey or disobeythe mandates
their Sovereign. He foresaw that one of the
the supreme

as

of

moral

67

CONTROVERSY.

incidents

unavoidable

of such

government

possibleexistence of moral evil ;

and, in glancingthroughthe proposed system^
he foresaw that moral evil would certainly
exist,
innumerable
multitudes in its ruinous
involving
would

be the

He did not approve of the evil;

consequences.
he did not decree that it should exist : but still
evil

was

result of

remote

althoughhe

foresaw

that

decree of his : for

if he

agents, and governedthem

made

in the

such

manner

free
proposed,
mined,
deter-

sin, yet he
they would certainly
this certainty,
to make
notwithstanding
these agents and govern them as proposed.He
determined,however, that theyshould be under
of sinning,
either by his decree,or
no
necessity
by the circumstances in which they should be
placed; but if they sinned,it should be their
free choice.
As he foresaw they would
own
sin,he also determined upon the plan he would

ranged,
sinners,and arinfinitemind,
in the counsels of his own
and effects,
the extended concatenation of causes

pursue

so

as

and
best

in reference

to

make

deduce

"

wrath

possiblesystem.

Arminianism

"

them

as

praisehim,"
good from the
greatestpossible

the

the

to

*of

man

Such, it is believed,is

such is Methodism

"

such

is the

68

CALVINISTIC

doctrine of the

CONTROVERSY.

sermon

and

"

of the Bible and of sound

such

the dictates

are

philosophy.

is,What is the doctrine of

question
the reviewer ? He shall speak for himself. On
page 612, of the review, he asks the question,
The

"

next

But in what
that he

sin ?"

He

in the
his

are

sense

(God) purposes

proceedsto
of his

sense

kingdom to

the

answer

understand

the position

the existence of
:

"

Not

rily,
necessa-

in

its existence
preferring

its nonexistence,"c.

the doctrine of
more

to

we

we
predestination

ing
In affirm-

affirm

no

than that God, with the knowledge

necessarily
of
that these beingswould sin in despite
and governof providence
best measures
ment
them
he could take, purposedto create

not for the sake of

pursue those measures,
their sin,but for the good which he nevertheless

and

saw

it was

to
possible

This

would

be

secure
a

in his moral

purpose

with

dom.
king-

respectto

ence,
permititsexistrather than to have no moral system."
free
Again,page 613 : Nothingmore (touching
agency)is impliedin the purpose spokenof than a
of God, that if he creates and
certainty
foreseen
upholdsthat being,and pursues wise and good
of providence,
he (thebeing)will at a
measures
giventime, fullychoose in a given way." In
God confers on them (mankind)
page 612 he says,
the existence of

sin,a purpose

to

"

"

"

in their creation the powers of free agency,

his
in
and he uses no influence
providenceor

procure their sin."

Page 614,
has no
will opposed
He (God) most
obviously
of their conto his law, thoughwith a foresight
government
"

to

CALVINISTIC

69

CONTROVERSY.

duct he should purpose

to

permittheir sin,rather

dispensewith the existence of a moral

kingdom." But it is useless to multiplyquotations.
than

Suffice it to say that the reviewer's whole

ground of defence againstthe arguments of the
sermon,

on

is
question of predestination,
of the doctrine
Arminian
explanation
the

solelythis
of predestination.
He acknowledges,
ly
nay boldasserts, in a strain of rugged controversy"
"

may differ from this view

of the subject,
that there is no other explanation

with his brethren

avoided
to

the arguments of the

that is,as I understand

which

by

who

"

sermon

can

be

the onlyway
it,

avoid the arguments

Calvinian
the

againstthe doctrine of
is to giveit up, and assume
predestination
Arminian
sentiment
this subject.
on

If the reviewer

does not

this,he will of

mean

and pointout the

explainhimself fully,
difference between
his views and those
precise
of the Arminians.
the reviewer
If,on this subject,
course

is

an

Arminian, he has

much

too

dor,
can-

1 trust, not to acknowledgeit frankly,

and
moral
much
courage to be afraid of the

too

If he

is not, the cause

of character
consistency

name.
own

an

is

explanation.Until

of truth and his

mand
imperiouslydethis point,therefore,

decided,farther arguments

on

the merits

of the
at

questionin which we are supposedto be

issue,are useless.
I am
not, however, quiteready to dismiss the

review.

I stated at the

commencement

it was

difficultto pursue this controversy without alluding

in which it had been conto the manner

70

CALVINISTIC

ducted

CONTROVERSY.

the part of our Calvinistic brethren ;

but that there was
less ground for objection
in
on

than in most
others.
Spectator
There are
some
however,
thingsin this article,
that I cannot
justify.I will state them frankly,
I canthough I trust in Christian friendship.
this article in the

not

of

approve

the

reviewer's

use

of

terms

he has evidently
though,to my understanding,
not
given the doctrine of predestination
merely
a

dress,but

new

intimates

than

character,yet he

new

that it is the old doctrine

more

with

of

method

ly
explanation
; and seriousand repeatedly
complainsof the author of the
for
the factof God's fore,
sermon
confounding
actions of men
with this
the voluntary
ordaining
or
any other solution of that fact or theoryas to
the mode in which it comes
to pass." And
so

only a

new

"

confident is the reviewer

that he stillbelieves in

in the old Calvinistic

factof predestination,
his sentiments on this subject
sense, that in stating
the

he

uses

the

Calvinists have

other.

He

used,when

his

distant from

forms of

same

the

as

tells us, for

that the events

placein

take

the very

which
expression
their meaningwas
as
two
poles from each

that
instance,
which

manner

"

God

termined
de-

placeshould
which theydo,

take
in

if the writer mean

for the very ends." Now
what the words naturally
imply,then he believes
and

that,in the

case

of

finally
impenitentsinner,

that all his sins should take

predetermined
placein the manner
they did,and for the very
end that he might be damned ! Again he tells
God, in his eternal purpose, has predeterus,

God

"

CALVINISTIC

mined

71

CONTROVERSY.

all events."

sembly's
And, quotingfrom the Asdid
Catechism, God, from ail eternity,
freelyand unchangeably ordain whatsoever
tells us that this expresses
to pass,"he
comes
the views entertained by the orthodox
essentially
"

of New-England,
Congregationalists

among

whom, I suppose of course, he would include

himself.
Now, after what I have said of
the reviewer's Arminianism, I doubt not but
of

readers will be startled at these

my
and be ready to accuse
of great
me
quotations,

some

in
credulity

the

judgmentI

writer's sentiments.
is any

contradiction

it
language,

exculpatemyself,
firstplace,that if

in the writer's sentiments

is not

but his ;
my fault,
if I should attempt to reconcile them, perhaps
the reviewer
would not thank me
for my
or

and

of the

I shall

however, by saying,in the

there

formed

have

officiousness.

Beside,after what has been said,

I feel safer in
Jlrminian

the
understanding

sense,

it very illof

Calvinists.

me

because

he and

that I have

reviewer

some

in

an

others take

them
represented

But, in fairness to

is

the

as

reviewer,it

presumed that he will not consider

justlychargeablewith contradiction.

himself
He

has

used these old terms, it is true, and thus has subscribed

to the Calvinistic creed as positively
as
Calvinist ; but
he has explained
that

the staunchest

the terms, and

derstood,
then, let it be uncreed,and defined

protests againstbeing held

for any other construction than his

own.

that sin sliould

by God's predetermining
place,in the very manner, and for the very

Hence
Lake

sponsible
re-

72

CALVINISTIC

ends itdoes

CONTROVERSY.

whatsoever
by God's foreordaining
that God foresaw
he only means
to pass
comes
that sin would certainly
take place,
and predetermined
that he would
hinder it,either by
not
from creatingmoral
refraining
agents, or by
stroy
throwinga restraint upon them that would de"

"

In short,that he would
their free agency.
submit to it as an evil unavoidably
incident to the

possiblesystem, after doing all that he

wiselycould to prevent it ! This is foreordaining
that it should
sin ! !
This is predetermining
be ! 1 1
but express my deepest
I cannot
regret
and
that a gentlemanof the reviewer's standing
tion
learningshould lend his aid and givehis sancof language to such
to such
a
perversion
confusion of tongues. We
do not complain
a
of the doctrine contained
in the explanation
;
best

"

but

in

protest,in the

we

in
language,

the

in the sentiments
such

will the watchmen

the

Church

name

be

of all that is pure

of all that is important

conveyedby language,
against

of terms.

abuse

an

name

Alas

for

us

When

will
eye to eye ! when
at peace ! while
our
spiritual
see

doctors

in

this
divinity,
pursue
?
will the reviewer
course
By what authority
support this definition ? Do the words predestinate,
in common
or decree mean,
or foreordain,
finition
language,or even in their radical and criticaldethan to permit not absolutely
nothingmore

guides,our

"

to

hinder

to

"

but

evil ?
offensive

not

pretendthis.

when

used

in

submit to as an
The reviewer

unavoidable

will
certainly
Much
less do they mean
this
authoritative
or
magisterial

74

CALVIXISTIC

ent

I cannot

of
He

one,

it himself.

answer

of the reviewer's

approve
manner

my

question. For

should

preferhe

would

upon

such

to

answers

CONTROVERSY.

the
treating

censures

doctrine of predestinati

of

the
confounding
with modes
of explanation.He
doctrine itself,
distinct ; and though
perfectly
says they are
some

may

have

accuses

been

me

unfortunate

in their modes

and though he acknowledges

explanation,
my arguments bear againstsuch, yet the fact
of the doctrine itself is not thereby affected.
for example,he thinks
His mode of explanation,
untouched
by the arguments of the sermon.
of explanation,
have seen,
But his mode
as
we

of

into Arminianism.

the doctrine

turns

be
would, perhaps,

no

And

difficultmatter

to

it

show,

of the doctrine,
short of
that any explanation
doing it away, would be exposed to all the
weightof the arguments urged in the sermon.

But the
those who
minian

was

sermon

hold

to

the decrees

Why

sense.

"

should

before the

come

to

oppose
in an Ar-

of God
does

then

complain of the sermon

deeplyregret"that the
*'

written

never

the reviewer

Why

author

does

of the

publicwith

an

he

so

sermon

attack

faith of a largepart of the Christian

community, conducted in a way so obviously
on

the

and

erroneous

unjust?"

againstCalvinism,not
the reviewer
some

and
he

may

Arminianism.

say, the

parts,to the Calvinism

therefore he
was
certainly

The

sermon

of

sermon

was

It is true,

alludes,in

New-England,
felt himself implicated.But
not, unless he is a New-Eng-

CALVINISTIC

land Calcinist

unless he

"

75

CONTROVERSY.

believes that

foreordains whatsoever

comes

of those

terms.

to

God

"

pass,"in

the

Indeed, it seems
that Calvinism, in its proper character, is as
obnoxious to the reviewer, as to the author of
sense

proper

the

sermon

and the former

seems

this

to

of the

nakedness

the
to show
opportunity
system, and bringinto notice

taken

have

doctrine.

better

If so, is it safe that the reviewer should still

accord to them their old symbolsof faith? And
that the author of the sermon
is it just,
should
be held the defendant

on

the

record,when

the

Calvinism itself? In
against
I would say, it is
to the former question,
answer
and never
will be approvedof,I
utterly
unsafe,
ter
With respect to the latbelieve,
by Arminians.
if it is saferto attack Calvinism in
question,
this indirect way, I will not object,
though it
at present to my
disadvantage.But
may seem
is issued

execution

cannot

see

that

it would

be

safer

"

an

open

always ends best. What if it should

doctors
the reviewer,and the theological
subject
in New-Haven
sy
to the charge of heregenerally,
Still they ought not to shrink from their
?
fluence
responsibilities
they occupy a commanding inbold front

"

and over
the canthe Churches
didates
among
influof their theological
school,and that ence

directed to
openlyand decidedly
discountenance
error.
it,
They should remove
card
and branch.
should they disroot
Especially
those old symbolsof faith,which are not
only in themselves, in their true and proper
meaning,a reflection upon the clericalcharacter,
should

be

76

and

CALVIXISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

black spot upon

creed,but

also

are

the very

they are

obnoxious,because
especially
articles which
the great body

Calvinists have

of the

maintained, in
Calvin,the

of these stands

system, in the Protestant Church.

I will

sense

that of the reviewer.

widelydifferent from
the head

orthodox

otherwise

an

At

of the

author

Calvin,who

that the will of

scrupleto own
all things,and that
on
lays a necessity
to pass."
comes
every thinghe wills necessarily
but also
"Adam
not only by the permission,
fell,
He not only foreby the appointmentof God.
saw
"

says,
God

not

that Adam
that
are

should."

he

held in

so

would

on

"

fall,but also ordained

devil and

The

wicked

men

side,with the hand

every

conceive
God, that they cannot
execute
any mischief,any farther

or

contrive

than

God

of
or

him-

are
nor
permitonly,but command
but compelled
also,as with a
theyheld in fetters,
to performobedience to those commands."
bridle,
far from thinking
that apCalvin,it seems, was
pointmen
that to oror
dain
only meant permission,
certainty
foreseen. In this he
only meant
has been followed by a
correct
was
: in this he
host of writers down to the presentday,and copied
ecclesiastical symbols, in different
in numerous

self doth

not

"

parts of Christendom
viewer

know

school,in

and
explanation,
accordance
terms

and

does

that these terms

Hopkins and Emmons,

that

with
Does

he

sense

in

the
not

and

are

the

not

understood

by

all the Calvinists of

widelydifferentfrom
too, much

sense,

proper

know

re-

more

meaning

that

his
in

of the

great majo.

CALVINISTIC

77

CONTROVERSY.

rityof the Calvinists of the United States,and

perhapsin New-England,even understand these
they ought to be understood,
terms, as indeed
used in reference to sin, as expressinga
when
preferenceof sin, in that part of the Divine
plan where sin occurs, to holiness in its stead ?
Indeed, as I understand

the

reviewer, from the

to the present hour,

days of John Calvin down

between
the great body
there is,on this point,
of Calvinists and himself,almost no
likeness,
except in the

of words.

use

his another.

"

the opposers

of

Theirs

Why, then,does

is

trine
doc-

one

he oppose

Calvinism, and thus keep

error

Especially,
why does he hail
and then,
from that party, and hoist their signals,
after seeming to get the victory,
by espousing

iu countenance

the very

of the

cause

Calvinists to
successful ?

the

triumph,as if their cause had been

Is this justice
to the author of the

Is it the best way

to promote truth 1
reviewer's
forbear. The
subsequent

explanations
may
any

assailed,encourage

sermon

But

rate, the
The

cause

these difficulties. At

remove

of truth will doubtless

of

appearance

this review

vance.
adhas

vinism
givenadditional strengthto the sentiment,Calis waxing old,and is ready to vanish
away." The dogma that God has predetermined
all events, and elected (in a Calvinistic sense)
world all who shall be heirs of salvation,"
out of our guilty
withers at the touch of advancing
truth,
and is fast losing
credit in the Christian Church.
the above, I have seen
quiry
inSince writing
an
of a correspondent
in one
of the Calvinis"

"

78

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

tic papers, in these

istic writers retain the words

perplexour

to

certain that

which

Calvin-

our

seem

sadly

so

brethren,when

Arminian

it is

do not attach the

to
signification
stances
they always pretend?"and then in-

we

which

them

do

words," Why

"foreordain."

in the word
in

reply,givesas
words, that they

The

for

reason

editor,

using these

to
Scriptural
; and seems
that they should persist
deem
it necessary
in
submit. This replyof the editor
this use until we
of Mr. Tyler,in
of a remark
reminded
me
his sermon
alreadyalluded to : The Calvinist
contends that God resolved, from eternity,
to
to
permitall the sins and miseries which were
take place; and this he calls,in the language
are

"

of the

Now,
Bible,foreordination."

here, to show

that

no

not

to

Calvinist would

true

and permission
the
callforeordination

stop
ever

thing,
guished
have seen, clearlydistinfor Calvin has, as we
words from each other,I beg
the two
of addinga thoughtor two on this
the privilege
for the use of these
idea of Scripture
authority
the Scriptures
For if it is only because
terms.
these words in this sense, that they persist
use
settle this
in usingthem, I think we
may easily
question. Let it be shown that the Scriptures
in the
or
foreordination,"
use
predestination,"
of mere
ing.
hindersense
permission not absolutely
Again : let one passage be shown in which
all things,
it is said, God
or
predestinates"
same

"

"

"

"

"

foreordains"

this cannot
absurd

is

be

whatsoever

done, how

it,to talk

comes

to

how
futile,

about

pass.
more

If
than

usingthese words,

CALVINISTIC

19

CONTROVERSY.

Scripturesuse them ! To use

words out of the Scripture
sense, and
Scripture
then appealto Scripture
to sanction this use, is
sad a perversion
it is of
of the Scriptures
as
as
logic. Indeed, to give such a meaning to the
word
is at once
the
to take away
predestinate,
quotedby the reviewer,, and
scriptures
principal
others,to prove Calvinistic election. See Eph.
Does predestina29.
ir 5; ii,10; Rom. viii,
tion
in these passages mean
or
merelyto permit,
the

because

hinder ? and

do

teach a
passages
personalelection to eternal life? Is this all the

i?jt to

Calvinists

by

mean

these

the

election of

sovereign

of the will of man,

but of
nor
grace, not of man,
Alas ! for the elect ! If man
God 1
does not
and God
elect himself,

that is,
onlypredestinates,
not hinder his election ; who, we
him?
does error
How
destroy

does

permits
"

ask, will elect

itself! These

take
which
gentlemen may
either acknowledge
ground they please
; they may
that Bible predestination
means
an
efficient
of God to accomplishan object,and
purpose
then

the

meet
-r

sermon

they

or

the reviewer

may

has, and

the issue there

on

posed
pro-

these words
as
interpret
then give up those pas-

sages which they consider their strong hold,in

In either case
favour of Calvinian election.
their system must
could be more

appealto
of terms.

suffer serious loss.

unfortunate,I think, than this

the Bible to sanction

As

to

the word

recollect that it occurs

4, has

"

Nothing

our

such

an

abuse

I do
foreordain,

translation.

not

Jude

before of old ordained,""c, but it is in

80

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

renoriginal
very different from the word
ters
dered predestinate.
The allusion is to charac-

the

signated
proscribedfor their sins,and deginal
for deserved
punishment. The oriis used in onlyfor predestinate,
II{"oo""Jw,
with any direct
one
place,so far as I can find,
reference
This
to a sinful act, Acts
iv, 28.
But the
passage is quoted by the reviewer.
determination
here spoken of,he himself informs
that

us,

were

the purpose of God

to make
for the sin of the world, by means

relates to

atonement

"

the death of Jesus

of

Hence

Christ."

God,

an

of

the

predeterminat
instance,probably

in this

refers to the work

of atonement, without including

specialdecree in respect to the

means

therein any
of the suffering.Christ could have
unto

even

human
the

means.

murderous

Christ

to

their

the atonement,
seems

to

fered,
suf-

death,in the gardenwithout any

But inasmuch
purpose,

as

God

"

power,""c,
but

be the most

these
chose

therefore

'permitted the

men

to

had
leave

decreed

means.

rational construction.

This
But

Calvinists may
think of this passage,
the
the Scriptural
of the word is clearly
on
use
whatever

side

meaning an authoritative
shall be.
ordinance that the thingpredestinated
I will avail myselfof this opportunity
to correct
of the reviewer,respecting
two
one
or
errors
which had escaped
the sentiment of the sermon,
"
He
view of predestination
says, my
my notice.
is a determination of God
to produce a
givenresult by his oicn immediate and efficient
energy." This is a mistake. I said nothing
of

its proper

"

82

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

their
severe

must

by

and rejoinders
to each other are
as
replies
The discussion
if directed against
us.
as
carried on
and
be interesting
profitable,
such

two

and

"

under

and

temper

as

persons
the

manner,

Dr. Fisk and

his opponent,

to
as
steady supervision,
of third partiesas proposed.

Eds.

just received a pamphlet of about

series of letters,
a
forty-eight
containing
pages,
and
in answer
to my
sermon
on
predestination
These
letters are
election.
written by the Rev.
David
Metcalf, of Lebanon, Connecticut, and
not onlyto the doctrinal
purport to be an answer,
but to the
charges,"as
part of the sermon,
the writer is pleasedto call them, contained
in
the sermon,
and published
afterward in a specific
have

"

form, first in the

then

in the Christian

It will be

Connecticut

Observer, and
and

Advocate

recollected

by

your

Journal.

readers,that I

statements
pledged myself to vindicate my
who, with his
againstany responsible
person,
would come
forward and
own
signature,
proper
deny them : or if I failed to support them, I
I had written.
would
what
This pledge
retract

Mr.

Metcalf

calls

upon

me

to

redeem

indeed

not

by bringingforward my proofs,or by
making a reply; but, having thrown in his plea,
is decided, and
he supposes that the cause
has
himself
made
up the judgment,and issued the
execution, and forthwith comes
forward, and
claims
his damage. His words are
Of the
of the sermon
author
claim a publicacwe
"

"

CALVirsISTIC

83

CONTROVERSY.

knowledgmentof his errors, and make justice

and equitythe ground of our
claim."
Again,
If Dr. F. makes
no
publicretraction from the
if after he shall
ground taken in his sermon
receive these
letters,[!!] remembering also
what is said in the Christian Spectator's
review
*'

"

of his sermon,

he shall allow another

copy of it
he will find it difficult to

to be

I think
printed,
convince any intelligent
candid man,
that he is
not
guiltyof breakingthe ninth commandment,"
"c.
The intelligent
reader, who has studied

human

how
suitable
to make
nature, will know
allowances
for the dogmaticaland premature

decisions,and

high

claims

contained

in

the

It is not an
uncommon
foregoingextracts.
in
succeeds
thing,that a zealous advocate
convincinghimselfof the truth of his cause ;
but utterly
fails with respect to all others.
I do
not say, that this writer will not
gain his argument
foreknowledge"
; but it requiresmore
than I am
disposedto accord to him, to affirm
this as
a
certainty."I demur
againstthis
of making up the judgment. I
hasty manner
"

"

wish

to

and

have

be

heard

in defence of my

statements,

objectionsalso to bring againsthis

statements, and
supposed proofs and arguments.
In the first place,
I

objectto him, that he has

and
and joinedissue specifically
not come
out
but talks
of my
on
directly
charges,"
any one
for most
part in general terms, about the
and misrepresentations
of
unfairness,
injustice,
"

the

sermon.

This

circumstance

would, of

84

CONTROVERSY.

CALVIMSTIC

free me
to notice
from any obligation
itself,
these letters,
the groundof my
on
pledgein the
But yet, as I feel the most perfect
Observer.
readiness
the

of

cause

thereby,I

will

both
we

as

secure

can

and as I hope
subject,
be served
righteousnessmay
versy,
willingly
proceedin this controto doctrine and policy,
provided
suitable publicmedium,
some

discuss

to

this

throughwhich to prosecute the discussion. And

of the
this pointMr. M. complainsbitterly
on
former

editors of the

for he had

having
was

Advocate

and Journal

for the

it seems,
applied,

"

of
privilege

in that paper, and

the ground that " the sermon

his letters inserted

refused,on

in the Advocate, and therefore

published
should
justicedid not requirethat its answer
be."
Now, since these letters are professedly
was

an

not

to

answer

the whole

sermon,

the

editors,I

consistent with their former

perfectly
If Mr.
them.
to publish
statements, in refusing
M. had confined himself to the chargesin the
Observer, the editors would undoubtedlyhave
a
place in the columns of the
giventhe subject

think,were

it was,
however, I think the
and unfairness made against
charge of injustice

Advocate

as

and
gratuitous
by Mr. M. is entirely
If it was
expectedto producean
unjustifiable.
I think
the public,
on
effect
by such a complaint,
in all
will be disappointed
such an expectation
And
placeswhere the subjectis understood.
the expectation
evident
that this was
appears
from another charge againstMethodist
preach,

the editors

ers, in the

words
following

"
"

It is

supposedto

CALVINISTIC

be the

85

CONTROVERSY.

sentiment,if not " the common

talk in our
land,'that the Methodist preachers
have
a
strong aversion againsttheir hearers
of this,in
readingour writings.The reason
part, is supposedto be, that they choose to
common

have their

creed

our

of

ours

peoplereceive
from

all their

knowledgeof

it,instead
be convinced,by our
of

their statements

lest they should

arguments, of the truth of

belief."

our

Now

deny, and
whollyand positively
challengethe writer for the proofsof what we
know
but an
to
be, not only an ungenerous,
unjustallegation.Nothingcan be farther from
the whole
than
this.
genius of Methodism
the reverend
Does
not
gentlemanknow, that
of our members
in New
a great portion
England
this charge we

those who

are

were

?
istic congregations
Does

trained

they

were

their

infancy,and
defended

and

Does
its way

he

know

not

that

up in these doctrines from

have heard
them explained

from
know

he not

of Calvin-

members

once

their earliest recollections?

that Methodism

of
againstthe impressions

has

made

the

nursery,
and the
the catechetical instruction of the priest

school

master

the influence

"

the press, and in maturer

age
stronger influence of academies
he

Does

know, also,that all this has been

not

in this

done

?
generation

told that Methodists

the

?
question

from
a

man

pulpitand
againstthe still
and colleges?

of the

How

who

knowledgeof

can

And

examine

shall
but

we

one

now

be

side of

such a charge,
astonishing
make
any pretensionto

ecclesiastical matters

in

our

86

CALVINISTIC

country !

Does

CONTROVERSY.

this writer know, also,that

Advocate, and others,have

not

the editors of the

and
loudly,

called

almost

for information
continually,
that we
subject,
might know

upon this
the Calvinistic

what

standards

Calvinism

what

is ? and

and

are,

shall

we

tain
ascer-

be

now

vinistic
are
told,that Methodists
ignorantof the Calthe preachers
faith,
and, what is worse,
strive to

keep them

in

and that
ignorance,
keeping them from a

the base purpose

of
of the truth !

know

can

If

it.

understand

do

we

it is either because
to

as

understand

not

not

ever

it now,

natural

ability

of Calvinism

If it is

is ?

itself

it is
or
criminal,)

not

are

have

not

abilityto make it plain. But

is not essentially
what
it was,

it now

we

it,(andtherefore. Calvinism

the teachers

what

well

as

have

we

being judge,we
natural

say, if Calvinism is
from five to thirty
years

its character

know

we

ago,

viction
con-

We

it was

what
essentially

with

changed in

cause
behad

if Calvinism
we

ask

the hands

has it changed?
of its supporters, how
much
has it lost its identity
?
Is it Calvinism still,
or

In what
Shall
to

does the
take

we

these

of
identity

the

Rev.

?
questions

Mr.

take

we

consist ?

Metcalf 's answer

Mr.

Shall
?

Calvinism

the Christian

M.

to
appears fully
for he makes frequent
agree with the Spectator,
with great apparent approbation.
reference to it,
answers
Spectator's

And

yet

been

issued since my

sermon

two

of this

numbers

replyto

in that work, in which

of
understanding

the

have
periodical

of my
replyI stated my

the review

reviewer's doctrine of

CALVINISTIC

87

CONTROVERSY.

and requestedto
predestination,
I

neither my
noticed.
And

; and

incorrect

was

request has been

understood, that in the
very
does

laboured

if

replynor

my
yet, let it be
there is a
last number

to show
article,

differ

not

be informed

that Dr.

from
essentially

the

Taylor

orthodox

Calvinistic faith heretofore received.

known, that though Drs. Woods,

Griffin,
Tyler,Green, and various others,come
It is also

charge a portionof their brethren with

serious and
a
dangerous dereliction from the
Calvinistic faith,yet the accused, in their turn,
strenuouslymaintain that they preserve the old
landmarks
unremoved, and the essential principles
of Calvinism
unimpaired; and that it is
calumnious
a
charge to say they have departed
and

out

the faith of the party.

shall we
How
judge in this matter

from

think,from
that

our

of

some

If

we

of their writings,
understanding
them
have changed their views,

they have, they are silent.

If their brethren
charge them with changing,
they deny it ; and, standingup before the world
and before the Churches, and before their God,
the
and emphatically,
deliberately
pronounce
old symbols of faith,as a test oath to prove
doubt their repeated
their orthodoxy. Should we
Mr.
asseverations ?
M., or somebody
us
else,might write another pamphletto screw
for bearingfalse
into repentance and confession,
witness against
our
neighbour. But if we hold
had a
have
them to the old doctrine,which we
from
of learning,
our
youth
good opportunity

and

we

ask

them

if

88

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

we

up,

bearingfalse

of

of

accused

are

and
misrepresentation,
but

None

witness.

the advocates

New-Haven

have, to my
divinity
knowledge,taken a publicstand againstmy
theysay it
sermon
; and they oppose it because
of their doctrine.
is a misrepresentation
of the

seems
This, therefore,

the

with

case

make

respect

to

us

to be

to these

the state of

gentlemen
"

of Calvinism
representation

as

have

we

heretofore

understood

because
they object,

this is not

their

therefore

the

found

it,and

have
break

we

ninth

We
it
"

belief,and

commandment

parture
charge them with a deand theydeny
from the old doctrines,
in turn with bearingfalse
it ! and charge them
witness ! In the midst of our
perplexityon
this subject,
while we
are
lookingevery way for
Their

brethren

own

Mr.

light,
up comes
unwillingour

M.

and

people should

tells us, we
know
what

are

Cal-

Is this generous,
or
just?
charge,and demand proof. And

vinists believe ! !
We

repelthe

time, as a farther proofthat the

charge is unfounded, I will,Messrs. Editors,

in the
with

mean

your

consent

to
proposition

that

should

hear

desirous to
very well.
Calvinists.

Mr.
both

both

and

make
a
approbation,
Metcalf.
It is certainlydesirable,

Calvinists

and

Mr.

M.

sides.

enlightenthe
But
To

we

Methodists
seems

Methodists.

also wish

to

very
This is

enlightenthe

accomplishthis,the

discussion

both sides should be put into the hands of the

peopleon both sides. If,then, some
reputable

on

and

circulated
extensively

Calvinistic

periodical

90

CALVINISTIC

the Rev.

David

CONTROVERSY.

Metcalf,in
This

sermon.

subjectof his
has
proposition

the

present volume, on
my

8th No.

the

of the

review

of

been

not

complied with on the part of Mr. M.,

from
extract
accordingto the following
New-York
no
Evangelist,
compliancecan
expected:

and
the
be

"

"

We

work

have

gelist,
seen," says the editor of the Evan"
in the Advocate, since Mr. Metcalf 's
letter from
Dr. F., in
was
a
published,

which

he shows

that

his desire

the discussion

is

shall still go forward.

There
he exacts, however, which we

condition

one

think

impracticable.
It is,that some
nated,
person should be desigthe
as
by a sort of common
suffrage,
Now
the truth is,
champion of Calvinism.
as
Calvinists,

thinkingfor
there

themselves

they all
minds.

there

are

ourselves,and

of course,

some

with

himself

as

while
a

class,

many

defend

each
notwithstanding,

fellow holds
contest

and

for

thingswhich
stated differently,
by different
each
of us,
we
Consequently,
can,

agree,
will be held or

class ;

on
which,
great principles

are

defend

rather remarkable

class,are

errors,

Calvinists

one

and

may

as

think his

therefore,in his

Calvinism,Dr. F.

must

assume

to

the

of selecting
those
responsibility
and modes
of statement
doctrinal points
which
Calvinists as a class.
he
And when
distinguish
found these principles,
has
we
hope he will
either confute

embrace

copiedthe above
public,not only as

I have

of the

or

them."
for the farther notice
a

remarkable

para-

CALVINISTIC

91

CONTROVERSY.

but also as havingan important

graph in itself,
bearingon the present controversy. There are
several thingsin it worthy of special
notice.
In the first place we
if other editors
see,
think with this one, and that they do, we are left
their periodicals
to infer from their not offering
for the controversy, there is no hope that my
will be accepted. We
then have
proposition
the reason
because there is one
impracticable
condition. But why impracticable
1 The editor
"

tells us, " Dr. F. exacts

should
be designated
by
to
suffrage

be the

some

sort

of

champion

believe the editor

cannot

that

person
common

of Calvinism."
to

means

misrepresent

and yet he has done it. My words

are,
"Provided
that the Calvinistic editor shall,by
me

to this arrangement, be
consenting
thereby acknowledging that Mr.

suitable

man

to

manage
Calvinists."
part of the
about a " sort of common

the

considered

Metcalf

controversy on

Here

as

is

the

is

nothingsaid
suffrage."In case

of

compliance by Mr. Leavitt, or any other

editor,the only vote to be polledand counted
would

be

his

own.

Not

this ! And if Mr.

suffrage
it must
impracticable,
in his own
inabilityexisting

of the belief that Mr.

to

manage
well I took the

person

extensive
very
L. thinks the condition
a

owing to moral
mind, growing out
be

Metcalf

is not

suitable

it is
this controversy. Hence
I did ; for Mr. M. is
precaution

stranger to me ; and I do not wish to engage

with any man
in a controversy on
this subject
who is not, by his class,considered responsible,
a

92

CONTROVERSY*

CALVINISTIC

Perhaps Mr.

Leavitt

knows

of

some

who

one,

suitable,in his judgment,and who

accept of the offer ; or perhapshe him-

woJd

be

would

self would

I do

not

wish

to

be

to
willing

engage

in the discussion.

wish to confine it to Mr.

M. ; nor
do I
in the light
of a general

be considered

who
is seekingan adventure.
The
challenger
to
subjectis an important
one, and I am
willing
discuss it with any
candid
responsibleman.
I believed,
We
accused
most
were
as
unjustly,
of keepingour peoplein ignorance
of Calvinism,
and of preventingthem
from
readingon the
other side,for the base purpose
of preventing
from being convinced
them
of the truth.
To
and
render the subjectfair and equal,therefore,
I made
the proposal
to wipe off this aspersion,
;

and

if Mr.

is not

M.

suitable man,

let

some

other be found.
But

we

are

informed

farther in this paragraph,

in complyingwith my
great difficulty
condition is, that
Calvinists,as a class, are
for thinking
remarkable
for themselves," "c.

that

one

"

If the editor

designsto say, as
would imply,that the

remarkable, in their character

the natural
whole
as

class

struction
conare

Calvinists,

and believing
and independently
differently
thinking
of each other,then his proposition
is
able
a contradiction.
They, as a class,are remarkfor not being a class at all, havingno
in common
! His arguor
qualities
properties
ment
also would
require this construction,
because
he is showingwhy no one
could be the
proper champion of the class,for the reason

for

CALVINISTIC

that, as

Calvinism

class,they did
be

think

not

alike.

If

it includes,in its

generalterm,

93

CONTROVERSY.

extension,all those individuals or sub-classes of

and
individuals,
only those, that hold certain
all those
doctrines in common,
and it embraces
mon
doctrines,and only those that are held in com-

such

by the class. If,therefore,there is any

class,then most certainly
they think alike

in all those

and

by

thingsthat

consequence,

constitute them

of the number,

one

any

competent, would

otherwise

class ;

qualifiedto

be

representand defend the class

such, however
his fellows,"
much he mightdiffer from many of
there is any force
in other things. If,therefore,
for any
in the argument, that it is impracticable
as

"

one

the

of the number

bearingthe

champion of

the class

name,

to

become

such, because

as

they

arise from
themselves, it must
among
"
the fact, that there are
no
great principles"
held in common
them, and, of course,
among

differ so

there is

class.

no

therefore,about

"

All the writer says afterward,

in which they
great principles

nothing.
agree,"is mere
verbage,signifying
For if we
giveit any meaning,it would be a
all

contradiction of what
a

he had

complete nullification

adduced

as

of the

for not

reason

before,and
only argument

stated

complyingwith

my

why I think
fair view of this subject. In the
the above
a
same
paragraphit is said, Therefore, in his
to
with Calvinism,Dr. F. must
assume
contest
those
of selecting
himself the responsibility

proposal.There

is another

reason

"

doctrinal facts and

modes

of

statement

which

94

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

Calvin
distinguish

ids

to

men

the

known

make

Would
interpretation.
a

This

is

requisitionof

he commanded

when

Nebuchadnezzar,

the

than

unreasonable

more

class."

as

dream,

the wise
well

as

as

the

and
genuous
inintelligent
such as we have a rightto expect
man,
editor to be, give such an
religious
answer,

circumstances, if he could have told

have been accused,
Calvinism is ? We

such

under
what

us

by

not

an

Metcalf

Mr.

only, but by

Calvinists of

school,and all the

school,and the new
schools,that we
misrepresentthem, that our
the old

preachersmake
that my

them,

"

it their business to
sermon

was

misrepresent
scandalous

most

and that we
studied to keep
misrepresentation,
of what Calvinism is. When
our
peopleignorant
and conjuring
this is repliedto, by entreating
the name
of Calvinism,
bear
those who
to tell

it is ; and when
in their own
the subject,
what

us

them
to

an

inform

doctrine

offer to discuss

we

and give
periodicals,

discuss it in ours,
people,in their own
way, on

to
opportunity

and

our

this

death-like

"

silence

on

the

subject

reigns throughoutthe whole

corps editorial;
until at length the
Evangelistspeaks, We
cannot
comply ; we each and all,as a class,
remarkable
for thinkingfor ourselves,it
are
so
is impracticable
for any one
to state and defend
those doctrinal facts which
us
as
a
distinguish
"

therefore

class, and
himself

cannot

F.

must

assume

of selecting
them
responsibility

the

If Calvinists
and

Dr.

cannot

trust

any

agree in their
of their

own

to

!!

system,

to state
fraternity

95

CONTROVERSY.

CALVIN'ISTTC

and defend itin behalf of the class,why do

they
in stating
of wilful misrepresentations,
us
accuse
their system ?
Why, in short,do theynot begin
to doubt
whether, as a class,they have any
system ? It is time for those who bear the name
formed,
into know, and for the
publicto be distinctly
there is any thingreal represented
Calvinism ?
If there is,
term

whether
the

by

the term

then, whether

If it is

is

common

or

proper

general
the properties,
then,wThat are the qualities,
name,
doctrines designated
or
by it? If no one can
noun

common

or

noun,

write about it,and about

tell, if those who
after week, think it impracticable
to
it,"week
define or describe those doctrines for the class,
"

"

because

think

they

follows, if the
but
general,

individuals.
many

of course
differently,

so

is retained, it is not
a
and belongsonly to
name,

name

proper
And thoughithas been assumed

individuals,
yet it has in each
which by no means
definition,

the definitionof the term,

individual.
talk

And

about

as

therefore it is as

the class

real characteristics

Calvinist, as

to

Joshua.

nearly the
as

And

enters

by any

argue

are

son

vidual
indiinto
other

it is to

Joshuas,and

or

that

by

inconsistent to

as

in any

of their

each

is called

alike,because

class, because

same

an

as
of Calvinists,

and Joshua,the
Evangelist

the

case

assumed

talk about the class of Johns

absurd to infer that two men

to

it

the

editor of the

of

Nun, belonged

both

this appears
to me
of the case.
true
state

called

are

to

be

very

Calvinism,

a
class,has always been
designating

rather

96

CALVINISTIC

and

vague

days of

CONTROVERSY.

unsettled

John

Calvin

from
definition,

in its

himself.

And

this was

the
one

of the offensive

objections
broughtagainstit in
an
sermon
however, that has
objection,
my
been
abundantly confirmed
by recent events.
and publishedof another doctrine
As I wrote
"

some

years
It is

now.

before
that

since,so I may
say of Calvinism
a
proteus that changes its shape
describe

can

one

it

changes its place before

one

get his

can

And

here I will stop to say, It will

avail nothingfor any one
to take offence at this

hand

it.

ignisfatuus,

an

"

on

It is

statement.

called

are

many

them

but
highly,

they can,
I

care

not

thus

men

speak.

and
personally,

of their

their name,
best refutation

I dislike

because

that I
Calvinists,

of

and

not

esteem

who
I know
them

doctrine,and their system,

I must

speak freely. And the

if
out
they can give,is to come
and define and explaintheir system.
what shape it is presented
in ; I am

willingto

meet

character

and

If it puts on an
Arminian
dress, like the review in the
it.

Christian

I will onlyask the privilege

Spectator,
it anew,
and givingit a legitimate
of baptizing
littlehope of
But as there seems
now
name.
beingpermittedto meet it in the manner
pro
posed,it only remains that I proceed,according
the columns
of the
to
promise,to "occupy
with a few numbers, touchingthe
Advocate

present Calvinistic controversy,both as relates

to their own
differences,and as relates to the

generalquestionbetween
I

cannot

but think

them
this

an

and us."

important mo.

98

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

however, it may

stance
that this very circumcontroversy both easier

appear,

will render

the

of opinions
promising. This diversity
the
has
produced serious discussion among
themselves, and has thrown the
predestinarians
vocates
system open to publicview, and driven its adof their respective
to a clearer statement
opinions. The effervescence,in short,growing
and

more

of this excitement,has led to a

of the system, and of course
analysis

out

distinct

more

to

clearer

discoveryof its constituent parts. Their arguments

against each other, and the logical
which
they urge againsteach
consequences
other's views, are, in many
the
precisely
cases,
that

same

advance, and

should

we

have

often

Much
urged,in oppositionto predestination.
of the work, therefore,
is preparedfor us, and
brought forward in a way to produce an effect

Calvinists themselves, where

be heard.

among
not

To
to

understand

follow out

will

be

this

and
fully,
it
discussion advantageously,
to
glance at the different

changes
system

and to take

state

The
is too

could

this subjecthowever

necessary
modifications
and

we

of

the

Calvinistic

brief survey of the present

of the

parties.
faith of
religious

well

known

to

our

need

fathers
puritanical
a

delineation here.

early day defined and

in the Cambridge and
formally recognized,
Say brook platforms.The firstrefinement (improvem
this
it can
hardly be called)
upon
ancient faith,
the metaphysical
was
theory of

This

faith

was

at

an

99

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

Hopkins. The leadingdogmas of

cause
theory were, that God was the efficient
all moral
action, holy and unholy; and

this

Dr.

of
that

holiness consisted in disinterested benevolence.

Insomuch,

that

the

to

answer

the

question,

?" was
deemed
to be damned
willing
a
very good criterion by which to judge of a
experience. While the doctrine of
religious
in this manner
was
going to seedy
predestination
in one direction,
and bearingits legitimate
fruits,
modification
it received a remarkably plausible
in another.
The atonement, which was
formerly
"

Are

you

limited to the
and

elect,was

extended

now

the invitations of the

Gospel,instead

as
before,to
beingrestrained,

extended

elect,were
But

it would

as

be

to

to

the world

the world

all ;
of

of the

of mankind.

useless to hold out invitations

accept of them, another

found
refinement was
was
introduced,and man
natural ability
to receive salvation,
to possess
a

to

those who

could not

althoughhe laboured under an invincible moral

for ever
which would
inability,
keep him from
This
Christ,until drawn by irresistiblegrace.
discoveryled to other refinements in language,
that

so

kind

of technical

nomenclature

was

formed, out of words in popular use, which

were
so
words, by an accompanying glossary,
defined as to correspondwith .the Calvinistic
You can
system. Thus,
repent if you will,"
meaning,accordingto the technical definition,
"

"

You

and

so

This

can

repent when

God

makes

you

it was

by

willing,"

of the rest.

theory,sustained

as

Dr.

Hop-

100

CONTROVERSY.

CALVIXISTIC

kins, Dr.

and

Emmons,

and
proselytes,

seemed

others, gainedmany
likely,at one time, to

the universal creed.

become

Its

metaphysical

distinctions gave it an interest

and commonfor the student ; and its plausible
with the people.
terms
sense
gave it popularity

abstrusities and

In the

time, however, several

mean

spired
con-

in the

great revolution
sentiments of many, which, as
religious
to

had

Calvinism
to

importantinfluence

very

allude

introduce

causes

I
itself,

here

must

in

modifying

stop to notice

the introduction of Unitarianism

The

Universalism.

sentiments

of old Calvinism
a

heartless

and
the

among
Antinomian

introduced

had

were,

the following.The
others,probably
the Churches

of

proximate causes

introduction of these
features

it has

and
Christianity

into

very
when
natural,therefore,

It was
discipline.
in pointof fact, to consist
had come,
religion
for its votaries
chieflyin external performances,
a
to seek
theory that would accord with their
such a
precisely
practice. Unitarianism was
theory. It is also to be noticed,that the state
death that prevailed,
of formalityand spiritual
alliance
increased by the withering
was
greatly
lax

which
civil

then

existed between

government.

This

the Church

revolution

was

and
doubtedly
un-

one

hastened also by the ultraism,on the

part, and the technical inconsistencies on

the

other, of

elements

the

had been

theyunited

in

an

Hopkinsian theory. The

long in motion,and at length

array

of numbers

and influence

of their ecclesithat wrested the fairestportions

CALVlSlSTIC

astical domain

Mass., and

from

the hands

In

the orthodox

turned

them

richlyendowed

the

101

CONTROVERSY.

Churches

togetherwith

over,

of
university

the state, into

of the Unitarians.

Connecticut,Unitarianism,as that

commonly understood

us,

among

is

term

has not

preUnitarian

There

vailed.

of

but one
is,I believe,
This
pastor, properlyso called,in the state.
in
sentiment, however, prevails
very extensively

this and
well

the

all the
in many

as

other
other

New-England states, as
parts of the union, under

of Universalism

name

differs but littlefrom

origindoubtless
half

sentiment

which

Socinianism,and had

from

the

century since,a

same

its

About

source.

Calvinistic

clergyman,
he was
as
supposed to be to the day of his
death, lefta posthumous work, which was
lished,
pub" Calvinism
entitled,
Improved." It was
ditional
merely an extension of the doctrines of uncona

election
of

instead

and

part.

reasoning seemed
legitimate.This

fair,and
made

this idea of universal

embraced,

irresistible grace to all

From
the premises,the
the

conclusions
And

converts.

many

when
salvation,

it is

once

into any
easilybe moulded
shape,providedits main featureis retained.
It has finally
into the semirun
pretty generally
can

"

infidel
Saviour

sentiments,of
"

no

change of
devil
some

or

to

"

no

no

atonement

Holy Ghost, and

heart ;

angry

as

God."

well

as

It may

no

"

superatural

no
"

be

Divine

no
a

hell
"

matter

no

of

to a superficial
surprise,
observer,
perhaps,
not
one
acquaintedwith the
personally

102

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

of the case, why, in leaving

Calvinism,
should go so far beyond the
these men
But in this we
the known
line of truth.
see
circumstances

tendency of

the

The

mind

human

to

into

run

repulsivefeatures

of

stationed

were

It

delay the publicmind

recoil from the

been

years

as

it
or

now

dism
Metho-

is, it is doubtful whether

Unitarianism

would

have

Late

as

gained
it

was

opposed,it is
toward checking
believed to have done much
And perhaps
the progress of those sentiments.
it is in part owing to the earlier introduction,
extensive
and more
spread of Methodism, in
Connecticut,that Unitarianism has not gained
This is undoubtedly
influence in the state.
more
the fact in the states of Vermont, New-Hampshire,
and

much

Had

New-England fifty

in

influence in this country.

introduced,and

in its fearful

horrible decree."

well known

as

ago,

Universalism
much

"

ought

fev/,if
line,to

the medium

on

old

the

system drove them far the other way.

to be remembered, also,that there were
any, who
arrest and

tremes.
ex-

result has shown

the

that the

by
experimenthas

remarks

not now
may
the
when
will come,

facts in those
been

tried.

of
prejudices
return

Universalism

dangerouserrors, yet, as

cases

These

the

day

historian will do

worn

and

foregoing
supposition

but the time

credited,

be

out, that the candid

subject
justice.But to

duced
intro-

was

those other sentiments.

is corroborated
where

was

Methodism

Maine, where

nearlyas earlyas
The

it

as

are

"

are

the

rianism
though Unita-

believed

to

is often the case,

be

they

CALVINISTIC

103

CONTROVERSY.

to detect the
doubtless,
and modify the features of the opposite
errors
with them, the Methodists
Simultaneously
system.
have engaged in opposingthe Calvinistic
dogmas. This close examination and thorough
with such other causes
have
as
opposition,
may
of
co-operatedin the work, have driven some
of the Hopkinsiantheory into
the peculiarities
than they rose
more
suddenlyeven
disrepute,

have

contributed much,

into credit.

The

sublimated

benevolence

was

doctrine of disinterested
so

like

"

an

airy

that even
the speculative
minds of the
nothing,"
shrewdest
metaphysicianscould not find for it
"

local

habitation,"in heaven

and

the

was

the efficient

almost

or

on

that God

blasphemous dogma,
cause

if

earth ;

of sin,was
rent,
abhormore
the horrible decree
even

than
possible,
of reprobation.Both, therefore,with the exceptions
hereafter mentioned, disappeared.The
former, being of an ethereal character,silently
thin air ;" but the other,being
into
evaporated
"

of

grosser

nature, and

withal

essential

more

settled to the bottom, and is

system itself,
now
rarelyvisible,except when the hand of
The doc
controversy shakes up the sediment.
trine of universal
however, was
atonement,
retained,and the theological
vocabularywas not
only retained,but enlargedand improved. So
hear but littleof
that from that day to this,we
to

the

the

doctrine

of

or
reprobation,

of the decrees

is said of God's
God, but much
Divine sovereignty,"
and
love," his

of

"

purposes." By

which

is

electing
gracious
meant, accordingto
"

"

104

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

glossary,the doctrine of unconditional

and of absolute preelection and reprobation,
destinati
The scriptures,
also,which used to
of God,
be quotedto prove the direct efficiency
in producingsin and securingthe condemnation
receive a different explanation,
of the reprobate,
the Arminian
if any, from
varying but little,
be
It cannot
of those passages.
interpretation
doubted, I think, but there has been quite a
change in the views of the great body of the
and yet not so great and so thorough
Calvinists
a
change as appearances and terras might at
the

"

firstview

seem

eradicate

old
mind

that the
of
are

to

indicate.

prejudices.And
will clingto the

favourite system, even

modified as that the
so

consistent whole.

labour

and

of
of

becomes

be carried out into

In every

such

much

case,

new

This

worse.

instance

; but in every

leads to

kind

and an
ambiguous course
vacillating
policy,
plaints,
argument, accompaniedwith reiterated comthe opposers

that

and
no

first principles

argument will be spent in tryingto

unite the old with the

the rent

easy to
it is often found

after the other parts

would
new
principles

supplantthe old, if suffered to

a

It is not

wonder

of the system misunderstand

it. And it would be
misrepresent

if the constant

friction in the incongruous

machinery should chafe the mind, and

lead to a dogmaticand an impatient
spirit.How
far this correspondswith the existing
facts,in
the Calvinistic controversy, others can
judge.
In my own
circumstances
of
view, the peculiar
the case,

connected

with the known

character

106

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

doctors
Divinity." The
theological
connected
with Yale collegeare
the reputed
"New

It is evident,however,
of this system.
that the tendency of the Calvinistic theoryhas
authors

in this direction

been

for

number

of

years.

New

of
so
Divinity,"
alarmingto some
is only the ripefruitsof the very
the Calvinists,
plantswhich they have long cultivated with
assiduous care.
And
why should they start
back at results which theyhave long laboured to
produce? This theory,in the first place,is an
The

"

to

attempt

alluded

terms

the

make

doctrine,and
In

to, coincide.

the technical
the

second

philosophyof
by a new
place,it is designed,
consequences"
to get rid of the
predestination,
logical
that have always pressedheavily
upon
it is a device to reconthe old system.
cile
Finally,
the doctrine of depravitywith the former
lias natural ability
current
sentiment, that man
"

to

The

grace.
1.

himself

convert

Sin

"

human

two

is not

soul,but

and

get

to

heaven

without

of the new
pillars
system are,
a
propagatedproperty of the
consists wholly in moral exercise."

Sin is not the necessary means

of
the greatestgood ;" or, in other words, " Sin is
2.

not

"

to
preferable

holiness

in its stead."

The

Calvinistic opposers
of this theorytell us that
have been held and taught to
these sentiments
some

extent

for the last ten years.

They

were

and more
openlyannounced, however,
fully
school belongby Dr. Taylor,of the theological
ing
Yale College,in a concio ad clerum
to
From the time of
preached Sept.10th, 1828.

more

CALVIXISTIC

of
publication

the

this

The

carried

on.

call it

heresy;

has

the
in

and

late

publication
they

intimate that Dr. T. and

to

seem

the alarm

sermon

controversy has been

doctrine
opposers of the new

sounded, and

been

107

CONTROVERSY.

his associates

nearlyif not quiteas heretical as the author

and election.
the sermon
on
predestination

are

of

doctor

The

and

his

the other hand,

they are orthodox ;

friends,on

strenuouslymaintain that
and to prove it,they repeat, again and again,
believe that God did, for his own
We
glory,
to
foreordain whatsoever
comes
pass." The
Christian Spectator,
an
ablyconducted quarterly
is devoted chiefly
to the defence of this
journal,
and
theory,aided by the New. York Evangelist,
and by a very
several other minor periodicals,
body of the clergy. What
portion,
prorespectable
"

this system is
both in and out of Connecticut,

however, have embraced

not

; but

known

have
The

zeal.

many,

espousedthe

contest

waxes

with

cause

warmer

great

each

year.
of the Andover

Againstthe theory,Dr. Woods,

seminary,Dr. Griffin,of Williams
theological
Dr. Tyler, of Portland,the Rev. Mr.
college,
Hervey,of Connecticut, and several others have

the lists of controversy ; and last of all,

pamphlet,supposedto be the jointlabour of

entered
a
a

which
a

in
clergymen,has been published,
is denounced as heresy,
New
Divinity
is preof the Churches
dicted,
separation

of

number

the

formal

and
Yale
"

collegeis

withdrawal
threatened

Yale will become

of
en

patronage from
the

in Connecticut

ground

what

that

Harvard

108

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

is in Massachusetts."
whether

those

ultra

It is uncertain,however,
will be

responded
clergyin New-

measures

by the great body of the

England. There is a party which stilladheres
I may
to the old
say, perhaps,to the oldest
to

"

Calvinism

of

modification

in

this

country.

for

marks
maintainingthe old landat all hazards, rightly
judgingthat these
of the system will
and explanations
palliations
ultimate in its destruction.
not
They are
but still respectable
to numbers
as
numerous,
and talents. They are
sustained in Boston by
the Boston
Telegraph,so called, a weekly
which
does not
hesitate to go the
periodical,
whole
length logicalconsequences arid alh
Witness
the following
from a review
quotation

This

party

are

"

of

Speaking
Calvinism

admit

God

of

number

charge in
God

The

"

"

the

word

for Jan.

23d.

sermon,

that

the

author

author

of sin, the
is sometimes

I
Now
cause.
efficient
that those scriptures
which

has decreed

imply

that

evil.

For his

he

the

makes

writer says
used to mean
to

in the

sermon,

my

the sinful conduct

is the

he

own

efficient

gloryand

said,Let there be sin,and there

teach

of men,

cause

the

willing

am

that
do

of moral

greatestgood
was

sin ! ! /"

The

is another specimenof Calvinism

following
from the same
affirms
periodical.If any man
that man
reallychooses, and that his acts of
will are caused by his own
and
free,voluntary,
"

efficient
this last

mind, then he

well

no

Calvinist."
in the

In

preceding,
direct opposition
to Dr. Taylor,

as
quotation,

there is the most

is

as

CALVINISTIC

109

CONTROVERSY.

maintains,if I understand

since

he

man's

is an

mind

is

Thus

are

him, that

that the human

independent
agency
the originator
of thoughtand volition.
"

these

of the Calvinistic

branches

two

variance

family directlyat

with

each

other.

And, in fact,the Telegraphand its supporters

not

are

only at

variance

with the newest

divinity,

but with all the different degreesof new,

newest, and denounce

them

all as

of

present advocates

The

election
particular
classes:

"

1.

The

Hopkinsians.3.
of

Advocates

the

heresy.
and
predestination

be divided into four

may
old school
Calvinists.
2.

Reformed
New

HopkinsiansI

reformed

newer,

Hopkinsians. 4.
Divinity. By the
those

mean

who

have

Hopkins'doctrine of
in
disinterested benevolence, Divine efficiency
producingsin, "c, and yet hold to a general
These
"c.
stitute,
conatonement, natural ability,
doubtless, the largestdivision in the
class" in New-England. Next, as to numbers,
the new
are
school,then Hopkinsians,
probably,

left out

of their creed Dr.

"

and

old

last,the

doubtless

into each

run

; but the
are,

school.

These

subdivisions

nations
other in various combi-

outlines of these four sub-classes

I think,distinctly
marked.

preceding sketch has been confined

mostly to the theological
changes in NewEngland; but it will apply,to a considerable
The

The Presbyterian
extent, to other parts of the nation.
of its ecclesiastical
Church, by reason

government, is more
less

liable

to

consolidated,and of

change

than

the

course

independent

110

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

Churches of the eastern

states.
Congregational
has feltthe changes
Church
But the Presbyterian
and
is coming more
of the east, and
more
under

It is

their influence.

years since the

publishedin

"

now

it was
as
triangle,"

This

New-York.

number

of

called,was
was

most

wittyallegory,
againstthe dogmas
From this work
and bigotryof old Calvinism.
the epithetof
this old theory has obtained
Whenever
advocates the
a man
triangular."
doctrine of limited atonement, imputed sin,and
gular."
trianhe is said to be
imputedrighteousness,
notions are giving
These old triangular
place very rapidlyto modern improvements.
has
And
opposition
althoughthe most strenuous
been made
in the General Assembly,in different
and elsewhere, yet the votes in the
publications,
last General
Assembly show, I think,that the
is yieldingherself up to the
Church
whole
and

severe

"

"

It may
be
the state of New-York
is not
doubted whether
emphaticallythe strong hold of the New
cerned
Divinity,so far as popular sentiment is conresistless march

of

innovation.

indeed,with the exception

there is not the greatestmoral
of New-Haven,
influence enlisted there,for the propagation
of
;

the

new

Thus

and whether,

theory.
have

I endeavoured

to

glanceover

the

various modifications and present characteristics

of

that

mode

Calvinism.

of

Here

Christian
a

few

doctrines

called

suggestionspresent

themselves, which, from their relation

set down.
present controversy,I will now

to

the

as
that,differing
they prosingular
fess

It seems
to,

Ill

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

so

points,each
many
sub-class should feel himself

materially,on

individual of each

whenever
Calvinism, under this common
injured
The
is opposed in any of its features.
name,
was
on
sermon
againstCalvinism,
predestination
the sermon.
rise up against
and lo ! all parties
And yet, whether it objectto Calvinistic policy
to Calvinistic doctrine,the different parties
or
their opponents of being guiltyof the
accuse
charge,but theythemselves are clear. I cannot
assumed
think of a single
by
importantposition
and election,
the sermon
againstpredestination
which

is not

sustained

by

Calvinists themselves

of their brethren ; nor yet

to some
opposition
for their
of a single
chargeagainsttheir policy,
and
changes and ambiguous methods of stating
defendingtheir doctrines,which has not been
reiterated by professedCalvinists themselves
is
the sermon
Thus
againsttheir brethren.
sustained by the Calvinists themselves, and yet
Calvinists think
they all condemn it ! If some
lie against
that the objectionsof the sermon
in

modifications

some

of

their system, is it not

possiblethat these objectionshave a more

of them
than
seem
general application
any
willingto acknowledge? For example: it is
God
that it
makes
objectedto predestination
free agency, arrays
the author of sin,destroys
God's decrees against
his revealed word, mars
"

his

into the
attributes,puts an excuse
of the impenitent
unconditional
sinner, implies

moral

mouth

makes
reorobation,

God

and
partial

112

CALVINISTIC

respecter of

CONTROVERSY.

limits the
persons, necessarily
These
"c.
charges,say the

atonement,"
in fact,
are
Calvinists,
very unjust,
ungenerous
they bear false witness againstour neighbours.
This is said by Mr. Metcalf, and by others of
"

the New-Haven

And

school.

the
Spectator,

yet what says the

and oracle of that school 1

organ

It says of Dr. Tyler,and of others who oppose

the peculiar
views of Dr. Taylor,
as
comprising,
the great majorityof
that their views " limit God in power
we

have

seen,

make

"
"

the best"

"

"

consequences,

atheism"
to
infidelity,
and wrong,
"

out

lead

would

"
"

in their
to

these

ness"
goodaction

legitimate

universalism,to

they

and subvert all moral

to
according

and

kind of moral

the worst

if carried

Calvinists,

confound

right

distinctions"
"

views,mankind

are

bound

God
they shall pleaseand glorify
more
by sin than by obedience,and therefore to
puted
be imcan
act accordingly" nothingworse
than this theory
of men
to the worst
imputesto God" ! ! !* Has the author of the
than this,
and worse
than this,
said more
sermon
And
of Calvinism ?
shall he be accused
by
of bearingfalse witness against
these very men
his brethren ?
And
let it be observed farther,
in justification
of the sermon,
that these charges
who
have
in the Spectatorare
made
by men
been broughtup at the feet of the Calvinistic
doctors,and have themselves grown up to the
of doctors in theology.
and
rank
character
They know the system thoroughly
; they have
to

believe that

"

"

"

See

Chri"tian

Spectator,VoL

iv, No. 3,

114

3, he

CALVINISTIC

is

would

be

theory.

the doctrine of the

Does

What

well

if he
ditional
uncon-

whole

do

we

not

sermon.

stand
under-

Have

this from

the present ?

it?

and

they destroyeach

stillbe told that

we

misunderstood
Does

do

Thus

this doctrine ?

it?

consistent,he must
give up
embrace
the
election, and

other, and confirm

shall

Arminian

rank

alreadya

Arminian

And

CONTROVERSY.

anti-predestinarian
John
Calvin's day to

honest No.

instructed No.

1 misunderstand

3 misunderstand

Calvinism, that cannot,

through the lapse of centuries,make itself
understood either by friend or foe ?
Is not this,
of itself,
a
suspicioustrait in its character ?
Let us quote a Calvinistie writer,whose sentiments
are

then

much

New

is

in

point,
though

aimed

at

the

It is a serious ground of
:
Divinity
suspicion,"
says this writer, that Dr. Taylor
has failed,
rations,
repeateddeclaaccordingto his own
his speculations
to render
to
intelligible
others.
It must
be granted
that a man
of sense,
who is acquaintedwith the power of language,
himself understood."
make
can, if he is disposed,
of the most
in the
Some
men
intelligent
Dr. T.'s
failed to compass
country have utterly
meaning in argument : so that he declares again
and again,I am
I am
presented.
misreunderstood
not
"

"

"

"

"

Who
refrain from

under

such

V*
suspicion

circumstance

in the

case

"

circumstances

Another

is, that

can

suspicious
Dr. Taylor

and
ambiguous terms
phrases,which, though they are
designedto

himself

in

influence the mind

of

expresses

reader, afford him

the

CALVINISTIC

115

CONTROVERSY.

See pamto avoid responsibility."

opportunity
phlet
If
29.
this is
by Edwardian, pp. 28 and
justlysaid of Dr. Taylor'srecent theory, what
shall

we

system the advocates of which,

have
their repeated
declarations,

of

say

accordingto

"

been

not

able to render

after the

ligible,"
intelspeculations

their

exhausted upon

had

theoryhas

highlycultivated intellects of hosts of

expositorsthrough successive
generations?

it the

"

under

Who,

such

circumstances,

from

?" especially
since
suspicion

have

learned

designedto
afford them
To
"

Out

Let

to

in

express themselves

influence
an

mind

the

of

avoid

to
opportunity

reader,

bility."
responsi-

it may
truly be said,
will I judge thee."
mouth

Calvinism

of thine
the

not

these advocates

ambiguous
phraseswhich, though they are

"

and

terms

refrain

can

own

of

author

the

sermon

then

be

his
bearing false witness, when
which
testimony is predicatedon principles
accused

of

Calvinists have

by
Will

men

it be

answer,

The

laid down,
of their

"

rated
is also corrobo-

and

class."

own

said,All this is

not

argument.

supposed,contains
arguments which professedpredessermon,

arguments

"

tinarians

themselves

it is

tell

us

are

unanswerable

of statingand
modes
againstthe prevailing
be
Now
let them
the doctrine.
explaining
Let them be anbe.
swered,
answered, if they can
in the
not by giving up predestination,
Calvinistic sense, and stillprofessing
to hold it
not by attempting
to avoid the logical
conserjuences, by givingthe system the thousandth
"

116

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

and ninetywhen
the nine hundred
explanation,
made
it no plainer,
nine alreadygiven have
nor
evaded
often
at all the just consequences,
so
chargedupon it ; and when these are answered,
be time
it will then
enough to call for new

arguments.

Having prepared the way, as I hope, by the

precedingnumbers, for the proper understanding
of the controversy ; and having,by the remarks
the
success
just made, attempted (with what
reader
must
judge) to repel the charges of
and
misrepresentation
bearing false witness,
made
againstme, as the author of the sermon
gave rise to the controversy, I
to commence
prepared,in my next number
which

examination
connected
my

of

with this

which
show

we

how

elements
of the

so

far

now
an

of the

some

of doctrine,
questions
discussion.
In doingwhich,

object will be,

contend"

am

to

let

Greek

"

with

Greek

the inconsis
show, if possible,
of both, and then present the doctrine
believe to be the true
system, and
to

as

it stands untouched
around

Church

it

as

of God.

by

the

immovable

the

I shall

conflicting
foundation

begin with the

Divine purposes including
foreknowledge; then
and responsibility
take up human
; and
agency
connected
with the doctrine
last,regeneration,
of human
Divine and human
depravity.
agency,
"c.
May He that said, Let lightbe, and
hearts, to give the
lightwas," shine in our
lightof the knowledgeof the gloryof God, in
"

"

the face of Jesus

Christ."

117

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

NUMBER

VI.

PREDESTINATION.

Definitions
Hence
the

are

the foundations of

in any replyto my sermon

and election it was
natural

first inquiryshould
?

correct

The

in the

definition of
sermon

was,

were

On

character

and

fixed
definitely
this pointthe sermon

and fair that

definitions

the

be, Are

and efficient decree

moral

reasoning.
on
nation
predesti-

sumed
aspredestination

that unalterable pose

purof God, by which the

of man
acts
responsible
and efficiently
produced*
joinedissue. To this

of the notices and reviews, to the

of six or seven, which I have seen, have

definitionmost
number

exceptions.The review in the Boston

however, is not of this number.
Telegraph,
That, as has alreadybeen noticed,agrees with
that
the charge in the sermon,
the^a" of God
brought forth sin as directlyas it made the
We
world."
have onlyto leave those Calvinists,who accord to that sentiment,to struggle,
the arguments of the sermon
as
theycan, against
of the world
sense
againstthe common
and wrong
convictions of right
their own
against
brethren of
their own
and, I may add, against
have alreadypubthe class,"some
of whom
licly
taken

"

"

"

""

"

"

denounced

the sentiment

bear the
sary

to

is
name

givea

"

phemy."
horrid blas-

in which naked
light,
abhorred
by most of those who
of Calvinists,
it is hardlyneces.

At this
Calvinism

as

day

formal

of

answer

to such

review.

118

CALVINISTIC

of these
consistency
approve of the logical
admire the moral
we
courage that,from

We
men

CONTROVERSY.

"

premises,pushes out a theory to

results without
flinching
legitimate
; but
assumed

astonished

are

confess

of Calvinism

when

recoils

heart

my
Let

his head

not

Of others
the

with

have

there

sermon

template
con-

For

system

reprobation
wretch
whose only
made
him a sinner,

indescribable

horror !
I

can.

his heart.

or

who

of the
who

has

we

of

curse

contemplatethis picturewho

him

covet

this naked

see

the
fulminating

is,that his God

can

complacency.

in the teeth of the miserable

crime

that

nerve

results with

such

myself I

the moral

at

its

expressedtheir
two

are

classes

Christian

views

1. The

Spectatorand

of

ductors
con-

those

their views ; and 2. Those who

in
called Reformed
number
were
Hop-

favour

former

kinsians.

portionof

The

latter

Calvinists

in the

United

shall
predestination
At

States.

be noticed

Their

notices

Spectator. And

Metcalf

of the

and

to the

me

say,

that I do not consider either of these

once

on

ber.
num-

remarks

in the

sermon

here let

views

in another

present I shall direct my

the letters of Mr.

second

comprehend the larger

in New-England, and probably

to

firstand

Christian
for

all,

gentlemen,
for the
or
any who think with them, responsible
stated and opposed
doctrine of predestination
as
in the sermon.
This I hope will be satisfactory.
If these gentlemenshould ask me
why I
vinists
in terms that included Calpublishedmy sermon
without making the exception
generally,

CALVINISTIC

in their

favour,I

Taylorand

1. The

answer,

believe

those who

"

119

CONTROVERSY.

views
with

of Dr.

him,"

on

unknown
to me
at
particularpoint,were
the time.
Nor is this strange,for itis but lately
that those views have
been
developed
fully
in Dr. Fitch's
so
as
never
before,probably,
fully
review of my
alreadyalluded to. 2.
sermon,
this

"

It

occurred

that any

any set
of men
in respect to predestination,
the
holding,
doctrine of James
Anninius, John Wesley, and
never

the whole

body

to

of

public
views
the

whether

man

Methodists,would

Calvinists ! !

have, and

me

is all the

This
or

not

or

call themselves

apology I

the
it is sufficient,

judge. By acknowledgingthe

must

gentlemen to be Methodistical on
of predestination,
I by no means
would
subject
of these

say this of their system as a

objectionable
parts will be noticed

be understood

whole

the

"

to

in their

place. But whatever is true is none

There
the less so for being mixed with error.
and
some
are
however, to be regretted
things,
in which these reviewers
exposedin the manner
have expressed
their doctrine of predestination
and also in the manner
in which they have opposed
the sermon
and Arminianism
generally.
tion.
They complain of my definition of predestinaMr. M. thinks it is bearingfalse witness.
The
reviewer
thinks it is obviouslyerroneous
ledge
and unjust. And yet they themselves acknowthat the

of

is

an

unanswerable

held by
as
predestination

Dr.

tation
refu-

Tyler and

But what is a
oppose their views.
of the greatestsurprise
is the determina-

others who
matter

sermon

220

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

tion with which

up the idea that

from

reply,says
There

"

to

answer

my

"

three

are

views, and onlythree,which

of the Divine purposes

be taken

can

Fitch, in his

Dr.

ours.

in holding
gentlemenpersist
their views essentially
differ

these

in relation

kingdom :
the certainty
of the
1. That God, foreseeing
conduct of his creatures, purposes merelyto treat
them in a corresponding
manner.
to

moral

"

"

he, first of all,resolves what

shall be, and next
conduct of his creatures

the

That

2.

"

such

on

measures

as

shall

solves
re-

bringthem

to

that conduct.
3.

"

the conduct which

That, foreseeing
the different

ensue
certainly
for him
possible

on

those

which

it is

measures

take, he purposes

to

pursue
will certainlylead to the

possibleresults."

best
"

measures

to

will

The

to be

firstview

advocated

by

is that which
Dr.

Fisk, in

we

understood

the

sermon

we

The

writer goes on
farther to say
that his objection
to this is," that it is utterly

reviewed."

that it passes over

in silence all
of God
in creation and government

deficient"

"

"

those

by
he

acts

which

to

means

theorywhich
influence

in

course

character.
determining

misunderstood
have

read

it.

that he has

the

sermon,

It teaches

How
let
that

physicaland mogeneralplan,suited to

hath fixed the laws of the

raj world

Of

advocated
a
say that the ser?non
Dileft out of the questionall the vine

he has
strangely
those judge who

God

character."

determines

he

122

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

and which Calvinists maintain.'*

Arminian,denies,
he oughtto have said,for he had my
Whereas
before him, Dr. Fisk
for it directly
statement
advocates
the third,"and then lie might have
since the third destroys
the Caladded, Now
therefore in
vinisticdoctrine of foreordination,
Dr. Fisk to sustain the third we
have
assisting
"

"

succeeded

in

which
have

deny,and

Arminians

maintain."

attemptedto

says, there can

taken of the Divine

be

reviewer
views

neither I

nor

Fitch

Arminian,

is an

the reviewer's

That
is about

the

evident

from

fact,as the
those

himself

three

the

ledges
acknow-

second, it

believe the third.

must

we

third is the reviewer's creed

pointhe

but

directly
opposed to

are

follows that

In

Calvinists

purposes ; and since

Arminian
believed
ever

any other
and as Dr.
in the first,
we

dination,
of foreor-

doctrine

the
disproving

or

we

But the

therefore
are

theoryon

on

this

Calvinists.

predestination

with

same

the

the Methodists' appears

quotationsfrom Mr.
following

Wesley, in which it will be seen

does Mr. Wesley'screed include

that not

only

all the Divine

influence

that goes "to

determine
character,"
which will
but also that God " pursues measures
results ;" nay,
lead to the best possible
certainly
that he does all that he

from the moral

which

wiselycan

universe.

the advocates

These

to exclude
are

of the New-Haven

sin

pointsfor
theory

Let them
contend.
in
see, then, how
strongly
this matter
they have identified themselves with

Arminians.
u To
God," says Mr.

Wesley,in

his

sermon

123

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

" all
Divine providence,
thingsare

possible
;
doubt of his exertingall his
and we
cannot
all that
in governing
so
power, as in sustaining
he has made.
Only he that can do all things
else cannot
deny himself he cannot counteract
on

"

work.
Were
oppose his own
for this,
he would
destroyall sin,with

himself

pain,in
would
has

it not

or

himself,and undo

counteract

doingsince

been

he

For he created

earth.

in

But

moment.

man

created

so

its attendant

doinghe

all that he

man

upon the

own

image

in his

"

with will or
understanding,
and liberty,
without which
he would
affections,
have been incapable
of either virtue or vice. He
a

endued
spirit

could

not

or

stone.

be

with

moral

agent,any

Therefore

more

than

be

(withreverence

spoken) the Almighty himself cannot do

thing. He cannot thus contradict himself
what

undo

he

has

done.

But

were

tree

he

to

it

this
or

do

imply no wisdom at all,but barely

all the manifold
stroke of omnipotence.Whereas
a
wisdom
of God
(aswell as all his power
is displayed
in governing
and goodness)
as
man
and free spirit,
man
as
an
intelligent
capable
of choosing
either good or evil."
The Wisdom
entitled,
Again. In the sermon
this,it would

"

of God's
men

Counsels

and evil

will,and

"

In the moral

world

evil

vine
spirits
continually
oppose the Dinumberless
create
irregularities

Here

therefore is full scope for the exercise of

all the riches both of the wisdom
and knowledge
of God

follyof

in

all the wickedness and

counteracting
of Satan,to
and all the subtlety
men

124

CALVINISTIC

his

on

carry

the
glorious
design,

mankind."
this

let

Now

character?

salvation of lost

the

ask

me

Divine

all the

leavingout

determines

CONTROVERSY.

Is not

reviewer,la

influence that

this

that
that,"in view of the measures
for God
to take, he
to
purposes

maintaining
itwas
possible

those
pursue
that will certainly
lead to the best possible

measures

result?"

Is Dr. Fitch

ignorantof what
Methodists hold to ? or is he unwilling
fy
to identihimself with us ?
of my views he
Ignorant
could not be, I think,after readingmy reply.
in talking
of a difference
Why, then, does he persist
"

where

Mr.
the
"

there

Metcalf

is

none

has taken

correct

more

view of

subject.After readingmy reply,he says,

thodist
you will preach this doctrine to your Mebrethren thoroughlyand
and
forcibly,

If

sustain it with

the strong arguments on

which
Calvinrests, if they do not call it ism,

the doctrine

I will
the term

as

acknowledgethey do
I do.

And

if you

not

will

understand

preach in

the

if they too do not call

Calvinists,
it Calvinism, I will grant that even
they too
same

way

sometimes

to

this course, I think

the doctrine will be

away."

wear

will be

when

he

when

Now

we
ever

how

learns

preachedthis doctrine
as

will take

what
you shall see
the astonishment you
called,
that it should be regardedas Calvinism

express

will

If you

differ about terms.

as

Mr. M.
surprised
that we
have always
bly
thoroughlyand forci-

could,and neither Methodists

suspectedit

and those who

was

Calvinism

believe with him

nor

vinists
Cal-

until he

it
incorporated

CALVINISTIC

into their
to us,

creed,and for

called it Calvinism

all

we

be heard

some

unknown

reason

And

find that he who

to

are

125

CONTROVERSY.

how

was

in the Christian Advocate

so

surprised
anxious

and

to

Journal,

for the purpose

of informing
Methodists
what
Calvinism was, and of disabusing
their minds of

conceptionson

erroneous

this

understands neither Methodism

Yet

so

Dr.
of

subject,himself
nor

Calvinism

!!

it is,Calvinists themselves

Dr.
Tyler,Dr. Griffin,

Views

beingjudges.
Woods, the author

in

Theology,"the author or authors

of the pamphlet by an Edwardian, all condemn
the* New-Haven
antias
theoryof predestination
and as beingessentially
Arminian.
Calvinistic,
Dr. Fitch acknowledgesthat we
agree in
of the first principles.
In replyto my
some
he says,
It was
intention
answer
our
certainly
doctrine
to place this contested
on
grounds
which our Wesleyan brethren could not dispute,
and it givesus pleasureto find that in this we
have had completesuccess
!" There
two
are
thingsa little remarkable connected with this
"

"

sentiment.

One

is,that the writer should

so

the idea that he

to convey
express himself as
has traced up the subject
with
to firstprinciples

much

his great satisfaction,

has
of
in convincing
of the correctness
us

care,

succeeded

and,

to

it is evident from the

premises. Whereas
alreadygiven from Mr. Wesley, and
passages
from the universal sentiments of the Wesleyan
his

Methodists,that the New-Haven

at

lengthcome

us

great 'pleasure to

on

doctors

ground; and
find that,from some

to

our

have

it gives
source^

126

CALVIIMSTIC

CONTROVERSY.

arguments in favour of
with

met

strikes

go

system have with them

The

completesuccess.

me

as

remarkable

other

is,that

thingthat

after the

re-

acknowledgedthat we were
agreed
he should immediately
these first principles,
has alreadybeen
to say, as
on
mentioned,
had

viewer

in

our

that I and
he has

the Arminians

given of

might be

taken

of

hold to the

firstview

the three

possibleviews that
and deny the
predestination,

third ; when
time the third contains
at the same
those very first,
he says we
in which
principles
are
diction,
agreed. This looks so much like a contraalmost
know

what

not

in the
other

same
name

breath,that I rcylly

give it.

to

If these

into the fortress

disposedto come
of truth,and assist us in manning our
guns and
ly
working our artillery
againsterror, we certainhave no objection.
We
fond of help.
can
are
But they must
pardon us if we revolt a littleat
the idea of their taking
the lead in this business,
and accountingus
novices who
have
as
mere
onlylearned,and that too from themselves,some
of the elementaryprinciples.Nay, they must
if we refuse outright
not wonder
to be crowded
from our present commanding positionin the
fortress of truth,and to be placedin front of our
allies
own
batteries,merely to give our new
blow
to
us
an
own
opportunity
up with our

gentlemenare

ordnance
In
"

replyto

it was

an

my
abuse

to
objection

of terms

to

call the

of sin,not hinderingit,i"c,a
purpose

that it shall

the reviewer

that

permission

foreordination

or

be," "c, he has said," If

CALVINISTIC

an

evil,unavoidable

the Creator

to

127

CONTROVERSY.

and

hateful,is allowed by

into his

come

kingdom,in

one

place and time rather than any other, and is

thus particularly
disposedof by his providence,
of it the best possible,
it is a disposition
because
is there

no

thing?

In

doinghis

does he not decide

sin into his
does?"
last
does

an

of God

purpose
on

in this
pleasure,

case,

the fact of the entrance

of

own

kingdom justwhen
I

Now

beg

paragraph once
not

in relation to the

agree

with

the reader

and

where

it

this
go over
and then say if he
more,
in the following
sentiment,
me
to

in any writer
namely, there rarelyoccurs
instance of so completean evasion of a contested
questionas is here exhibited. Is there no

difference between

"

purpose

in relation to

and the foreordaining

or
thing,"
decreeingthat
the thingshall be ? And pray what is meant
by
the fact of the entrance
God's
of
on
deciding
sin into his kingdom ?"
it mean
You can make
of
almost
any thing. But takingthe whole
Dr. Fitch's theoryon the subject,
he means
to
"

of sin was
say, doubtless,that since the entrance
determined
to restrain and
unavoidable,God
control it so

as

to

suffer it to do the least harm

holiness in itsstead in every

possible preferring
And this is foreordain,
placewhere it occurs.
! ! Let us
ing sin ! ! This is predestination
illustrate this by a case
in point. Cicero, a
Roman
consul, knew that Cataline was
plotting
Cicero
treason
against the commonwealth.
that this hated treason, though unavoidable,
perceived
not
was
wholly unmanageable. He
"

128

CALVINISTIC

determined

CONTROVERSY.

therefore

to

make

"

of
disposition

it the best

possible."He took his measures

accordingly.By these Cataline and the principal
driven out of the city,
and
were
conspirators
before their planswere
matured, to
compelled,
hostilities. Thus
the citizens
open
aroused and united,and the state saved.

resort

to

were

In

the evils of the

this way

suffered to

conspiracywere

u
the commonwealth
in
upon
placeand time rather than any other," and

one

come

disposedof" by Cicero.
particularly
In this case
the consul had a special purpose
about the thing." He determined
to drive the
into open war, rather than suffer
conspirators
them privately
to corrupt all they could,and then
fillthe citywith fire and slaughter.The question
"

thus

were

"

is,and it is put

now

for he stillpersists
in the

the reviewer,

of his terms, but it

of community,
understanding

is put to the common

Did the Roman

use

consul

the
predestinate

or

to

not

ordain

or

dain,
foreor-

of Cataline ?

treason

addition

all answer,
No, such a
the consul ; and if,in
is a libel upon
of the
to this common
understanding

term, the

use
theological

If

by

consent

common

statement

of the

term

will not bear

construction ; if the great body of the

Calvinists of the present day,and of New-England

such

even,

remains

to

use

be

the term
seen

how

in

different sense,

the New-Haven

it

divines

"
We
up before the world and say,
believe God hath foreordained whatsoever comes

can

to

stand

pass."
this number
Before closing

ought,perhaps,

130

CALVINISTIC

termination

of any

universe,and govern

the

to create

God's

proposed.

as

CONTROVERSY.

of
foreknowledge
in this

event

universe,it

acknowledged,depended upon
and

to create

his

sense
cause

have

happened, and
foreseen

been

remembered
anterior

that

And

in this

causa

any
therefore

there

could

But

certain.

as

be

must

sine qua
non, a
given event would not

was

purpose
without which

tainty
cer-

his determination

the universe.

govern

the

it

was

have

not

then it should
a

be

foreknowledge

all

this,and which was, in fact, the

foundation of all subsequentinstances of knowing
or

to

decreeing.
in which

sense

sustained

It is therefore
sentiment

the

in the sermon,

that

true

in

is advanced

God

"

the
and

foreknows

but he does not (primapredestinate,

rily)
in order to foreknow."
predestinate

in order

To

to

conclude

it appears

number

from

view

the

that

taken

in this

class of Calvinists

one

is chargeable
acknowledge that predestination

with all that

was

included

in my

definition of it.

rapidlyincreasingclass, have
and, in all but
givenup Calvinian predestination,
thodist
the name,
have in that pointcome
to the Meon
is still another
class,
ground. There
who
are
evidentlynot Arminians, but stilldeny
Another, and

the correctness

of my

definition of their doctrine.

they are not chargeablewith

or
doctrine,either directly
by inference.

They
next

made

say

number,
to

therefore, an

sustain from

definition,

their

attempt
own

such

In the
will

be

thispositions

CALVINISTIC

VII.

NUMBER

CONTINUED.

PREDESTINATION,

From
that

whom

there

one

is

they have

of

classes

two

are

called,with
with

the reader will perceive

last number

my
there

131

CONTROVERSY.

have

we

cause

no

given up

with the other there is

need

no

to

contend

;,

of controversy, because
the doctrine ; and
need

no

so
Calvinists,

of controversy,

their

of avowing the
plain manner
doctrine,logicalconsequences and all, renders
Itsarguments againstit unnecessary.
any
because

character

is too

monstrous

gainmuch credit.
who,
largerportion,

and

abhorrent

to-

There

is yet another and a

the views,
while they reject

both of the New-Haven

divines

and

of the old

less
nevertheare
HopkinsianCalvinists,
stronglyopposed to the issue proposedin
the sermon.
They deny,as appears from some
publicintimations and many privatestatements,
of the
that I have given a fair representation
much
doctrine. They appear to manifest as

school

and

horror

as

Arminian

idea,that
the responsible
of moral
acts
agents are
fixed and efficiently
definitely
producedby the
that these acts
purpose and decree of God,"
and controlling
the result of an overruling
are
power," "that the will,in all its operations,
is governedand irresistibly
controlled by some
an

would

to

the

"

"

"

"

fixed and all-controllin

impulse,some
arrangement."Hence, I suppose, if it can be
provedthat these are the genuinecharacteristics
secret

132

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

Calvinism,the system itselfwill,by many

At any rate, since the
at least,be given up.
exceptionis taken to the definition of the
be
doctrine,it may
presumed, by sustaining
sustain our
and refute the
own
cause
this,we
then is,are these,
opposite.The present inquiry
in very deed, the characteristics of absolute
I shall endeavour
1
to maintain
predestination
that theyare.
Let the intelligent
and the candid
of

judge.
It may

be

urgedas a consideration of no
small weight in this question,
that all but prewell as
destinarians,
as
predestinarians
many
1.

themselves, have

entertained

the doctrine.

With

rians, I know

of

no

these

views

of

respect to anti-predestinaexception; all unite,in

these things,
or by consequence,
charging
directly
And
will Calupon the Calvinistic system.
vinists say, this is owing to prejudice
and to a
want

kind
free

of

the subject
?
With what
understanding
of modesty will they assume
that they are
from
in favourof their
prejudice
blinding

doctrine,and all the world beside are

prejudiced
againstit? It may be asserted,as it
often has been,that these doctrines are humbling
to the prideof the natural heart,and this is the
ground of the universal oppositionto them !
But this is a gratuitous
assumptionof what
ought firstto be proved,viz. that these doctrines
own

are

true

and

it also exhibits

spiritof prideand
that

says

to

Pharisaism

brother, " Stand

holier than thou!"

There

most

have

"

reprehensible
a
spirit

by, for

am

doubtless been

133

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

eminentlypiousArminians as Calvin.
have never
ists,and how is it,that these men
to them
to be
had this doctrine so explained
as
able to see it free from these charges?
But not onlyanti-predestinarians
have universally
of this doctrine ;
entertained these opinions
as

many

even

the advocates themselves

have, in

great

varietyof instances,acknowledgedthe same.

Mention has before been made, (inthe sermon,)
raised against
free will,
of the opposition
by the
Calvinists of Mr. Wesley'sday and quotations
have also been givenfrom the earlyCalvinistic
authors,showing how
decidedly
they held that
God
moved
the will to sin,by a direct positive
To these we may add all the Hopkininfluence.
sians of modern
days,who openlyacknowledge
that those scriptures
which teach that God has
decreed the sinful acts of men, do imply that he
"

"

is the

efficient

review of my
It should not

in the Boston

sermon

be

of moral

cause

evil."

(See
Telegraph.)

moreover,
forgotten,

that the

ism
divines,who have studied Calvinall their lives,with the best opportunities
for understanding
it,inform us that the view of

New-

Haven

ness
to holipreferable
in its stead,is unanswerablyexposedto all
it in the sermon.
broughtagainst
objections

Calvinism
the

It is known

which

makes

too, that

sin

most

of the Methodists

New-England, and many elsewhere,were

predestinarians
; but have revolted

in
cated
edu-

from

the traditions of their fathers for the very reason

is what we have described it to
that Calvinism

be.

The

Universalistsare

almost all

predesti

134

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

narians,and they understand

that this doctrine

in proimpliesthe Divine efficiency

necessarily
ducing sin ; and hence they very consistently

infer that God

is not

for

punishthem

not

angry

with

them, and will

being controlled by

his

decrees.

Suppose now an intelligent

person, who knew
nothingof the arguments on either side,should
be

of what

informed

is true

this case, viz.

the whole
by

in

probablyon
great portion,
far the greatest portion of predestinarians,
that

understood the doctrine

anti-predestinarians,
of absolute predestination,
as
involving
certain specified
or
by consequence,
directly,
of predestinarians
principles
; but that a portion
in denyingthat these principles
were
persisted
and all

involved

in

the

intelligent
person

doctrine ; and
this
suppose
should be informed
of the

had
facts,that these predestinarians
tried all their skill at explanation
and argument,
additional

after generation,
but
generation
in the view

were

charges,nay,

were

freeing
that they

far failed of it,that many, very many

the anti-predesthem, and adopting
leaving

so

tinarian system, for the very reason

could not rid the system, in which
been

ceeded
suc-

never

of the other party in

their doctrine from these

had

had

educated, from

charged upon

those who

had

those
it

adhered

modes

and
to

they
they had
which
principles

that

even

among

the old doctrine there

and stating
the
explaining
theory,constantly
springingup, until finally
numbers
of them
had
explainedthemselves
were

new

of

"

that

CALVINISTIC

out of the doctrine,and

entirely

sentiment

and

that

very
the doctrine,and

adheringto
involved
principles
that there
and

"

no

it,had

in
"

was

should

man
intelligent

into the

opposite
others, by
many
the
out
following
to the

come

hell"

no

be

clusion
con-

judgment,

no

"

Suppose, I

God."

angry

135

CONTROVERSY.

say,

this

of all these

informed

whether
to presume
requested
involved
were
not these contested principles
or
be his judgment?
what would
in the doctrine
is
this question. There
I need
answer
not
strong presumptiveevidence that the views in

facts,and

be

then

"

the

2.

Another

doctrine

it,is

drawn

and
expressed,
in

which

these
terms

common

have

we

it the

believingthat

for

reason

is what

involves in
upon

correct.

are

sermon

defined it to be, and

we
principles

from
the

the

are

terms

and

manner

terms

have

in which

with

are

them

it is

circumstances
The

used.

are

charged

more

decree,predestination,
fore"Scc.

ordination, predetermination,
purpose,
These

this

"

all authoritative terms, and carry

the
idea of absolute sovereignty.

strong
they should not be sufficiently
and imperious,
they are, in this theoty,generally
terms,
accompanied by some
strong qualifying
such as sovereign
decree,eternal and immutable
But

lest

purposes

and

without

any

reference

to

other

placedon the groundof

and
God's
absolute
sovereignwill. These
decrees,however, are not proposedto
sovereign
of a law enforced by
his subjectsin the light
the
bearings,

whole

is

suitable sanctions, and

liable

to

be

broken.

136

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

They

the secret

are

far from

of his

counsels

will ;

own

that

often,perhaps
oftener than otherwise,in the moral world, they
in direct opposition
to the precepts of the
are
and

so

When

law.

sometimes

be

his law

who

break

he executes
that

subordinate

to

keep

or

contact

them

moral

may

God

agents,

his decrees

; but

It should also be understood

himself.

theory,in their late

controversy with Dr. Taylor,strenuouslymaintain that sin, wherever
is preferable
it occurs,

to

the

in

come

they supersedeit. Laws

broken, the decrees,never.

commits
may

decrees

these

the law

with

being law,

of this

advocates

holiness

in its stead, and

is

the

necessary
idea that Goc),

of the

greatestgood. The
what
moral
foreseeing
agents would do, under
all possible
circumstances, so ordered his works

means

take up and
foreseen volitions
as

to

constitute

system
could

incorporateinto
of

moral

involves

Now

is it

possiblethat

them,

execute

agencies,but

and

say,

control
Must

not

not

made

absolute

possible,I

Arminianism.
like

of him

these,con-

that conceived

he

Almighty power to
modified
by subordinate
to control these
agencies
arbitrarysway ; can it be

that such
and

decrees

actuate

who, in this

the
manner,

do

not

human
forms

ciently
effi-

will 1
and

generalplan,also form and execute

its parts? Must not he who givesthe first

executes

all

any

government

rank

decrees

thus

dependent solelyon

"

with

moral

as

cealed in the eternal mind

them

perfectas

as

be, they discard

plan the

agents, and

grand whole,

which

his

the

138

CALVINISTIC

the inner

It

man.

CONTROVERSY.

givesbirth

to

every purpose,
desire,it gives shape

it givesimpulse
to every
and colour to every conception. It wields
entire

ascendancy over

every
the
the will,and

an

attribute of the

fancy, and the

with all the countless
of
understanding,
variety
their hidden and fugitive
mitted
subare
operations,
and direction
to it. It givesmovement
throughevery one pointof our pilgrimage.At
mind

no

and

of time does it abandon

moment

the

to

us

hour

of

death,and

It follows

us.

it carries

us

place,and to our everlasting

destinyin
the
region beyond it ! ! !" These quotations
need no comment
; if they do not come
up to
all we
have ever
charged upon this doctrine,
there is no definite meaning in words.
But we
have another
ject,
authorityon this subthe Calvinists
which bears more
on
directly
of this country, the Assembly's Catechism.
well qualified
Dr. Fitch,who
is certainly
to
as
judge in this matter as another man, informs us,
throughthe medium of the Christian Spectator,
that
the articles of faith preparedby that body,
(theassemblyof Englishand Scotch divines at
Westminster,)are considered as expressing
the views not only of the Presbyteessentially
rian
to

our

"

Church

in this country, but

Churches
Congregational

orthodox

England."
Catechism
in

them
iiave

of

New-

It is known, also, that the Shorter

used by
has been almost universally

their

instruction

also of the

of

families,and
their children.

standard of

which
faith,

in the
Here

religious
then

all the

we

classes,

CALVOISTIC

139

CONTROVERSY.

I suppose, will acknowledge, and what

After statingthat the decrees of God
"

saith it?
his

are

eternal purpose,

to the counsel of his

according
will,whereby,for his own
glory,he hath

own

foreordained
goes

on

to

the works

whatsoever

coineth

pass,
execulelh his decrees

God
say,
of creation and
"

to

and
providence,"

it
in

then

works of
God's
explanationadds
providenceare his most holy,wise,and powerful,
and
preservingand governingall his creatures
awkward
all their actions."
This is certainly
an

for farther

"

"

if I may
of
productions

be

sentence,
the

an

say this of
assemblywhich has been
allowed

to

excellency in
erudition and theology. Its meaning,however,
and logic,
to grammar
must
be, that
according
by his acts of providenceGod, in a most holy,
and
wise, and
powerful manner,
preserves
characterised

governs

both

actions.

But

as

all his
as

of

paragon

it

and

creatures,
to

seems

be

all their

solecism

to

actions,we will understand

preserving
preservingto belongto creatures, and governing
talk about

to

actions,and

it will be thus

then

God

power-

governs

all his creatures, and powerfully

all theiractions : and itisin this way he

executes

his decrees.

fullypreserves

methods
made

of

There

are

evidentlytwo

governing. That control which

legalprecepts, and sanctions,and

up of
iscalled
tributions,

is
re-

government ; not that all the

of such a government always obey its
subjects
ordinances, but if they violate them, they are
a

subjectedto punishment.
the kind of government

This, is

that the

not
evidently
assemblycon-

140

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

government by which God

executed his decrees ; but, as we
have seen, his
decrees are not his laws, for theyare frequently

templated. It was

Decree
and
to his laws.
opposition
law are not only frequently
opposed,in respect
to the moral action demanded
by each, but even
coincident they differ
where those demands
are
and certainty
of their
greatlyin the manner
Of
fulfilment.
course
government, by excuting decrees,is another thing altogetherfrom
But there is
government by executinglaws.
another kind of government.
It is that efficient
control of a superior,
by which a beingor an
is made
it is, in opposition
act
to be what
to
existence. Now
a
or
non-existence,
different
the kind of govern,
this appears to be precisely
direct

in

ment

alluded to when

it

said," God

his

executes

decrees

by powerfullygoverningall the actions

of his creatures."
That is,he efficiently
duces
proand controls all the responsible
volitions,
good and bad, of the moral universe. And what
is this,but affirmingall that the sermon
has
affirmed on
this subject? If any one
is disposed
of
to deny that this is a fair exposition
the Catechism, let him reflect that as he cannot
a
pretend that government here means
legal
it will be incumbent
him to
on
administration,
show

what

other

upon

it than

the

God

can

execute

fair construction

givenabove

one
a

powerfulact, in any
alreadyexplained.
In

secret

be

show

decree, by his

other way

corroboration of the

; to

can

than in the

put
how
own
one

views
foregoing

it

141

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

should also be borne in mind, that the Calvinists

these very same
terms, decree,
uniformly use
"predestination,
"c, in the same
sense, in reference
to all events.
They say, God's decrees extend
and moral, good and evil,
to all events, physical
if they mean
by which they must mean,
any
that his predestination
bears
thing intelligible,

the

relation to

same

of election embraces

decree

If then his

all events.
the

to

means

the

accomplishmentof the end, so also must his

If his decree of election
decree of reprobation.
requires for its accomplishment an
efficient
also does his decree of reprobation.
so
operation,
is directly
and efficiently
If Divine
agency
it must
to
producs a good volition,
requisite
follow that it is in the same
to
sense
requisite
producea sinful volition.
To

tell us

result

equallythe
tell

decree

tinction
times, without any dis-

that
discrimination,

or

then

thousand
of

that the

us

the

all

Divine

relation

thingsare

decree,and

between

God's

sin is essentially
different from

and

the

between
his decree and holiness,
existing
would
be a very singular
and
certainly
of language. How
unwarrantable use
then, I
inquire,does God produce holy volitions ?
V, hy, say the Calvinists,
by a direct,positive,

relation

"

and

efficient influence upon

the

will, and

in

in
Thy people shall be willing
proofquote
the day of thy power." Well, how, I ask again,
does God execute
his decrees respecting
unholy
volitions ?
the same
Consistency
requires
reply.
"

"

But,

says

the

he need
Calvinist,

not

exert

the

142

CALVIJN'ISTIC

influence

same

produce unholy volitions,

it is in accordance

because

sinful

to

CONTROVERSY.

men

to

the result of

nature

Indeed

sin.

with the nature

! and

decree ?

is not

It would

of
this
seem

his decree
approacheshis work of executing
with
or
sin, either more
respecting
reluctantly
that it requires
two
so
greater difficulty,
steps
It is
the other.
to execute
this,and only one
in both cases, however, equallyhis work.
This
will be seen
tion
more
clearlyif we turn our attenmuch
to the first sin ; for it is certainly
as
againsta perfectly
holy nature to commit sin,
an
as it is against
unholynature to have a holy
volition. Hence
the one
much
as
requiresa
direct and positive
influence as the other,and
in the 110th Psalm, if it
therefore the passage
Divine
influence in
appliesat all to a positive
tensive
exchanging the will,must have a much more
been
has
meaning, than
generally
supposed. It should be paraphrasedthus :
Not only shall thy elect people,who are yet in
their sins,and therefore not yet in a strict and
to become
thine,be made willing
proper sense
holy in the day that thou dost efficiently
change
their will,but also thy angelsand thy first created
human
pair,who were before their fallmore
thine,as theywere made perfectly
truly
holy,shall
be made
willingto become unholy in the day
that thou dost efficiently
change their wills
God

"

from

submission

efficiencyis

rebellion.

necessary

to

make

For

if Divine
a

holy,it is also necessary

holy will perverse.
naturally

perverse
a

to

will

naturally
to

make

CALVINISTIC

143

CONTROVERSY.

may be met here by this

that althoughGod does efficiently
control
reply,

aware

am

that

we

the will,stillit is in a way suited to the nature

of mind, and consistent with free agency, because
he operates upon the mind throughthe influence

suasion,or by the power of motives.

be answered, that the Calvinists
To this it may

of moral

Dr.

of
Taylor's views
theysuspect him of holding

generallycondemn
conversion,because
that motives alone

they

deem

should
as

the sinner ; whereas

that the Holy Spirit

convert

it necessary

directly
upon

act

have

shown

that there should

the will of
upon
sinful. And
this

changes are

above,
be

the will ; if so, then,

it is also necessary

direct Divine

influence

holy being,to make

since
more
especially,

decreed, and

both

stand

him
both

in the

the Divine purpose.

But this
doctrine of motives leads me
to another argument,
relation to

same

viz.
3.

the view

That

I have

taken

of

tion
predestina-

is correct, appears
evident from the Calvinistic doctrine of motives,especially
when this
doctrine

is viewed

Calvinistic
The

in

"

with

the

theoryof depravity.

doctrine of motives

this,that

connection

the power

I understand

of volition is never

to

be

excited,

be,except in the presence and from the

in Theexcitement of motives," (see Views
ology,")
and that the mind must
be
necessarily
swayed by the strongestmotive,or by what appears
wards,
to the mind to be the greatestgood. Dr. Edthis docLeibnitz,
following
incorporated

nor

can

"

144

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

trine of

with the Calvin,

philosophical
necessity
istic theology. In this he has been followed by a
I believe,of the Calvinistic clergy.
great portion,
Without
stoppinghere to attempt a refutation of
this theory,
present objectis to show that it
my
fastens upon Calvinism the charges
necessarily
brought againstit,and sustains the definition
been
that has
given to predestination.For
since God
and

both the mind

creates

and the

motives,

them together
for the
brings

that the former should

express purpose
swayed by the latter,

be

itfollows
the
is

that God efficiently

controls
conclusively
will,and producesall itsvolitions. And this

:
express Calvinistic teaching
"
God," says the author of " Views in Theology,"
alreadyquoted," God is the determiner of per-

to
according

"

and perceptions
are
ceptions,

choices."

The

the determiners

inference therefore is

unavoidable,God

is the determiner

The

does not

pleathat

God

of

plainand

of choices.

producevolitions,
by
but indirectly,
a direct influence,
throughsecond
avails nothing. Although there should
causes,

be

ten,

ten

or

thousand

intermediate

links,if

arrangedby our Creator in such

order as to produce the intellectual vibration
pulse,
he pleases
to givethe imintended,whenever
is the difference ? In point of
what
they

all

are

efficient agency,
alter the case
to
God

by

the

be

or
will,

all.

Nor

yet will it

that "this effect is duced

prois
as
through such a medium
say,

suited to the nature

it cannot

at

none

of the

said,that God

to man's

therefore

mind, and
does any

violence to

free agency." God

created

146

would
of

CONTROVERSY,

CALVINISTIC

not

for the

account

holy angelsand
This

first human

pair.

that, but for the

argument presupposes
of man's

unholynature, the charge

Calvinistic theory would be valid.

consideration

against the
And

the

first unholy volitions

inasmuch

here

as

are

in which

cases

the

relief to the
obviously affords no
argument
system, it follows that in these eases, at least,
God

efficient and

is the

of
procuringcause
unholy volitions and therefore the charges
But by
established.
are
againstpredestination
"

attention

little farther

argument
in the

affords
of

case

sin, which
the

shall

as

he

is.

now

dire

of
a

necessityover

love of sin

all the

stronger and

coming

rations
gene-

this act entailed upon man

this corrupt nature
Hence

depravedheart.

upon
We
agency.

this first

For

men.

came

For

result of
necessary
Divine
and of positive

Divine

more

the system

itself the

was

arrangement
influence,threw, if possible,a
a

that this

see

little relief to

as

man

we

without

man

it back

trace

his

knowledge

then,thus

"

or

Man's

the

unholy choice
of the firstpair that choice was
produced by
perceptions"these perceptionswere
produced
and these motives were
by motives
broughtby
producedby

was

"

"

God

to

bear

for this very

and because

upon

the minds

which

he

had

made

therefore God, by design,

purpose
he purposed it,produced our
rupt
cor"

then, for the express purpose

of leadingthat unholy nature
to put forth unholy
he bringsthose motives
to bear
volitions,
upon
our
minds, which, from the unavoidable nature
nature

; and

CALVINISTIC

147

CONTROVERSY.

minds, must 'produce the sin designed.

It is thus that, accordingto his theory,our
of those

Creator

binds

cords of

with
depravity

lashes

mind

by the strong
hand, and with the

human

the

one

maddening scourge of
rium
motives,into all the excitement of unholy deliconsignsthe
glory,
; and then, for his own
sinner over
! ! Turn
to the prisonhouse of wo
other

it,by

the

this system, then, as you

will,you find this
doctrine
of predestination
bindingthe human

mind, and
of the

moral

Jehovah
and

producingall the
efficiently
strong

of

arm

and irresistibly
moves
directly
than it
the planetsin their orbits,
controls,in the mysteriouscircle of

not

binds
and

moves

The

universe.

volitions

his eternal

more

decrees,

"

all the

actions of all his

creatures."
I

know,

whatever
that

we

because

as

be

may
are
we

this doctrine be
that I

inferences,we
that

we

reconcile

true, I

am

urged,

all know

responsible,

are

of it.
and
reasoning,

conscious

of
course
singular
been adopted to

free,and

our

free,and
are

it is

closingargument,

This

is a most
to

seems

have

contradictions.
not

sure

that I

If
am

responsible
merely because I
feel that I am.
I am
conscious
at least quite
as
for what
that I ought not to be held responsible
is unavoidable,as I am
that I am
possessedof
moral liberty.Break down my consciousness in
for me
to
prepare the way
in another.
And if I must
suspect itof fallacy
tives
give up my consciousness,between two alternaone

case,

and

am

you

I will choose

that which

will

not

involve

148

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

the government of God in injustice,

and myriads
of intelligent
beingsin unavoidable perdition.

Hence, with Dr. Edwards'

holds

he

Lord

with

Kaimes, I would
his lordship's
conclusion,viz. that God

in

common

to

come

premises,which

intended

hold

and the
responsible,
universal feeling
of responsibility
is a kind of
piousfraud a salutarydelusion,imposedas a

never

to

men

"

check

and

followed
here

restraint upon

by

Creator

our

But

with

deceptionin

this would

both

the

Divine

must

deceptionand

be rolled back

the throne of God

theoryfor
to

the Church
To

am

now

assumed,

and from

tination.
predes-

crush

doubtless be

the

blessing

the world.

to

For

the

that the

is correct.

Kaimes

the doctrine of

upon

given,I

reasons

chargescontained

againstthat modification
are
opposing,
just; and

sermon

and

sponsibilit
re-

therefore,
fallacy,

from consciousness

it would

conclude.

stillmaintain

of

if the reaction should

ever,

of

secret, and frustrate

This cannot
The
be.

purpose

And

consciousness

in suffering
Lord
folly

others to disclose the

of

be

"

and

charge

either

charging
deceptionand folly

the delusive

and

be

to

unpleasantconsequences

no

hereafter.

or

here, but

man

If the

must

in the

of Calvinism
the definition

advocates

of the

clear themselves, or their doctrine,

If not, let one
let it be done.
of two courses
be

system

can

either let the system be

have it as it is.

pursued
"

let us

I have
I

am

dwelt the
weary,

longer on

abandoned,or

this

and I believe

we

cause
besubject,
all are,

of

149

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

You

complaint,
hearingthe oft-repeated
"

!"

us

You

"

mistake

No., by

In the next

doctrine !"

our

the leave of

Providence,

of human

agency, and the groundof

will be examined.
responsibility,

the nature
human

NUMBER
AGENCY

MORAL

By

represent
mis-

what

has been

VIII.

AND

ACCOUNTABILITY.

said

on

the

theoryof

Cal-

it will be seen, I think,

predestination,
of moral
that this system involves such necessity
with free agency.
It is
action as is incompatible
I grant,to giveto the terms
ty,
will,liberpossible,
vinistic

free agency,

such

definition

as

will make

defined,
compatiblewith the
of the Calvinistic system.
other peculiarities
Both
is a free moral
partiesagree that man
; but
agent ; both maintain that he is responsible

these

terms, thus

"

we

maintain

that what

moral

ly

agency,
understood
make

to
we

the Calvinists call free

is not such

by
man

in fact as

is

common,

the term, nor such as is requisite

accountable.
thereHere, fore,

tions,
againthrown back upon our definithe starting
pointof argument. What
or
property, or facultyof the
power,
are

as

is that

mind, which

constitutes

It is the power

man

free moral

of

choice,connected
either good or evil. Both
to choose
and liberty
to choose either good or
to

constitute the free agency

agent 1

with

liberty

the power

evil

of

are

quisite
re-

proba-

150

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

tioner.

though

It has
from

been

the

contended

choice,

the moral

of

condition

that

agent
side,

on
one
necessitybe exclusively
is nevertheless free ; since it implies
a
voluntary
Hence
it is contended
preferenceof the mind.
and
that the fallen and the holy angels,glorified
of these are conloet human
fined
spirits,
though some
in an impeccablestate,and the others have
a
perpetualand invincible enmity to good,are

it must

of

free agents.

nevertheless

With

free agency of these beings,

a
it is such
started,whether

respect

to

the

questionmight be
as

renders

them

for their present acts,the decision of

responsible
which
might have some
bearingon the subject
under investigation
such bearingas
; but not
would make
it importantto discuss it here.
If
for their present acts, it
they are responsible
of a former
be on
must
account
probation,
forfeited. Or
which by sin they have judicially
thinks otherwise, and is disposed
if any one
to
maintain that a beingwho is not, and never
was
circumstanced as to render the choice of good
so
to him, is nevertheless a free moral agent,
possible
renders him accountable,
in any such sense
as
with such a sentiment at present I have no controversy.
Indeed

outrage upon
of
of

such

all the

that to
justice,
littleprofit.

is so violent an
opinion
acknowledged principles
an

controvert

It is certain that the moral

angelsand

men

whose

states

it would

be

standingof
are

now

work

those

bly
unaltera-

from their probationfixed,differs materially

ary
state ;

and

this difference renders their

mo-

CALVINISTIC

ral agency

151

CONTROVERSY.

unsuited

to

illustratethe

agency
in this

of

'

life,
probation.Man,
is in a state of trial ; good and evil are presented
before him as objectsof choice ; and upon this
choice are
of
suspended eternal consequences
stanced,
happinessor misery. Of a being thus circumit is not
enough to say he is free to

beingswho

choose

as

are

he

on

does, unless

can

you

say,

also,he

equally free to make an oppositechoice.

the free agency
of man,
a
as
Hence, in defining
we
probationer,
say, as above, that it impliesa
choose
of choice, with full liberty
to
power
either good or evi!.
The foregoingdefinition,
at first view, seems
sufficient for all practical
purposes, and so indeed
it would have
been, if a speculative
philosophy
had not thrown
it into the alembic of metaphysics
for decompositionand analysis. It is
is

"

this process

doubtful whether
cause

of truth ; nay, it is

has subserved

the

certain,I think,that it

refinements and
produced many perplexing
that have greatlyaided the cause
speculations

has
of

error.

seems

if

therefore,it
abstrusities,
follow this question,
to try,

Into these
to

necessary

to
possible,

draw

out

combine

and

the

ments
ele-

of truth,
the power
Having defined free agency to mean
of choice,"c, it is asked again,What is this
ent
It is probablethat the differpower of choice 1
answers
given to this questionconstitute
the

fundamental

and

Arminians.

like the

replyof

differences
To

between

the above

the Jews

to

Calvinists

questionsome,

Christ,have said,

152
"

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTTC

We

cannot

replyperhaps for a

similar

reason

influenced the Jews

that which

to

fear that

they

themselves

will involve

answer

they givethis evasive

tell." And

definite

their theoryin

or

avoid

This is a very convenient way to

difficulty.
indicative of much
but not
responsibility,
or

in their

confidence

When

cause.

men

thei-r system in apparent contradictions,

the candid inquiit will hardly satisfy
rer

involved

have

after truth to

them

see

is to

point that

upon

"c,
foreknowledge,

system.

We

whatsoever

told

are

that

to pass

comes

told that all men

character

by

the

aside from

start

give

very
whole

are

ness,
fair-

who

men

God

"

their

to

reason

hath

;" and

then

free,and theyenter

are

creed
dewe

into

about
great deal of metaphysicalspeculation
of voluntary
the nature
action,
"c,
foreknowledge,
a

to

prove

these

pressedupon

positions
j but
this point, How
"

with free agency

kind

that

We

is,
"

they

are

cile
you reconciency
effiof Divine
can

the execution

necessary to secure
decrees,and that kind of

agents which

when

of the

dependencyof moral
the reply
this efficiency
V
implies

cannot

tell
"

the

how

in the

case

we

able,
explain." This evasion might be allowperhaps, in either of the two following
1. If the apparent discrepancyof the
cases
:
is mysterious,
of what
two
out
positions
grew
and not of what is palpablycontradictory
; or, 2.
If both propositions
were
so
clearly
proved,that
cannot

it would
be

do greater violence to

greateroutrage upon
of

to
belief,

our

reasons,

and

all acknowledgedprinciples

disbelieve either of them, than

154

CALVINISTIC

tions.

So then the

far

must
propositions

do not understand

thoughwe
as

CONTROVERSY.

as

do understand

we

! ! Is
incompatible
knowledge,and to make

How

much

evident
of
with
be

mind

the

received,
them ! and though,
ously
them, theyare obvithis the way
to gain
truth
triumphant?

consistent

more

is

say, Since
since the

to

free,and

it is

trine
doc-

is apparently
predestination
incompatible

that

freedom, therefore this doctrine should

exploded!
Or will this second

alternative be resorted to ?

Will it be said that both of these

so

be

clearlyproved,that

greater violence to
than
of belief,
their
examine

them.

doubt, unless

our

are
propositions

deny

to

them

and

reasons,

do

would
the

ples
princi-

withstandi
acknowledge them, not? Let us
apparent incongruity
to

Of

of

one

doubt

them

cannot

we

all

primary truths,viz.
mind
It is presumed,
That the human
is free.
that theymust
if the question
either
to this,
come
the dogma of predesor
tination,
liberty
give up human
we

Calvinists themselves

candid

hesitate ; they would

becomes
stand,whatever

say,

themselves

so

clear

as

answer

by

? that

he

for volitions that

?
superior

To

itselfcan

am

tination
predes-

other

some

But is there any thingclearer

ought not to be held accountable

is unavoidable

must

If I

doctrine of

truths.
man

not

that, predestinarians

beingjudges,the
is not

former

of the latter.

here, it follows

correct

the

would

moral

than

that

for what

ought not to be held to

controlled
are
efficiently

me

make

this is

as

clear

as

sciousness
con-

it,and I think it must

CALVIXISTIC

then

the conclusion

to

come

we

general. If

in

mankind

be to

155

CONTROVERSY.

correct,

am

at once,

that to

of predestination
compatibility
does more
and accountability
liberty

in the

believe

with human
violence

to the

of belief than

laws

it would

to

Whatever, therefore,
predestination.

discard

be favourable
to this doctrine,
to
seem
may
should be sacrificed to a strongerclaim upon our
belief in another direction.
But, that the argument

may be set in
let the evidence of

What
and

is it ?

be
predestination

It is not

it is almost

by

as
a

possible,

strong lightas

as

consciousness

clear that it is not

course

of

adduced.

certainly
;
moral

reasoning.The

monstrat
demost

said,in the way of

moral demonstration,has been in an argument
which
founded on foreknowledge,
argument, itis
supposedby the author, is fairlydisposedof in
I believe that has

the

sermon

which

been

by reasoning
predestination,
been
not, to his knowledge,ever
been
refutation has
attempted,I
on

has

refuted.

ever

of the reviewers of the sermon,

grant, by some
that attended those
but the only apparent success
sequence
alreadyseen, in conthe very ground of the
of their taking
and building
the decrees of God upon
sermon,
view and knowledgeof all possible
tingencies.
cona prior
If consciousness and reasoning
are
taken away from this doctrine,
it has nothing
left
to stand upon but testimony. And
no
testimony
but Divine will here be of any authority
; and

attempts was,

as

we

does revelation prove

on

have

this doctrine ?

it was
predestination

In the

mon
ser-

stated that " there

156

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

singlepassage in the Bible which

teaches
directlythat God hath foreordained
whatsoever comes
to pass ;" and it is not known
not

was

to

the

of

the

show
a

writer,that

it has

sermon

that the

from
and
kind

we

was

could

attemptedto

incorrect.

have

been

heard of it ?

have

not

been

even

statement

solitary
passage

should

the different reviews

among

The

if

But

adduced,
evidence

then, if there is any, is indirect,

Scripture
And
this indirect
even
merely by inference.
is far from beingthe best of its
testimony
of believers in
a great portion
; so, at least,

revelation think.

Now, candid

reader, if you

followed the chain

have

carefully

of

thought thus far,let me

ask you to pause and propound for yourself,
and
the followingquestion
Is
honestly answer
there so much
evidence in favour of predestination,
"

"

that I should
own

do

more

violence

to

my

and the laws

reason,

it,than I should by

of belief,
by rejecting
that this doctrine is
believing

?"
free agency and accountability
Calvinists themselves
have so felt the

with
compatible

Indeed,

force of these

when
difficulties,

and
in their
have
terms

common

free will have

and obvious

the
been
sense,

terms

predestinati
understood
that

they

of these
of explanations
attempteda variety
crepancy
the apparent disto do away, if possible,
These
cipal
attempts have been the prinof those changes and modifications
cause

in the Calvinistic system, alluded to in a former

tions
and definiThe
number.
various explanetions
that have

been

given to foreordination,

CALVINISTIC

alreadybeen

have

noticed.

effort failed of

every

system, until

we

157

CONTROVERSY.

We

affording
any
down

came

that of the New-Haven

have

how

seen

relief to the

the last ; I
divines.
This new
to

mean

ory
the-

indeed avoid the

does

it only by

givingup

short of this
stillthe

amounts

but avoids
difficulty,
the doctrine ! Any thing
to nothing
; itstands forth

absolute decree"

"

fixed

as

fate,and

fixing,
strong as fate,all the acts of subordinate
intelligences.
Any real modification of it is a
virtual

renunciation,and

stead of the

publicand

substitution in

its

ven,
consistent decree of Hea-

He

that believeth shall be saved ; he that

believeth not shall be damned."
"

nition
succeedingas was hoped in such a defithe
of predestination
would harmonize
as
repeatedtrials have been
opposingpropositions,
made
to define and explainhuman
libertyand
Not

the power of choice,so

with the
coincidence

bringsus
"

What

back

to

is this power

as

to

bend

these

decree.
inflexible
the inquirystarted

of choice ?"

Now

into

This
above
as

this

metaphysicalin its nature

point more
than the proposition
embracing the decrees,so
there is more
groundfor laboured argument and
refined speculation.Only one theory,however,
1. Because
needs to be particularly
noticed :
it is the most
of any other, so that if
plausible
other
this will not bear the test, it is probable
no
will ; and 2. Because
this is the theorywhich is
versally
uniand perhaps almost
now
pretty generally,
the
adoptedby the Calvinists ; I mean
is

"

Calvinistic doctrine of motives.

It is in sub-

158

CONTROVERSY.

CALVOISTIC

this : the power of choice is that power

the mind has of actingin view of motives,

stance

which

tive.
decidingaccordingto the strongestmoand direction of volition are
The strength
And this
alwaysin accordance with the motive.
mind and motives is fixed by
relation between

and of

the

very

constitution of

be said
may
that the mind

These
All
from

there is
should

motives

be

controlled

conceptionsand
cause,

necessity

by

and

that it

so

constitutional

multitudinous

are

whatever

natures,

our

motives.

various.

"

of the mind,
perceptions
of pleasure
or
productive

emotions
of love or aversion,are
pain,exciting
motives ; or, more
properly,
perhaps,the causes

of these

mental

these motives

states

and the mind

that

former

the

there is such
not

of this relation is of
limits of human
Such

is the

theory.

is defended

of motives
The

The

ture
na-

we

the

can

say
of mind.

and

arguments by which

in substance

are

nection,
con-

beyond

course

: all
investigation

is the nature

only excite, but

latter,in all its volitions.

control the

is,such

Between

motives.

are

the

it

following
"

We
are
conscious,
experienceand observation.
versally
it is said,of actingfrom motives,and it is uniunderstood
motives.

It is

on

that
this

others

also

that
principle

act

from

we

govern
intercourse with men
ourselves in our
; by this
in many
calculate with moral certainty,
stances
inwe
will be the

what
a

most

of

man

in

and, upon such calculations,

we
of our maxims, and rules of conduct,

givencase

form

conduct

in social life: nay, it is said

man

that will

act

without

this

ground,whenever

to

inquirewhat

induced

it is

What

him.

that,on

"

common

motive

had

very earlyage
that they are
readilyrecognizethis principle,
That

he ?
so

acts

man

insane

be

must

reason

159

CONTROVERSY.

CAIiVINISTIC

even

children,at

why do you do this or that.

constantly
inquiring
the strongestarguments by which this
Such are
theory is sustained
arguments too strong it is
supposedto be overthrown.
I object
to the sovereigncontrol of the mind
it
objections,
by motives. But in offering
my
"

first be

should

that

no

man,

in his

presumed,will deny that motives

our
importantinfluence in determining

it is

senses,

have

observed

an

is it necessary, in order to oppose

of
the doctrine of the controlling
power

volitions.

Nor

motives, to deny that the power of volitionmay

stance,
have been waked
up to action, in the first inthat the mind ever
or
by motive influence,
after may, in all its volitions,
be more
less
or
under

this influence.

As

pointswhich
affect the questionat issue between
do not materially
and the Calvinists,
us
they may be left out
is
of the discussion for the present. The question
Has the mind a self-determining
this
power, by
which it can spontaneously
of
decide,independent
the control of motives,or is the mind absolutely
maintain the former
controlled by motives ] We
our
opponents the latter. By establishing
we
our
position,
disprovetheirs by disproving
these

are

"

"

"

theirs

we

establish

theirs

can

be

established ;

ours

"

and it is believed

and
directly
disproved,
at

least

so

far

as

we

ours

can

that

directly
hope to

160

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

arrive at demonstration

these

on

points.
1. My first objection
to
influence is,that
which
prove

cult
extremelydiffi-

this doctrine of

tive
mo-

of the arguments

by
it is defended, as directly
and certainly
that the Divine mind is subject
solute
to the abcontrol

most

of motives

as

that human

minds

It is

argued,that to maintain the doctrine

of spontaneous volition,
trol
independentof the conof motives,involves the absurdity,
that
our
volitions are excited without any intelligent
sons
reawhatever, and as the effect,
consequently,
of nothing
better than a mere
brute or senseless
mechanism."
(Views in Theology,p. 163.)
if this has any bearing on the question,
Now
it
are.

"

"

relates not

to

merely,but

to

human
mind

the Divine mind.

mind
in

and

volition

human

general,and

apply

must

may be said,in
fact,of most of the arguments that are brought
in favour of this doctrine.
Calvinists are convinced

to

The

same

and hence this also is a part of

defended by Dr. Edwards,
their creed.
It was
and is thus avowed by Professor Upham, in his
of this
"

System of Mental Philosophy. Speakingof

the

motives, he says, " Our condition,in

this respect, seems
the same
to be essentially
control of

with that of the

Supreme Being himself he is

inevitably
governedin all his doings,by what,
"

of events, is wisest and best."

(Vol. ii,p. 381.) Thus the Divine Being is,
accordingto this theory,and by the express
in the great range

advocates
showing of the leading
made a subordinate
inevitably"
"

of the
to

theory,
superior.

162

CALVINISTIC

of nature

or

"

make

God

you

him

from

him

the instrument

to

; you

mo

hurl

of

and make
sovereignty,
of a superior. Of what use
Might we not as well have

Deity?
Nay better,as

the control of his

subordinate

his throne

none

and that
relation,

necessary

ment

is such

CONTKOVEKSY

it

to

seems

me,

if under

native influence he is led

own

of suffering,
and fix
beingssusceptible
relations of those beingsto the motives

create

the

around

they

them

Is it to be

vm

vinists have
motives

led
inevitably"

"

are

such, that by

very

Spinoza,whose
The

to

sin

and

endless

wondered

become

is the

law of their nature

at, that many Calinfidels?

This doctrine of
of the system

essence

of

deitywas the energy of nature !

of Dr. Edcontrolling
power

supreme
wards and his followers is the energy of motives,
which exists in the nature
of things,
anterior to
the will of God.

Can

one
point out any
any
the two systems ?
essential difference between

Such

the

are

to
objections

any

favour of the doctrine that motives

arguments

in

inevitably"
control the volitions of intelligent
beingsin geneof course
the highest
ral,involving
intelligence.
But if any are disposed
to giveup this doctrine,
volition in general,
essential to intelligent
and
as
choose

to

maintain

of
then

some

theymust

they must

is free from

this

litions
vo-

control,

acknowledgealso,or givesome

for their

make

it only in respect to the

particular
intelligent
beings;
giveup all the strongestof their
If God

arguments.

"

that he
dissent,

may,

and sustain subordinate

if he

son
rea-

chooses,

havintelligences,

163

CONTROVEKSY.

CALVINISTIC

freedom from this control ; and if

ing the same
they acknowledgethat there is nothingin the
of the case
that renders this an
nature
bility,
impossithen they must
show, if they can, that
though God might constitute beingsotherwise,
he has

so

of

constituted

as

man

to

and

choice, except when

direct, by

inevitable

an

this theymust
attempting

pable
inca-

him

render

motives

as

But

influence.

in

other difficulties

meet

in their course,
which, itis believed,will greatly
ever,
howembarrass
These difficulties,
the system.
sign
togetherwith the arguments which I deto

in
directly

advance

view,must

be reserved

for another

AND

AGENCY

opposite

number.

IX.

NUMBER
MORAL

favour of the

ACCOUNTABILITY,

CONTINUED.

argument againstthe Calvinistic

ism.
doctrine of motives is,that it leads to materialisthis :
The doctrine,
it will be recollected,
Another

broughtinto connection
of choice,it is inevitably
led,by a
objects
the mind

When

is

of its nature, to the selection of

of the other,unless there is a
between
course,

them
the

mind

for if it moves
and

to

the

with

same

in which
must

case

remain

one

of
influence,

law

rather than

equality
perfect
I
in

onlyby the influence

degree and in the

motive

with

course

suppose,

of

equilibrium
;
of motives,
same

tion
direc-

when

attracted in opposite
directions it must
equally

it is
be

164

CALVIXISTIC

rest! It is on

at

tained that God

CONTROVERSY.

this

ground that

could not

make

Leibnitz main,

of
particles
in all respects alike ; because,in that case,
matter
governed by motives in his
being inevitably"
he could not determine where
to place
decisions,
his
influence on
them, both havingthe same
mind for a location in the same
place! The
two

"

same

writer

represents this motive

influence,

but not the less

also,as frequently
imperceptible,
and not the less voluntary
! And
to
effectual,
illustrate it makes
"

It is

as

the

following
comparison:

"

if a needle,touched

were

sensible

of

and

to the

north, for it would

with

loadstone,

pleased with

its turning

that it turned

believe

itself independent
of any other cause,
the insensible motions
of the

not

ceiving
per-

magnetic

had
of Leibnitz,who
power." This statement
paidgreat attention to this philosophical
theory,
is importantin several respects. It is,in the
firstplace,
an
acknowledgmentthat consciousness
the doctrine ; and it is also a concesis against
sion
that the mind is imposedupon, in this matter,
But with respect to the arguby the Creator.
ment,
that this doctrine leads

to

materialism,

is important,
because
itshows that
quotation
if not one of the
of the most
one
philosophical,
of the defenders of this docmost
evangelical
trine,considered the law of motive influence
ing
differsimilar to the law of magnetic attraction,
only in being accompanied by sensation
And what says
and a deceptive
consciousness.
its great evangelical
champion in this country,
this

Dr. Edwards

He

compares

our

volitions to

CALVINISTIC

the vibrations of

165

CONTROVERSY.

scale beam, the differentends

elevated or depressed
respectively
chance
the oppositeweights may
to vary.
as
that motions
What
is this but teaching
of mind
fixed laws as those of
are
governed by the same
mechanical
matter, and that volitions are perfectly
of which

are

of

states

mind

the

What

advocates

of

this

doctrine

charge on the oppositetheorybelongs,

showing,to their own
by their own
system.
They, not we, make choices the result of animal
"

I know
senseless mechanism.
fessor
Proor
instinct,
of the Romans,
Stuart,in his late exposition

reprobatethese comparisons; and while

he contends,as I should think,as strenuously
as
Dr. Edwards, for a complete and efficient control
all our
of the Divine Being over
volitions,
to

seems

he

that there

to think

appears

the laws

between

ence
great differ-

of intellectual and

So, indeed,do

action.

is

we

think.

rial
mate-

But

we

think that difference consists in the mind's

free from

contends

that

and

that control

control for which

we

believe when

the

being
professor

he contends

in the volitions of the

mind, he

for
tends
con-

for that

which, from the nature of the case,

destroysthe other part of his sis,
entirely
hypotheviz. that the
and

of
operations
different from
essentially
or

the

what

law

mechanical

the

of

free,
tion
mo-

in the

If the attractive power of motives

mind is any thingdifferent from

or
gravitation
magnetic attraction,

is that difference ?

cannot

are

the laws of attractive influence

material world.
over

the mind

tell; I ask

Should

then, How

any

does

one

say,

he know

166

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

it is that very power

for which
Arminians
contend ? Most probablyit is that power.
Or
will it be said, the difference between
mobut

tive influence

and

gravityis
is

reply,Consciousness
motives

between

part of the relation

and

indeed how

not

see

no

consciousness?

the power
of choice.
I
it affects that relation at all.

this the

And

comparison of Leibnitz,already
alluded to, clearlyillustrates. Look
at that
and by
flowingstream ; ithastens on most freely,
down
vities
the gentledeclithe law of its own
nature
more
or
slopesof its meander,
precipitous
that Omnipotence
Suppose now
ing channel.
should impart consciousness
of
to the particles
the continuous

current, it would then wake up to

perceivethe action and feel the pleasureof its
motions.
delightful

own

the law of its own

by

free to

it was

and
of

nature, and would

on

still

feel that

tion
inclinato itsown
according
voluntarytendency,for its will would
move

influence.
phrase,its gravitating

could it

turn

its course

their fountains ?

But

roll

be in the direction of its motive,or

course

other

to

It would

and roll back

It could ifit was

its present inclination is toward

in

But

its waters
so

inclined.

the bottom

valleyor the bosom of the ocean, and

thither,by the relation that exists between its
and the gravitating
influence of the
particles
earth,itrollson with the utmost freedom,
though
of changingits own
with the utter impossibility
inversion of the gravitating
course, without an
Let the hand of Omnipotenceinvert the
power.
slopeof the mountain,and lo ! with the same
of the

CALVINISTIC

167

CONTROVERSY.

roll back
again to
very waters
it is with the
Thus
fountains!
their original
mind.
It is conscious of being free to
human

freedom

these

in the direction of its

move

quireit

and

its course

to turn

but
inclinations,
in the

move

re,

rent
cur-

direction,and
opposite
it would be utterlyimpossible,
until Omnipotence
himself should change the motive influence.
and perGod is the determiner of perceptions,
ceptions
in
of itsvolitions,

an

"

"

of choices."
the determiners
that this doctrine of motive
We
see, therefore,
influence leads to materialism,for it makes
are

and
material
mental
analogy between
action so complete that it destroysall idea of
intellectual -power.
Philosophically
speaking,
the

What
power in the laws of nature.
or
sion,
repulexpress by the power of attraction,
is nothingmore
than the
or
decomposition,

there is
we

no

uniformityof
earth

is not

God

the

an

energy
nature

is all that any

This

by

of

Divine

the power

agency.

elevated bodies

attract

This

the

of

to

Does

its surface ?
"

; it is

in nature

inherent

the

actingby a uniform
can
man
intelligent
We, however,

nature.

law.
mean

use

the

word

in these
in an accommodated
sense
power
but alwaysI think in connection with that
cases,
portionof matter that appears to act, and not

that which

is acted

has

power
attracted toward
say,

toward
which

the

The

upon.

to attract

magnet,

iron,because

we

iron is

the magnet, and not the magnet

iron. The
antecedent,or that

takes the lead in the

said to have

motion, is more

the power,

or

perly
pro-

is the efficient

168

COSTROVEESY.

CAI,VINISTIC

If then

cause.

of the term
relation of cause

allow of the

we

use

all,to express the

and effect,
congrowing out of a philosophical
at

power

stitution of

the
things,

the

antecedent,and

the

case

before

of the

cause

be

appliedto

the consequent. In
mental
action is not the

not

us,

to

motive, but

of the mental

should

term

action

is the

the motive

therefore

cause

should

we

say
motives have power to act upon the mind, and' the
has a susceptibility
of being acted upon.
mind

Dr. Reid
acted

we

has

of

is

upon

power"

observed, that

has well

"

or

power,

no

it is

be

powerless

which

absurd.
is philosophically

come

to

the conclusion

to

power

fore
There-

that the

mind

power of choice,but has a susceptibility

being drawn into a state called volition by
no

the power

It will avail

of motives.

as
nothing,
ference
difI conceive,to say that there is evidently
a
between
of the mind
the susceptibility
of matter
in
in this case, and the susceptibility

other cases,

it be shown

unless

is : for when

what

that difference is

it will doubtless be found to be what

to the
opposition

to

assume

which

motive

theory.

that difference

pointedout,
is in direct

It is the

fortune
mis-

of the Calvinistic system that itoften has

to keep itselfin countenance,
positions
themselves
positions

are

virtual abandonment

system. So the New-Haven

divines have done to support predestination,
and
of the

to

this all Calvinists

to

reconcile

are

free

driven

in

their attempts

will,or the power

of

choice, with their doctrine of motives,dependence,

"c*

170

CALVINISTIC

tinct argument

CONTROVERSY.

but I have connected

it with the

argument that this doctrine leads to materialism

because they imply each other.
If materialism
is true, we are not accountable,and if we are not
accountable, materialism is probablytrue ; and
true, as I conceive,if the
doctrine of motives is true.
both

Calvinistic

are

It may, however, be urged by the advocates

of this theory,
that the mind is not wholly passive,
because

we

conscious

are

of

pullingforth
responsiblevoli-

mental

energy and making a

tion ; that I am
sciousness
readyto grant, but then our conis a fallacy
if this system be true ; and
the contrary, if consciousness
be true, this
on
a

system is false.
attention

his

to

I believe
mind

own

this consciousness.

no

will doubt of
does

But

that

and another
volition,

pays

having

prove
thingto be

theory? It is one
havingthis energy of mind

truth of this
of

who

one

the
scious
con-

and

responsible
be conscious that

to

theory in questionis true ; indeed this conthe theory.

sciousness destroys
Should it be urged in opposition
to the alleged
ferent
tendency of this system to materialism,that difminds are not uniformly
influenced by the
the

minds at different
motives, nor the same
times,and therefore,in this respect, it is evident
same

that the

laws

reply,It
attracts
or

or

be

and

mind

of

with
so
precisely
to
repelsaccording

is

electrical

that mind
to

of

states

differs from

of
possessed

or

differ ; I

matter

matter

for that

its different magnetic

should it be

matter, and

shows

peculiar
energy,

urged
itself

because

CALVINISTIC

171

CONTROVERSY.

to review
suspendits decisions,
"c ; I answer,
this
to investigate,
subject,

it has
the

to

power

it cannot

do without

do if the

motive

otherwise.

but not

To

have

back

go

motive ; and this it must

in that direction,
preponderate
a

proper view of this

the

to

let us
subject
perception. Could the

first

mind, accordingto this doctrine, act

in coincidence

than

of this

with

until

and

second

motive

influence

could it even

perception
; or

volition this influence

the

otherwise

suspendthe
calculated to produce,
powerful motive was

was

more

If it could,then this doctrine is

if it could not, then the mind, like matter

introduced
false ;

put in motion, must

same
direction,and

thoughtfor

ever,

on

with

or

the

until

in the
invariably
of
same
velocity
motive

new

the influence of the former!

counteract

the
emphatically
the
Another

is,it leads

vis inertia

of which

bare statement

suasion

move

theory.
objectionto
to

seems

There

This is
The

of matter.
sufficientto

throw
over-

this doctrine of motives

the notion of

merely.

should

regeneration
by moral
has been

much

said of

late,by the various writers in the old and the

school are
new
school,on this point. The new
out
charged with holdingthat the truth alone,withagency of the Holy Spirit,
the sinner.
This is considered by the
converts
But why
old school Calvinists as a fatal error.
any

so

immediate

If motives govern

all you
bringa motive
sway,

need

to

the mind, with absolute

convert
a
sinner, is to

strong enough to induce him

to

172

CALVINISTIC

God

choose

CONTROVERSY.

his chief

as

good,and

do this there

Until you

is

verted.
con-

conversion.

no

Ghost

Holy

for the
It is impossible

is

he

to convert

than by motives, for

sinner in any other way
told is conversion ; there
choice of good we
are
is

without

choice

no

motive

motive, and the strongest

choice

therefore
absolutely
;
motive is the omnipotent
that changes the
power
sinner's heart.
This is the legitimate
result of
ihe Calvinistic premises. We
have more
than
governs

had

once

occasion

wonder

to

that Calvinists

should revolt at the result of their

here
we

another

have

we

have

enigma of

the

The

doctrines ;
instance of it ; here too

human

it has
is the

as

this

the natural power

this is the

natural

why

reason

"

of

unriddled.
ability"

the constitution of

mind, by

its nature, has the power

the influence of the
to
far
so
therefore,

"

own

choosingaccording

strongest motive
can

be called

you

and

power,
itself;and

to convert

make

heart"

new

burden

of almost every sermon

and exhortation
in modern
preaching; all the sinner

has to do is to
is converted.

choose,in view of motives,and he

And
here,too, is unravelled that

other mystery which we

viz. that
to understand,

have

been

all
although

puzzled

so

possess the

natural power to convert

themselves,yet no man
did convert
himself without the special
position
interever
of the Divine agency
keeps the motives in his own
the determiner
are

of

for,observe,God
hands

"

God

is

and perceptions
perceptions,

of choices ,""that is,of con.

for to choose in a particular
way, is

the determiners

versions ;

CALVINISTIC

173

CONTROVERSY.

converted.

he is
Whenever, therefore,
to let the sinner convert
himself,according
disposed
he isto his natural power ; that is,when
disposedto overpower the mind by an irresistible
motive, he bringsthe motive and mind in contact,
to

be

and
much

it is done.

power

Thus

to convert

when

he

the

himself

sinner

has

he has to

as

as
solve
re-

is

hungry ; for all the

is a susceptibility
he has to do either,
of
power
being operatedupon, and controlled by the
to

eat

strongest motive
God

converts

; and

thus

you
the sinner,
because

see,

he

also,that

the
supplies

motive that influences the choice ; and

is seen
the occasion for misquoting
so

here, too,

frequently

and

that passage in the

so universally,
misapplying
Psalms :
[My] peopleshall be [made]willing
in the day of [my] power." That is,
when God applies
the controlling
motive to influence to a right
choice, then shall the sinner,by a law of his nature,
become willing
to be converted.
Such are
the wonderful
discoveries of modem
philosophical
This is the way for man
!
to
tl"eology
convert
himself
by natural power, and this is the
"

way

for God

to convert

him, without

the aid of

Well

might a divine of
I heard preach not long since,,
this cast, whom
"There is nothing
say of regeneration,
ral
supernatumiraculous
in it." For surely it is one
or
of the most
natural thingsin the world, according
It is onlyto
to this theory,
to be converted.
be operatedupon by a motive, according
to the

super-natural
power

law

of his natural

converted.

and
constitution,

the

man

is

174

CALVIMSTIC

This

CONTKOVERSY.

"philosophy
of Christian experiencehas

orthodoxy to the very borders of

natural religion.Another
step,and we can do
without a Holy Ghost or a Divine Saviour. We
with the philosopher
will set down
in his study,
and work out a religious
as
experience,
phically
philososolve a question
as a skilful casuist can
led modern

of morals

will show

we

rationale of the

the

it so
clearly,
process, and demonstrate
that infidelsshall lose all their objections
to the

whole

Gospel,and be induced to svbmit" to God with

let no man
a changeof theory. Hereafter
scarcely
is a mystery
say, that the work of regeneration
"

"

that in this work

cannot

we

tellwhence

the erating
regenitgoes ; for it

infiuence comes,
or whither
channel
throughthe philosophical

comes

influence

by

which

it introduces

purpose"into the mind, and

the work

"

of

tive
mo-

ing
govern-

isdone.

hereafter say that his " faith stands

of man,
but in the power
in the wisdom
of
not
be wise let him
God ;" or " if any man
would

Let

man

no

become

fool that he

wisdom

of

man

the

be wise ;" or " the

may
is foolishness with God ;" for lo,

is at lengthexplained
philosophyof regeneration
! and

in the
and

the whole

is found

secret

relation
philosophical
mind

!!

Can

any

one

to

between

sist
contives
mo-

wonder, after

this,that in Geneva, in Germany, and in New-

England,Calvinism
nianism
a

us

And

can

of
largeportion
at

has

any

resulted in Socifinally
one
helptremblingfor

the orthodox

the present day?

increase of zeal,a

Grant

Churches

among
that there is an

greater stir among

the peo-

CALVINISTIC

175

CONTROVERSY.

"c ; all these,with a good

revivals,
pie,more
would promisewell for the Church ;
foundation,
fear there is a worm
at the root.
but we
By
intended

this it is not

insinuate that the work

to

conversions
professed
unsound.
In many
instances it is undoubtedly
of this. It mightbe expectedafter
the reverse
the peoplehad been lulled for a longtime under
the paralyzing
ism,
opiatesof old-fashioned Calvinthat this new
and apparently
theoopposite
is alwaysspurious
and the

ry should

rouse

said
taught,"

waited

"

I had

been

this,"that I
be converted, and I

far from

not

man

God's

wait

must

action.

to

many
time

to

been

I
recently
years in vain ; but more
instructed that I might convert
self;
my-

about

have

many
set

done !"

the

work,

I believe it is

and

Now

ders
this,which in the relation bormighthave been a geupon the ludicrous,
nuine
conversion.
been

have

His

sufficientto

with the

him

arouse

in
Holy Spirit

this may have been the case

their practical
effects two
in individual

cases,

views

new

to

might only
a

tion
co-opera-

his conversion

errors
opposite

But is either therefore safe 1

each

may,
other.
"

Will the

Let

Church

view of that record I

our

common

the

general
historyof the

effect be

I fear for

Zion.

But

the old Calvinists lay this blame, and

dangerupon
doctrine is
which
and

they have

care.

fess
con-

let not

chargethis

school ; the new

school
scion from that root
legitimate

the
a

In

with thousands.

neutralize

1
salutary
speak ; and in

and

new

cultivated with

It grows

out

such

assiduity

of the doctrine of

mo-

176

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

from the idea of the entire dependenc

tives,it springs
of the human

mind

for each

and all its

influence of Omnidirecting
be the theoryby which
potence, whatever
may
that influence is explained.
Another
to this doc!
argument in opposition

volitions upon

the

in the

trine is found

liable
constantly

that
consideration,

we

are

in most
of
disappointment
calculations respectinghuman
our
agents."
Though we may judge somethingof what will
in givencircumstances,
be the conduct of men
yet
calculations are very far from coming up to
our
mechanical

to

Motives

exactness.

have

some

influence,but that influence is very variable and

uncertain.

ter; the

Why

is this ?
will

causes

same

effects to the end

It is not

of time.

so

in mat-

produce the
But

we

same

see

many
beingable to givewhat, in their

choose, without
own
estimation,is

they chose

because

valid
to

do

they did
so'; they act in

reason

thus

ance
defi-

ever
of the strongestmotives,drawn from whatthe
We
source.
see
greatest possible

capricein the volitions of men ; we see their

the greatest
minds starting
on
aside,and putting
mental states, in a
possibleand unaccountable
way
and

and form that baffles all human

will for

ever

all his lifein

and

so

tryingto

of human

phenomena
fix,in an
them, and

bailie it.

spend
reduce to uniformity
the
and therebyto!
volitions,
A

unerringcode, the
he may
on

hand

to the end

calculation,

man

laws

his labours

may

that
to his

govern
sor,
succes-

that
of time,and after all,

essence
living,
spontaneous, thought-producing

178

in those

as

CONTROVERST.

CALVINISTIC

the

is not

muscle

motion of the

the

where

now,

cases

spasmodic

result of the

will.
volves
again,that to deny this control inthat our volitions are exerted
the absurdity
and
the
without any intelligent
are
reasons,

It is said

result of

"

brute

however, that

to me,

appears

senseless mechanism."

or

It

system which

governedby
representsthe will as mechanically
motives, as weightsturn the scale beam, makes
man

machine

while

the

theory that gives

spontaneous power and energy of its

makes
him what he is,an intelligent,
sponsible
reown,
agent.
Since,then,these negative
arguments in favour
of the theorythat motives control the mind, are

the mind

assertions and

proofs; and since the theory

itselfleads to fate,
to atheism,to materialism,
to
moral suasion,to the sub.
conversion by mere
not

version of human
must

we

believe

theory of

the

mind,

and moral responsibility,

liberty
the theory false. But against

the

spontaneous power

of these

none

lie.
objections

with consciousness

too

which

and

of

the

It accords

the only
is,in fact,

of a moral
responsibility
be predicated.The opposite
view
agent can
and appaclaims our assent to two
incongruous
rently
between
which
contradictory
propositions,
there is not only no agreement, but an
evident

theoryon

This

repugnancy.
one

case,

If there
and

what

the

and
are

is the embarrassment

in the

it is fatal to the

theory.

embarrassments

in the other case,

theory of mind

or

matter

has not

\X%

CALVINISTIC

these
?
inexplicables

embarrassments

"

of another

lightto

the

agree,

kind ; it is not

how

see

179

CONTROVERSY.

are

dently
evi-

the want

of

can
principles
antagonist

two

of

repugnancy

which

be

must

the

lightincreases,but it is from
limits to human
the known
knowledge. The
embarrassment
fend
deto the theorywe
principal
apparent

more

is, we

as

which

this

this is

no

of
faculty

To

the

the mind

difficultthan

more

in which

manner

understand

cannot

in

manner

operates. But
understand

to

the

other faculties of the mind

operate.
clear,the

this last statement

make

reader

is desired to recollect that the mind is not

divided

into parts and members

like the body.
of the mind, we
talk of the faculties
we

When

should understand

the power

that the entire mind

Thus we say, the

has to act in this or that way.
mind
has the faculties of will and of memory,
that is,the mind, as a whole, has the powers
of

choosing,and

if any

Now
mind
and

I have

the

me

it may
wills because
When

you

will tell

the will to

this is its nature

if you

you

trace

because

you

cannot

indeed

you

must

he

will.

come

to

the

what

has to
In both

made

God

"

and
it

so.

original

effects until

back

firstprinciples,
you

will not

him

as

the

it wills ;

remembers

said,the mind

when

to

come

be

how

me

ask

remember,

to

sions.
past impres-

how

right to

analyzeuntil you

elements,or
And

one

same

the memory
what causes

cases

you

its

calling
up

remembers, I will tell him

causes

ask

of

must

stop.
"

receive these firstprinciples

explainthem
turn

universal

farther,then

skeptic.I

180

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

franklyacknowledge1
in its volitions.

acts

that the motive

Can

its advocates

the mind ?

And

let it be

theory,with

has this

in

one

tell

tell how

cannot

understood

all its other embarrassments,

with

common

how

me

the mind

motives

ours.

"

act

upon
analysisof

True

philosophyis an
constituent principles,
of causes
and effects,
or
but the originof these relations and combinations
is resolvable onlyinto the will of the Creator.
hath made
It is so, because God
it so.
the nature
of these relations is beyond the

And
reach
we

of the human
be at these

may

beyond which
in the
I

mind.

impatient

restrictions,
they are

cannot

we

However

go ; and

onlyduty

our

is,submission.
however, that what
aware,

limits

case

am

I have

now

said may, without farther explanation,

especially
when
with a principle
taken in connection
of
be considered
philosophy
alreadyrecognized,
an
importantconcession to my opponents.
have

as

before

stated,in substance,that in the material

world there is,strictly
speaking,no such

of the laws
power ; that the efficiency
of nature is,in fact,
the Divine energy operating

thingas
in

uniform

"

way.

Calvinist

Let

it be

granted,"a

might say, that what we call the

the
is universally
operationof second causes
Intelligence
operatingin a uniform
supreme
way,
Then

"

and it is all
it will be

the human
more

mind
than

in
operating

we

ask to defend

our

that in each
granted,
the operation
of the
the energy

uniform

system.

volition of
will is

thing
no-

of the Divine mind

way."

this I

To

181

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

Though matter, on
reply,

account

of

be said to
in any proper sense
is not true of mind.
have power, yet the same
Mind
If any one thinks it is,then the supreme
its inertia,
cannot

In other

itselfhas not
and

matter

power.
mind are

inert,and

words, as
cannot

act

both

only

upon, there is no such thingas power

in the universe ! and thus we
again land in
But if mind has power, as all theists
atheism.
as

acted

grant, then

must

the

human

mind

may
that it is

have

If any one
can
sible,
imposprove
of things,
for the Supreme
in the nature
Being to create and sustain subordinate agents,

power.

spontaneous power of thoughtand moral

must
action,to a limited extent, in that case we

with

giveup

our

theory.

But

it is

presumedno

one

attempt to prove it.

has created such agents,and that
We
say, God
led
uncontrolvolitions,
theyact, in their responsible
can

prove

this,or will

even

or
by second
Creator,either directly
We
are
causes.
expresslytold,indeed, that
in his own
God made man
image ;" his moral
dinate
image doubtless. Man, then,in his own suborsphere,has the power of originating
the power of spontaneous moral action :
thought,
this only,is the groundof his responsibility
this,
out
Will it be said that this puts man
entirely

by

the

"

I answer,
By
It only puts him out of the control
no
means.
of such direct influences as would destroyhis
moral liberty.Does the power of moral action,
stroy
and the laws, deof the magistracy
independent
of the control of his Creator ?

all the control of the civil

government

182

CONTROVERSY.

CALVLXISTIC

over

malefactors

case

God

How

much

less in the other

prevent all the mischief

can

that

might attempt, without throwing

his responsible volitions.
It
any restraint upon
makes
the wrath
of man
is thus that he
praise
vicious

agent

"

him, and

of wrath

he

understood, then, from

it be

Let

remainder

the

restrains."
this time

ward,
for-

it has been
understood
by all,as indeed
heretofore
examined
by those who have carefully
the Calvinists
talk about
the subject,that when
human
free will," and
liberty,"they mean
what
we
something essentially differentfrom
it is believed,
mean
by these terms
; and, as
something essentiallydifferent from the popular
man
They believe in humeaning of these terms.
of choice,
they say, and the power
liberty,
"

"

and

we

also

bound

by

bound

are

not

moral

agent

is

Ours

spontaneous
to

choose

far

Thus

power

as

of

is

will

to

in

grace,

I have

all

choosing good
by sin,

the

other, is

attention in my

next.

are

be deceived

to

of

power

does, and

not

wise.
other-

liberty,and a
responsible volitions,

examined

affected
on

we

otherwise.

or

originalconstitution.
been

he

but

unrestricted

an

do,

libertyand

as

power
we

them

suffer ourselves

to

Theirs

terms.

believe

to

or

How
on
a

mind

the

in

its

evil,according to its
far this
the

one

hand,

questionthat

has

power
or

by

will claim

X.

NUMBER
AGENCY

MORAL

AFFECTED

My

last number
created

man

BY

PROVISIONS

SUBSEQUENT

THE

God

AS

183

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

was

with

an
a

THE
OF

FALL,

AND

GRACE*

attempt to prove that

spontaneous power of

the onlyground
action ; and that this was
It is now
of his moral responsibility.
proposed

moral

to

by

far this power has been affected

of
the fail,and the subsequent provisions

inquirehow
The

grace.
on

these

doctrine of the Methodist

pointsis

very

8th articles of

7th and

Church

by the
clearly
expressed
in her book of
religion

Discipline.
sin standeth not in the following
1.
Original
but it is
of Adam, (asthe Pelagians
vainlytalk,)
of the nature
of every man
that
the corruption
of the offspring
of Adam,
is engendered
naturally
is very far gone from original
whereby man
inclined to
and of his own
nature
righteousness,
evil,and that continually."
M

2.

Adam

"

The

condition of

man

is such, that he cannot

himself,by his

own

natural

after the fall of

turn

and

prepare

and works, to
strength

have
calling
upon God : wherefore we
and acceptno
able
power to do good works pleasant
to God, without the grace of God
by Christ
that we
before to assist us,)
preventing
us, (going
have a good will,
and workingwith us when
may
have that good will."
we
It is not pretendedhere that any intellectual
faculties are lost by sin,or restored by grace ;

faith and

184

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

but that the faculties that

have
as

essential to mind

are

darkened, debilitated,
so
corrupted,
render man
utterly
incapableof a right
without
prevenientand co-operating

become

to

choice

muscular

As

grace.

limb,or

or

nervous

of the mind

weakened

or

an

inward

or

moral

the

destroyed by physicaldisease,so
power

be weakened

external sense, may

an

in

power

may be
disease.
And
sense

by moral
destroyed
it is in perfect
with analogy,
with
accordance
universal language,
and with the representations
of Scripture,
to consider the mind
as
ble,
susceptior

in its essential nature, of

should say he cannot

derstand
undefect is,I would
this moral

If any
what

one

if he

by askinghim

answer

of mind

essence

to

rioration
dete-

this moral

And

is1

this kind of

can

tell

me

what

if he chooses

because
depravity,

he

to

the
ject
ob-

cannot

understand

terialist
it,in its essence, he should turn maat once
; and then,as he will find equal
of matter
to tell what the essence
is,
difficulty

and

in what

and disorder

its weakness

he
consist,

must

universal

turn

tially
essen-

skeptic.
"

The

is,the soul has become

simple statement
disordered by sin ; and as no one can
essentially
or
trary
conprove the assertion to be unphilosophical
I think it may
be shown
to experience,
so
from Scripture
that this is the real state of fallen
human

And

nature.

this disorder is such

There

is

it may
as

sense,

untarypreference
may
free agency.

But

also be shown

that

free cy.
agenindeed,in which all vol.
to

be

mar

man's

considered

implying
does
voluntary
preference
as

186

CALVINISTIC

Has
a

fallen man,

rightchoice,or

on

CONTROVERSY.

livewhole,the power to make

has he not ?
We
say without

And therefore fallen man

is
grace he has not.
of that term, a free
sense
not, in the responsible

agent without grace.

This

of the

view

is not novel in the

subject
I readily
Church.
acknowledgethat a doctrine
is not therefore true, because it has been held by
and can
be traced back to antiquity,
tin*
many,
less it can
be proved to be Scriptural.The
fact,however, that a doctrine has been generally
received
to

in the

Church, entitles it to respectand

careful examination,before it is discarded.

Hence

to

ancient

but
fathers,

those

have

who

only read modern

Calvinistic authors on this subject,
it may
be a
of surprise
matter
to learn that not only the more
himself,the
introducer of predestination
into the Church,
and
all
Calvin,and the synod of Dort, were
the same
supporters of sentiments substantially
as

are

here

St. Austin

even

vindicated

I say, those who

have
Calvinistic authors will be
"

only read modern

these authors
to learn
this,because
surprised
treat this doctrine as
so
sonable
unreathough it were
and absurd as scarcelyto be tolerated in
the view of common
sense.
Though itmay have
of better
influence with some,
in a paucity
an
by
reasons, to scout a doctrine from the Church
it absurd, yet the candid will not readily
calling
giveup an old doctrine for a new, without good
reason.

I had

from

some

at

firstthoughtof

of

quotingpretty freely
from the
and especially
the fathers,

earlyCalvinists,to
point. But it may
therefore

one

or

two

their views

show
not

made

here

statements

187

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

on

unless the

be necessary,

should be denied.

from
quotations

this

Calvin

Let
and

synod of Dort, both of which I think

Calvinists will acknowledgeas good Calvinistic
suffice. Calvin denies all power to
authority,
in his apostasy,to choose good,and says
man,
that, beingsurrounded on every side with the
he (man) should nevermiserable necessity,
theless
most
be instructed to aspireto the good of
and to the liberty
which he is destitute,
of which
he is deprived." The
synod of Dort. decided
from

the

"

thus

"

"

We

believe

that God

formed

"

man

image,"c, capable in all things

to will agreeablyto the will of God."
They
all
We
and say,
then speak of the fall,
reject
that is repugnant to this concerningthe free will
after his

own

"

of man,

since

is but

man

slave

to

sin,and has

nothingof himself,unless it is given him from

heaven."
And
speaking of the change by
is not
grace, they add, The will thus renewed
sequence
onlyactuated and influenced by God, but in conactive."
becomes itself
of this influence
"

And

to

show

that Calvin

did not

consider

the

proof of
free will,he says,
Man
has not an equally
free
election of good and evil,and can
onlybe said to
have free will,
because he does evil voluntarily,
and not by constraint ;" and this he ironically
be not
calls
indeed ! if man
egregiousliberty
compelledto serve sin,but yet is such a willing
slave that his will is held in bondageby the fetacts
voluntary

of

depravedsinner

"

"

as

188

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

I think,show
quotations,
that the earlyCalvinists believed
satisfactorily
lost his power to choose good by
man
to have
It is
apostasy,and can only regainit by grace.
believed that whenever
this
true, they generally
impartedto an extent to restore to the
grace was
mind the power of choosing
good,it was regenerating
And herein they differ from the
grace.
ters

of

sin."

These

Arminians, who

believe that grace may and does

the power
to choose good before regeneration.

restore

This, however, does not affect the

under
examination, but involves a

point now

collateral question,
which

will be examined

in its

and I pass to
proper place. One thoughtmore,
the arguments on the main questions
in the articles
These

quoted above.
from

the

Church

9th and

of
the

England.
same

of

10th

as

Our

articles

taken

are

the articles of
8th is indeed

the

tically
iden-

the 10th of the Church

of

England; and the latter part of that article,

stantiall
commencing, Wherefore, "c," is taken sub"

from

St. Austin

for the Calvinistic

defend.

To

of
authority

which, if it

from
might add quotations

decided
fathers.

himself.

Calvinist,and

Nay,

Thus

much

the doctrine

we

necessary,

we

were

Beza, Dr. Owen,

many

of

the Remonstrants

the

ancient

declared, in

the presence of the synod of Dort, that this

"
the judgmentof all antiquity."
Let

us

now

notice

some

was

arguments in favour

of this doctrine.
1.

The

doctrine above

must
defended,

be true, as

stated,and

now

to

since
is believed,

be

only

CALVINISTIC

189

CONTROVERSY.

of man's condition will accord

this view

of

account
Scripture

teach
that
his moral

that

man

with the

depravity.If the Scriptures

is constitutionally
ved,
depra-

and a torpor have come

blight
nature, comparableto sleep,to

and to

death, how

it be otherwise

can

over

ease,
disthan

that this should affect his power

to choose good ?
Had man
moral power in the first
any too much
instance to constitute him an accountable moral

agent ?

And

that his mind

if he had not, has he enough now

has become
darkened,his judgment

and
perverted,
weakened

sin ?
any

spend

decide,if he
be
not

his nature

If not, how
one

powers

corruptedand

Or will it be denied that the moral

energiesof

his moral

can,

have

has he

been

affected ?

been

thoughton

impairedby

this

Let

and
question,

definite vicious effect can

what

producedon man's moral nature which will

barrassment
necessarily
imply a weakeningand an emof his original
to a right
power

choice.
somewhat

Should

it be

weakened,

constitute him

said that his power

is
but he has enough left to

free to

choose

good,this

would

than
imply that before the loss he had more
enough ! Besides,such an idea would rest on
that man's moral nature
the principle
not
was
wholly vitiated. It is said,I know, that all the
has to a right
choice
embarrassment
which man
is a disinclinationto moral good. But if this
disinclination to good be derived and constitutional,
it exists in the mind previousto any act
of choice,and is therefore the very thingwe
mean

"

it is this very

thraldom

of

the mind

190

CALVIXISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

it to
utterly
incapacitates

which

If it be asked

choose

disinclination

whether

can

good.
ever

be

destroythe freedom of the will

direction ?
I answer,
in one
to act
particular
Yes ; and if that disinclination
most
unhesitatingly,
so

strong as

to

sult
derived,and not the reof an antecedent choice,the possessor is not
unless
to act in opposition
to it,
morally obligated
he receive foreign
aid to help his infirmities,
and

is either created

to

him
strengthen

It follows

give up
notion

Divine

or

for

contrary choice.

then,I think,that

we

must

either

discard the
or
depravity,
make
a
rightchoice without

constitutional

that

we

aid.

shall find the

can

And

here, if I mistake

not, we
modern

precisepointon which
vinity
Diinto the New
Calvinism
has verged over
theoryof depravity.Perceivingthat to
of man's moral constitution
acknowledge any depravity
would either implythe necessity
of supernatural
aid in order to a right
choice, or else
from responsibility,
Dr. Taylor and
free man
his associates have
resolved all depravity
into
choice or voluntarypreference.
They deny that
of man,
there is any thingin the nature
dently
antecethat possesses a
of willing,
to his act
moral character.
Their idea is perfectly
sistent
conwith the notion of natural ability
; and
have emthat the advocates of the New
braced
Divinity
this idea is evidently
a proof that they
think closely
and are seekingafter consistency,
let it lead them where it will. The
der
only wonral
is,that all who cleave to the dogma of natudo not follow them.
The doctrine of
ability

CALVINISTIC

191

CONTROVERSY.

if it is any thingmore
than a
ability,
to be a part of the old
name,
appears evidently
be separated
Pelagiansystem, and should never

natural

the doctrine of self

its counterpart

from

"

and the natural

character.
is

there

But

serious

no

viciousness of the
another

of the human
perfectability
this clearly
impliesthat
derangement or radical

moral

Here, then, is

man.

Calvinists in ral
genethe legitimate
results of their own
in which

instance

revolt at

version
con-

system.
But

while

the New

advocates have
Divinity
important objectionto

removed
an
fearlessly
their doctrine,
they have, by this very act, as it
is believed,however littlethey may have designed
it,set themselves in fearful array againstthe
doctrine of depravity
and salvation by
Scripture
troduct
grace, and have opened a wide door for the inof numerous
and dangerousheresies.
It is true, they will not own
that they have gone
They think the
very far from the old system.
doctrine of natural depravity
is asserted when
Man's
is such that he will
nature
they say,
circumstances
sin,and only sin,in all the appropriate
of his being."(See Dr. Taylor'sSermon.)
"

But
loss

determine

to

that

is

us

how

he

only sin,when

power

as

of
predicated

T. told

and

this "nature"

what

to

avoid

it ;

also what
this nature

knows

are

who become

regenerate.

"

nor
men

such" is
Dr.

has

will sin

natural

other than

of their

at

are

they have

in what

circumstances
appropriate

the

that all

in fact
or

is,we

"

the

being"those

In fact,while this

192

CALVINISTIC

theoryclaims

CONTROVERSY.

orthodox, and thus

to be

itself with

to

milate
assi-

the old

theory,it has only

for a half score.
inconsistency

exchangedone

Its advocates,to be consistent,

must

come

out

and then meet

the
plainand open Pelagians,
doctrine of depravity
and salvation by
Scripture
grace as they can, or they must go back to their
old ground,and endure
the manifest inconsistency
to avoid ; or,
they are now
endeavouring
what
to

to

seems

better than either,come

on
ground,which shuns all these

me

the Arminian

while
difficulties,

it maintains constitutional depravity

and salvation

tion
by grace from the foundaof course
to the top stone, including
a gracious
life and gainheaven.
to choose
ability
sity
argument in favour of the necesof Divine grace, in order to a right
choice,
is the fact,that God
actuallygives grace to

2.

Another

those who
are

well as to those who

as
finally
perish,
saved. Of this fact the Scriptures
afford decisive
sus
Jeproof. They speak in generalterms.
that lighteth
Christ
is the true light
every
"

man

into the world."

that cometh

The

grace

bringethsalvation hath appeared

of
unto all men."
terms
They speak in special
the unregenerate
and
that theygrieve,
resist,
quench the Spiritof grace, which certainly
they
could not do if they had it not.
But if theyhave
of the Spirit,
the operations
what are these operations
?
What
is the Spirit
doingto the inner
man?
Will it be said he is bringing
motives
of

God

"

that

"

to

bear

upon

other than

the

mind

But

those found in the

what

Gospel?

motives

These

194

for
not

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

theyare able to
giveit to make

does

be saved without it; he does

for this it
salvation certain,

effect ; nevertheless

not

he

givesthem

grace, the invariable effect of which

crease
in-

The

their condemnation.
inference therefore

is to

is,that he

onlyconsistent
givesgrace to the

reprobatesthat they may have a more

ted
aggravacondemnation.
the
trace
Here, then, we
of these logical
Calvinistic theoryto one
consequences

charged upon
which

has

reviewers

"

so

nevertheless
must
is,,
unless its advocates
still,
is

given to

necessary

and

sermon,

strenuouslydenied by the
as
which, revolting
consequence

been
a

it in the

the

be
can

charged upon

it

show

reprobateswhen
to repent and
ability

why grace
they have all
believe

out
with-

it.

groundof this doctrine,also,there

would be some
in accountingfor the
difficulty
of givinggrace, in all cases, even
to
necessity
of these repent
the elect.
Why may not some
without grace ?
of the
Nay, why may not some
in the plenitude
of their natural ability,
reprobates,
repent and be converted,in despiteof the
decree of reprobation
? Did God
foresee that
they would not, and on that foresight
predicate
his decree of reprobation
?
But that would be a
conditional reprobation,
and would
therefore
imply its counterpart a conditional election*
3. On

the

"

This

no

class of

Calvinists will admit.

happens it,then, that

do

not

natural

of these

How

reprobates
get converted,since they not only have
enough to make a rightchoice,.
powers
some

CALVINISTIC

but

have

God

some

beside?

grace

has fixed the barrier in

this

ability,
grace,

nugatory ?

But this would

which

195

CONTROVERSY.

Is

it because

somethingelse,by

and

all

render

rendered

are

their condemnation

Calvinists themselves beingjudges.

unjust,
demnation
They tell us that the only justground of conto
is,that the sinner will not come
Here, then,is the most extraordinary

Christ.

thingthat angelsor

men

knew

ever

for almost

six thousand
a

years there has been upon our earth

succession
of generations
of sinners,
and in

the present

hundred
their

millions.

and

measure

and

will make

ever

not

no

other

"

all has

one

such

omnipotentact,
the day of his power
an

eight
these,throughoutall
are

obstruction

makes
! !"

made

ever

of the elect

ever

choice

God, by

until

his elect
This

is

did

in
willing

miracle

all the other miracles in the world

which

willy.

own

by nature all needful

rightchoice,and have
and yet not
superadded,

of grace
them
reprobateamong
a

there

exists in their

what

the will to

rightchoice
or

but

had

them

and all have had

each

in
ability
had

All of

have
generations,

salvation

to

of
generation

are

to
as

nothing a miracle which Omnipotence alone

can
accomplishby a Divine constitution and an
Thus this doctrine destroys
all-controlling
energy.
itself. It assumes
with respect
positions,
that cannot
be maintained,only on
to free will,
the supposition
of an efficient
superior
agency to
direct the action of that freewill,in a course
of
"

sinful

in hundreds
volition,

without

of millions of cases,
where that variasave
variation,
single

196

tion is the

actingin

Power
superior

same

direction.
opposite

the

the

receives

sinner

aid

by

could not

to

of the ground
Scriptural
representation
responsibility.If I had not come,"

the

of man's

"

"
says the Saviour, ye had not had sin."
is the condemnation, that lighthas come

the

Divine

repent ; and that he

repent, without this,appears evident
him

enable

to

grace

the

result of

That

4.

from

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

world, and

loved darkness

men

"

This
into

rather

than

light." He that believeth not is condemned

already,because he hath not believed in the
I have
Because
only begottenSon of God."
"

"

called,and

have

ye

refused,"c, I also will

calamity." These and many

other passages
to imply that the sinner is
seem
the ground of his neglecting
offered
on
rejected
But if this is the ground of his congrace.
laugh

at

your

demnation, it is
I

not

for the abuse

of natural

for a plausible
attempt
way
to
even
get rid of this argument, unless it
should be attemptedto raise a questionrespecting
power.

see

the nature
that

no

of this grace.

these

It may
relate to

be

said

only
gracious
passages
such as the atonement, the Scriptures
provisions,
of truth,"c, and have no reference whatever to
"

The mind
graciousinfluence upon the mind.
had sufficient strengthto believe,repent, "c,
be presented
but something must
to believe in ;
and some
be made
to make
provisionmust
In reply I would say,
repentance available."
a

First, Even
have

been

this shows

saved

from

that

man

sin without

could

not

grace, and

GALVIXISTIC

197

CONTROVERSY.

this ground this theory would

be
hence
on
which it attempts
involved in the very difficulty
throw

to

view

our

upon

grace is necessary
none

can

make

to

guiltyin

be

of the
men

their

where

case

viz.,that
subject,
because
guilty,
course

is unavoidable.

this for another

But, leaving
in replyto the above,
I would say farther,
place,
do not represent this grace
that the Scriptures

confined

as

external

to

but on
provisions,
as
operatingupon

speak of it
the mind, and that,too,
influencing
contrary

for which

way

and

in the very
Look
at a few

contend.

we

the

selected,
expressions,
promiscuously
Scriptural
and see
how
clearlythey sustain our position.
In the first place,to give the argument full
of
force, let us notice the Scriptureaccount

darkness,"
asleep," dead," without strength,"sick,"
deaf,""blind," lame," bound," helpless;"
of sin. Indeed,this
and all this in consequence

man's

natural condition.
"

"

He

"

in

"

"

"

"

"

"

definition of his sinful character

is the very

If such

condition.

of
inability
language can

utter
no

is

languagedoes

the sinner to
do

it.

Its very

grace does.

Now

designis

not

let us
to

describe

God,

serve

"

and
then
what

see

awake

the

sleeper;" to unstop deaf ears, and "open blind

;"to strengthen
lighten
every man
eyes ;" to
with might by the Spiritin the inner man."
the sinner,that he may
Christ strengthens"
"

"

"
"

do all things."It is

worketh
exhorted

and

in him
to

"

the

on

will and

to

work

out

trembling."

"

groundthat
to

do," that

"

man

God
is

his salvation with fear

Thou

me
strengthenedst

198

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

in my soul."
strength
of this kind, let
quotations

with

which

But

leavingfarther

the

reader

fix his

the

Scriptures
lay
of the Spirit.All the efficacy
upon the striving
of the word is ascribed to the Spirit
; and hence
the apostledeclares that he
preached the
Gospel,with the Holy Ghost sent down from
in word, but in
not
heaven ;" that it
came,
the letter (of the word)
"power." Indeed,
killeth,but the Spirit
givethlife." Hence the
quench
grieve"or
frequentcautions not to
the Spirit."Now
what, I ask, can all these
Is there any plausibility
in
?
mean
scriptures
the idea, that by such expressionsnothingis
of grace in the
but the generalprovisions
meant
Gospel economy? That no direct, gracious
influence of the Spirit
upon the heart is intended ?
idea of conversion by motives
In fact,the new
attention

on

the stress

"

"

"

"

"

and

moral

suasion

seems

this very difficulty.

The
the advocates of the New

to

be

device to meet

old Calvinists

charge
holding

with
Divinity
that all the Spiritdoes in operatingupon
the
it directly,
but
heart,is not by operating
upon
through the truth : which has given
indirectly
rise to the saying, If I were
as
eloquentas
the Holy Ghost, I could convert
souls as well as
And if they do hold this,
he."
it is no wonder,
for indeed it is the legitimate
of
consequence
the doctrine of natural ability.They doubtless
arrive at itthus :
Accordingto the Scriptures,
man's responsibility
his rejecting
turns
or
on
That grace cannot
the grace of God.
improving
be an
internal gracious influence upon man's
"

"

CALVINISTIC

moral

nature, because

notion

the

199

CONTROVERSY.

that would

conflict with

of

the groundof
on
responsibility,
These scriptures
natural power.
therefore can
than that a gracious
ment
atonemean
nothingmore
is provided,and
record of Divine
a
truth

made, and

now,

the sinner

power,

this

is

in the

use

of his natural

requiredto judge of

and

if he does, he in this
sense
improves the grace of God, and is converted ; but if he does it not, he grievesthe
embrace

and
Spirit,
case,

truth,which

is condemned.

if he is

natural

Thus

converted, it is in the

power,
and
in

;"
converted,it is

"

choosing in
the

in the

other
use

to

system

to

not

its

And

of his
of

tives
mo-

is not

Is not this correct

the

New-Haven

for

carryingout the
results?
And
legitimate
ought

all to follow them

?
ability

if he

one

of his natural power,

commended

be

use

the view

case,

in view of motives.
refusing
?
And
reasoning
ought not
divines

in the

yet

no

in this,
who hold to natural
that they hesitate
wonder

indeed must be that

here, for cold and spiritless
experiencethat resolves the
system of religious
conversion
of
moral

of the soul into

mere

choosing,through the

natural ration
opeinfluence of

suasion.

Leaving
under

this system, therefore,to

labour

its fatal

embarrassments, it may be seen,

I think,that the system here vindicated corresponds
with the

itself;for it
upon
makes

grace
that

and
Scriptures
makes

man's

is consistent with

turn
responsibility
improved or misimproved,and it
influgrace an internal quickening

200

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

and

ence,

strengthening
energy

and these

different features of the

all seem
placedtogether,
with

each

at once

doctrine here
I need

of

Scriptureteach

not

repeat the passages

now

already
depraved

show, if any

show
it,that
language can
"'without strength."But
my

and

of the

the state

heart is described,
and which

and

the

maintained.

referred to, in which

the

theory,when
to be compatible

other.

Express passages

5.

the heart ;

upon

human

is

naturall)'
objectis to call

man

very direct
that it is grace,
express passages, to show
grace alone,that enables the soul to do the

attention of the reader

will of God.

to

some

saith the
things,"
apostle, throughChrist who strengthenedme."
Query : would not the apostlehave thought it
presumption to have said,I can do all tilings
without strengthfrom
he ever
Has
Christ ?
intimated such
?
sentiment in all his writings
a
"

can

do

all

"

Does

he not

rather say, " We

are
of ourselves to think any thingas
but

not

of ourselves,

is of God ?'
sufficiency
apostle's
general language,and it
our

accordance
"

Without

branch

with
me

cannot

abide

in

the

abide

in

me."

This
is in

of his

the declaration

is the

perfect
Master,

do nothing." " As the

ye can
bear fruit of itself,
except it

vine, no

more

No

man

"

ye, except ye

can

come

can

except the father

draw

Spirit
helpethour

infirmities ; for

what

sufficient

him."

to

Likewise

"

we

know

me,

the
not

ought." My grace is
pray for as we
sufficient for thee ; for my
strengthis made
to

"

202

CALVIKISTIC

from
he

pleadshis
what

weakness

does he

for

ask

aid ?

No

the inner
natural

he

"

hy

mean

external

some

he wants
And

man.

or
ability

his prayers

not.

also of these

very
powerfulis this

"

for strength.

asks

Does

that prayer ?
accommodation

and

by
strength,

the

this is the

prayer of all
this notion of

they advocate

Christians,whether

so

Hear

God, throughgrace.

And
he

COTs'TllOVERSY.

Spirit,in

The

sayingsand writings
advocates of natural ability,
feelingof dependence,are

perfectcoincidence, with the doctrine

defend.
A
most
we
strikinginstance of this
is found in Dr. Wood's
pamphlet (page 97)
"The
in opposition
to Dr. Taylor,as follows:
common
theory(ofCalvinistic orthodoxy)leads
of ourselves,espeto entertain low thoughts
us
cially
often in

"

in
not

view ; and

moral

of ourselves

ent

on

or

may

Divine

of ourselves

is this the

we

now

dependgracious

Calvinism

divided
induced

here,

think,were

on
generally,

this

in

as

other

Indeed

againstitself.
to

vinism
Cal-

theory of

common

context, either that Dr. Wood

brothers

holiness

hereafter attain,we are

grace." What stronger

Then

points,is
be

whatever

hold to, than this ? " Not

sufficient for any thingspiritually

And

?
would

are

Arminians

do
ability

good."

we

sufficient
forany thingspiritually

good,and that,for
possess,

feel that

to

it not

for the

differed from

or
point,

was

one

his

off his

But he tells us, in this

guard at this moment.
does not differ at all
that he
very paragraph,
from
the generalityof ministers,in Newand
the natural powers
England, respecting
"

CALVITUSTIC

faculties of man,
But

being."

as

Dr. T.

natural

state, the

man."

On

at

am

moral

fears

he

which

"

free

the

and

guage"
unqualifiedlanthe
employs respecting
will,and the power of

readingthis last passage,

loss to know

what

to

man," I

other Calvinists.

Dr. T.

Dr.

"

that this is the

those

There

is

is

sermon*

of
generality

them."

than
unqualified"
natural

he

on

which
or
liberty,
Every man
power.

Life and

agent.

between
has

of the

sinner's natural

him, and

man

Does

rightchoice.

destroyshuman

before

"

natural

free salvation,
reprobationtaught in the Scriptures,

free moral

has

that of

Tyler, of Portland,one
coadjutorsin opposing Dr.

in

no

which

impairsthe

man

says

frank

Dr.

Wood's

Taylor,says,
"

be

and
opinion,

doctrine

ministers.

Dr.

to

He says he does not

say this ?
the generality
;" and it is notorious

Wood

differ from

take

Wood's

to make
sufficient

power

of

believe

say or
natural

"

the

not

I confess

opinionof
power.
Taylor's unqualified
language"respecting

of
power
of Dr.
statement

"

accountable

"

of this Calvinistic
Dr.

203

CONTROVERSY.

is

What

set

are

capable of choosing
languagecan be more

this ?
power,

death

It teaches
which

that

us

renders

him

It is true, Dr.
capableto make a rightchoice.
those who believe with him," carry
Taylor,and
and practical
out this doctrine into its legitimate
"

in

has lately
been published,
part of this sermon
tract
form, and circulated with the avcived purpose

of

"

on

counteractingthe
predestination."

influence

of the

sermon

204

bearings.On
exhort sinners
One

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

of them,

went

far

so

as

the
"

to

as

to

of this power, they

themselves new
hearts."

ground

make

to me
by a preacher,
reported
address,that
say, in a public

ought to be ashamed to ask the aid of

the Holy Spirit
to convert
them, since they had
themselves.
And what objection
power to convert
sinners

can

any,

who

hold

to

natural power

to

choose

this ?
If,as Dr. Tyler
life,
urge against
Examination
of Dr. Taylor's
teaches,in his
TheologicalViews," a rightchoice implies
if every
is naturally
man
regeneration
; and
capable of a rightchoice, as taught by this
Dr. Tyler, and the
of his
same
generality"
and I see
brethren,then it follows conclusively,
ence,
not how
can
cover
any sophistry
up the infer"

"

these

themselves.

convert

throne

grace

sinners

to

have

to
power
Instead therefore of hypocritical

weakness, before
pleadingtheir own
of grace, and asking for mercy and
help them in their time of need, they

ought to be crimsoned
follyand hypocrisy,turn
resources

hearts.

natural

with

shame, for their

from their impertinen

away
themselves
the
suit, throw
upon
of nature, and regenerate their own

If however

these

gentlemenbelieve it
then,takingtheir
this,

for sinners to do
impossible
whole
this power
is no power,
theorytogether,
and community,up to this hour, has been deluded
words
which
by unmeaning words
only
of a theological
to conceal the deformity
serve
system, which, when
thoroughlyexamined, is
found after all,to teach that the poor reprobate
"

CALVirttSTIC

has

adequatepower by

no

205

CONTROVERSY.

nature, and

receives

available aid from

no

and

grace to choose salvation,

from the imperious
therefore,
necessity

must

of his nature

condition,
go down

and

nable
to intermi-

death.

NUMBER
SAME

It

XL

SUBJECT

CONTINUED.

pretendedthat there are no difficulties

view of the subject.What
in our
important
morals,or
politics,
theory is there in philosophy,
which some
ble
against
religion,
apparentlyplausibe urged1
But
the
not
objectionmay
inquiryin each case should be, Are those objections
is

not

fatal to the system ?

Or are
the difficulties
in the proposed
system greater than in some
?
For reasonable men
other view of the subject
will refuse to be driven into the vortex

merely because

there

are

of

ticism
skep-

difficulties

some

in all

of faith,which
subjects
vision will not permit
the limitations to human
form an enlightened
parative
comto penetrate. To
us

and

obscurities

view

in

the

case

before

us,

it will be

importantthat we glanceat the different theories

and the ground of
the subject
of depravity
on
responsibility.
this subject
has been
form in which
1. One
held is," That
his nature

radical

introduced

into

impotenceand depravity

for his descendants to make

impossible
or
voluntaryefforts toward pietyand virtue,

that it is
any

such

the sin of Adam

206

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

and improve their

respect to correct
any
moral and religious
character,and that faith and

in

communicated
graces are
irresistible operation
of the

all the Christian

the sole and

or
concurrence
God, without any endeavour
This
of course
makes
the part of man."

of
on

in
entirely
passive
the reprobate
to
consigns
elect

the

and

sin of
to

by
Spirit

over

condemnation
no

which

numerous

the

common

for

which
he
nature
a
possessing
in bringing
himself,and
upon

agency
The

by

destruction for the

federal relation ; or at best

and eternal
to unavoidable personal

virtue of

by

giveshim

from

Adam, which, it is maintained,is imputed

him

had

their conversion

self.
power to extricate himdifficulties of this system are
so
he

and

has

so

standard
sense,

no

it be tried
whether
palpable,
of reason,
of Scripture,
of
or

that I need

not

here allude to

them.

Suffice it to say that they have pressed

heavilyupon the Calvinists themselves as to

so

baffle all their

and invention at defence,

ingenuity
and
driven them
have
into all those
finally
alluded
changesand modifications so frequently
to

in this controversy.

I will here say in ad-

that,in my opinion,
this,after all,is the
Calvinism can
The
assume.
strongest position
its advocates
moment
depart from this,they
must
either,to be consistent with themselves,
vance

into the other extreme

of
verge over
mean"
or strike off*into the " golden
anism.

This

may

be

more

Pelagianism,
of Armini-

seen
clearly

sequel.
2. Pelagianismis another,and

an

in the

opposite

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

207

lagian,
theory. It has a varietyof shades, called PeIts varieties,
"c.
however,
Semi-pelagian,
relate to

minor

some

modifications of the

relation of the human

familyto Adam, touching

natural evil,the death of the body, and greater
ity
exposure to temptation. But there is a uniformin the essential part of the theory,
which
is,
that human
is free from
sin or
nature
guift
until it becomes
guiltyby intelligent,,
voluntary
exercise. The
to this theory are,
objections
others,as follows. It is in direct opposition
among
doctrine of native depravity
to the Scripture
doctrine which
has been
often and
a
ably
treated of and defended
by Calvinistic and
"

Arminian

divines

"

doctrine which, is embodied

palpableform in every man's own

experience a doctrine which not only flashes
in

"

upon
the

of the student in every page

historyof man, but also upon the mind

the

unlettered

the mind

nurse

of the infant that

of
of

in the earliest emotions

in her arms.
struggles
this theory is, that it
Another
to
objection
previousto intelligent
givesto infants,
voluntarymoral character.
no
exercise,,
Hence, should
they die at this age, as multitudes doubtless do,
they would not be fit subjectseither for the
rewards of heaven or the painsof hell. At the
of praise
judgment,as they will not be subjects
or
blame, they will neither be on the righthand
and of course
the left,
will neither be sennor
tenced
comed
to
everlasting
punishment,"nor welinto life eternal."
If,however, they
by any means
go into a state of punishment^
"

':

208

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

their

will
sufferings

be

unjust
;

or

if

they are

admitted

into heaven, it will not be a salvation

will it be precededby tion,
grace, nor
regenera"
will their song be,
Unto
Him
that
nor

by

hath

loved

us," "c.

This

is not

only contrary

the whole

Gospel systern,but also is in direct

Rom.
to many
opposition
scriptures,
especially
v, 18 : "Therefore, as
by the offence of one,
to condemnation
judgment came
;
upon all men
of one, the free gift
so, by the righteousness
all men
of life."
unto
came
justification
upon
to

It also leaves

infants involved

evils of diseases,pains,
and

in the

natural

out
death,not onlywith-

assignablecause, but also in direct

to the cause
by the apostle
opposition
assigned
And so death passedupon all men,
for that all
any

"

"

have

sinned."
third

objectionto this theory is,that it

destroysthe Scripturedoctrine of regeneration.
The Scripture
of this matter
account
stance,
is,in subthat there is a radical change of our
moral
nature
by the efficient operationsof the
But as this doctrine makes sin
Holy Ghost.
consist exclusively
in exercise,so holiness must
consist wholly in exercise.
The
whole work,
is a mere
therefore,of regeneration
change of
volition ; and
a

this volition is not

preceding
change of

is, like any

native

result of

moral

but it
constitution,
other volition,produced by the
of the mind, under
the exciting

power
influence of motives.

The

the

The

therefore,
Holy Spirit,
well be dispensed
with in this work.
may
character of the change must
supernatural

210

CONTROVERSY,

CALVIXISTIC

improve their moral and religions

Thus
character."
far we go together
; but this
take
is a pointof divergency,from which
we
Instead of going on
very different directions.
and

correct

to say

"

that the Christian

cated
communi-

are

graces

of the Spirit
by the irresistible operation
of God, without any endeavour
concurrence
or
the part of man," we
the saving
on
say that
hath appearedunto
all men
;"
grace of God
and that this grace so enlightens,
strengthens,
aids the human
and
mind, that it is thereby
that choice which
is the turning
enabled to make
of the soul's salvation ;
point,conditionally,
and that it is by thi3 same
graciousaid that the
when he has this good will,is enabled
to
man,
"

"

work

out

his salvation" unto

the end.

this latter part of the statement

issue with the Calvinisfs ; but
on

both parts with the

of
including,

Divinityin
To

the

is proper

our

are

advocates

we

are

at

at issue

every grade,
of the New

country.

foregoingstatement
to

we

Pelagiansof
the

course,

that

It is in

add that

of the atonement
of the whole

are

we

so

human

of

our

believe that

doctrine it
the merits

available for and

in behalf

family,that the guilt

of depravity
is not imputed to the subject
of it
he makes
the guilt
volition,
until,by intelligent
the grace of
and rejecting
his own
by resisting
the Gospel ; and that being thus by grace in a
justified
state, the dyinginfant is entitled to all
of the new
the promised blessings
covenant,
have
and will, of course,
wrought in him all
him for the
that meetness
necessary to qualify

CALVINISTIC

211

CONTROVERSY.

graciousrewards of the saints in glory. Thus,

accordingto this system, the dying infant,as
is sanctified by
well as the dyingadult believer,
the blood of the covenant, and saved by grace.
These
to

and

the three

are

systems which

after
inquirer
perhapsI may say

the

truth

as

are

presented
the alternatives,

onlyalternatives
of choice, in reference to this subject. It is
true, the doctrine of natural abilityhas been
proposed as another alternative,holding an
intermediate placebetween
the doctrines of native
impotencyas firststated and of Pelagianism.
And

therefore appear

it may
ought,in my
a

the

to

some,

that I

enumeration, to have giventhis as

separate and

distinct

theory. My

reason,

however, for not doingthis is,that there cannot,

in my opinion,
be such a resting
placebetween
the doctrines of derived constitutional depravity
and Pelagianism.Natural
that is any
ability
that is,in fact,an
than a name
thingmore
pravity
ability,
destroysthe idea of constitutional dethat is any thingmore
; and depravity
pravity,
than a name
that is, in fact,constitutionaldedestroysthe idea of natural ability.A
strikingproof of this is found in the fact that
of those divines in the Calvinistic
a
great portion
"

"

Churches

who

have

preachingup

natural

and

the New

have

embraced
seen,

abjuresthe

been

most

decided

in

have
ability,
gone over
which, as we
Divinity,
doctrine of constitutional

divines are
tainly
cerdepravity.The New-Haven
gentlemenof talents and of close thought;
and they have been following
up this doctrine

212

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

for

of years, and it has landed them

conclusion that there is no such
the logical

number

upon

depravity. But

need

we

not

trust

to

the

clusions
con-

Divinityadvocates, to
and
show
that the notions of natural ability
and sin necessarily
from guilt
natural freedom
and reciprocally
imply each other. Why have
Calvinists left their old ground of natural impotency, and resorted to the dogma of a natural
that there
It is for the avowed
?
reason
ability
to avoid it.
be no
can
guiltwithout an ability
of

New

the

But since the sin of his

nature

infant,of

course

the

new-born

is unavoidable
he

have

can

to
no

no
sin,until he is
guilt,and by consequence
moral choice.
Again :
capableof an intelligent
this same
theorytells us that where there is no
character.
moral
natural ability
there is no
be reasonablysupposed
But as the infant cannot
to have
holy
abilityto put forth an intelligent

volition,he
of

course

The

no

have

can

no

character, and

moral

sin.

only way

to

avoid this conclusion in

with the assumed

nection
con-

premisesis,to maintain
his birth,is a voluntary

infant,from
agent ; and thus, in fact,to a certain extent,
would you believe,
sinful." And
reader, that

that

"

the

any reasonable
idea for the sake

yet it
under

would

man

resort

to

such

an

theory? And
A
is even
so.
latelypublished
paper
the sanction of the New
Divinity,
purporting
to be an
inquiryinto what is the real
of

helpingout

"

difference between
those who

the New-Haven

differfrom

them," says,

divines and
"The

ground

CALVINISTIC

213

CONTROVERSY.

understand the
(ifwe
this subject)
that mankind
discussions on
are
birth voluntary and
at
accountable
literally
God ; that the
agents,and actual sinners against
infant is a responsible
of God's
new-born
subject
moral government, and actuallysins with a
sense
knowledge of his duty,and in the same
with the adult sinner violates moral obligation,
and to change
does wrong, ought to be penitent,
And as a proof that this
its moral character."
writer
is the ground now
assumed, the same
gives us a quotationfrom Rev. Mr. Harvey,
taken

of late been

has

has

who

in

state

been

of the

one

to
opposition

in which

he says,

know, may

"

active in this

most

the New-Haven

being,for aughtwe

moral

his existence in

commence

divines,
an

active,

of the will ; he may be a voluntary

agent from his birth,and thus,in fact,to a
and that without supposing
certain extent sinful,

voluntarystate

depravityis

that

will."

This

Spring,in
work

seated in
writer

same

treatise
I have

which

"

on

not

at

also

the

that Dr.

a
depravity,"

hand, has advanced

the sentiment of

birth."

has it indeed

"

actual sin from

this at last,
Calvinists
for which
ability,

that this natural

have

states

native

and defended

And

thingbut

any

to

come

contended,is nothingmore
strenuously

so

than the power the new-born

infant has to commit
actual sin on the one
hand, or " make himself
a

To

new

heart"

what

miserable

the other !

on

miserable

shifts
"

shifts
"

Alas for Calvinism

yes, I must

is this system

I will not express

this subject

call them

driven !

myselfin

On

accord-

214

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

with my

the

feelings.The respect I have for

learned, and pious gentlemen
intelligent,

who

have advanced

ance

this idea,restrains

Such

favourite

theory,is however in
known
of
obliquity

the

purest minds.

But

of such

in this

result,in the advocacyof

matter.

with

me

while

we

strictaccordance
the greatest and
thors
respect the au-

theory,and while we feel the

necessityof takingheed to ourselves,lest we
also fall by the same
we
example of prejudice,
suffer our
cannot
to be imposed
common
sense
In this,however,
upon by such gross absurdities.
tain
to mainwe
see
that,as before,in trying
their ability,
:
they gave up their depravity
so
here, in tryingto establish their depravity,
they destroytheir ability.Nay, what is still
for this theory,
this very attempt to prove
worse
that infants
is

an

"

are

actual sinners from their

birth,"

indirect denial of the doctrine of derived

depravity.Why do these gentlemen wish to

in order to
establish this point? Why, forsooth,
which
show that men
are
guiltyfrom their birth,
of course,
is an acknowledgment,
that theycannot
onlyby provingthat they
prove them guilty
have intelligent
moral exercise.
Consequently
it is a concession
and

gone

Can

guilt. This is not the first

has
Calvinism,in tryingto save itself,
and joinedthe ranks of its opposers.

of
origin

time that
over

that this exercise is the occasion

their

the reader

see

the difference

doctrine of actual sin from

connection

New

with its

the

between

birth,viewed

and
originand bearings,

which
Divinity,

makes

this
in
the

sin consist exclu.

CALVmiSTIC

sivelyin

moral

215

CONTROVERSY.

Let

exercise 3

these

old-side

then, sheath the sword of controversy

Calvifiists,
which
they have drawn againsttheir brethren,
the
and joinin with them to defend,if possible,
Pelagiandoctrine which, it would seem, after all,

they

hold

in

stock.

common

Has

the

Rev.

Harvey been so active in gettingup

school in Connecticut
theological
opposition
Mr.

the infant

teach

that

in

active

an

"

to

his existence

commences

will,and

of the

state
voluntary

an

is

sinful?"
to a certain extent
(onthis account)
of supererogationa
This
is clearlya work
and of talents.
useless expenditureof money
School is capable
The
New-Haven
Theological
alas ! too capable of carryingon this work,
if Mr.
Harvey and his friends will
especially
ance.
and unite in their assisttheir opposition,
cease
Mr. Harvey fear that the NewDoes
Haven
divines will not begintheir moral exercise"
?
earlyenough to make it natural depravity
that they will not
They have givenassurances
that point. Only allow that
be particular
on
sin previousto the first intelligent
there is no
of choice
act
previousto the corresponding
themselves new
hearts,and they
power to make
will be satisfied. They have said alreadythat
if it is not at the
of sinning,
this capableness
of birth,
exact
moment
[and they do not affirm
that it is not,]commences
so
early in their
thus

"

"

"

"

"

existence, that it is proper, for all the great

to speak of it as existing
purposes of instruction,
from
see

the

beginningof
nothingbetween

their
these

days." Hence
gentlemenon

we

this

216

CALVIN

CONTROVERSY.

ISTIC

about.
pointworth contending
hold
be importantthat all who

and

motives

moral

mere

to

conversion

suasion should

of these

the commencement

It will,however,

"

moral

not

byput

exercises"

subjectcannot understand
Gospel truth ; otherwise they may yet get into
serious as the one
another difficulty
as
they are
tryingto avoid. But to the subject. It has been
shown, I think, from the reasoning
very distinctly
far back

so

that

the

Calvinists themselves, and from the

such
be no
of the case, that there
can

of the
nature

theoryas they contend for,between

the native impotencyof old Calvinism
and Pelagianism. But as this is an importantpoint,I
will illustrate it farther by an examination
of the
of this Calvinistic depravity.It is seen,
seat
by the quotationabove from Mr. Harvey, that
he considers
seated in nothingbut
as
depravity
the will." And
this is avowedly the sentiment
intermediate

"

of

at

least

all those

Calvinists who

believe in

ability.It is on this ground that they

reiterate incessantly,
if you will;"
"You
can
There
is no
difficulty
except what is found
in a perverse will."
It is on this ground,also,
that they tell us
a
rightchoice is conversion."
They do not say a rightchoice is a condition
natural

"

"

or
new

fruit of the
birth.

But

birth ; but

new

to

understand

it is

the
itself

this

subject
what theymean
they use this

clearly
jt is importantto know
by the will. It appears to me
with great indefiniteness,
if not latitude of
term
stand
meaning. If they mean
by this what I underto

be the

legitimate
meaning of

the term.

218

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

subjectuntil we have examined

is
more
one
preliminaryquestion,viz. What
the precise
meaning that we are to attach to the
used by the
as
terms, natural and moral ability,
this

rectlyon

To

ascertain this,
I have examined
I have had access
as
to,with care ;
been particular
to consult
recent

Calvinists?
such

authors

and

have

authors,that I might not be accused

old and

exploded doctrines

charging

our

upon

opposers ;
ascertain any

authors,that I might

and various

of

to the different Calvinisappertain

In particular,
the author of Views
tic schools.
in Theology ;" Dr. Griffin,
in a late work
on
Divine Efficiency
;" Rev. Tyler Thatcher, of
the Hopkinsianschool ; and a doctrinal tract,
entitled, Man a Free Agent without the Aid
of Divine
Grace," written,it is presumed, by

varieties that

"

"

"

one

of the

divines

been

consulted.

have
a

remarkable

understand
say
of

The

New-Haven

There

uniformityon

school ;
them all

is among
this point. If I

them, the substance

of what

they
possession

is," Natural power consists in the

conscience, and will ; and
understanding,

moral
Mr.

of the

power
Thatcher
tract

is the exercise of these faculties."

says

alluded

this in
to

so

many

gives this

words.

"

definition of

natural power.
Dr. Griffin says " their [sinners']
faculties constitute a natural ability,
that is,a
full power

to

love and

serve

God, if their hearts

must
disposed." It certainly
appear,
mind
at the firstglance,very
to every
singular
not embarrassed
by theory,that either the pos.

are

well

session of

or
faculties,

the exerche

of faculties,

CALVINISTIC

The

should be called power.

supposed,by

the

power

Now,

Faculties

of

is

exercise

althoughwe

humbly

have

tell,we

to

different forms.

faculties

it
are

power.

define power,

cannot

doubtless has

one

the

"

is

writers,to
philosophical
the fact that it is a simple

undefinable,from
idea; but here, strange
two

idea of power

best

be

analyzedin

219

CONTROVERSY.

every
clear conception
of it ; and

conceive

that

the

common

of

sense

will decide that neither of the above

every man
the true
definitions embraces
idea of power.
The

exercise of faculties

granted;

but every

itself. And

power
mind

are

must

one

that it is not

see

of the
althoughthe faculties

called the powers

sometimes

mind

by a kind of
power, justas the

borrowed
limbs

or

be

defective

their

of the
from

muscles

powers

yet they may

or

called

are

requiresvery
possess

may

and yet they

body entire,

some

to

as

cause,

so
functions,
appropriate

these

of the

of the term

use

of the body, yet it

the powers
discrimination to see that as we
little

these powers

it is

impliespower,

we

may

faculties of mind

possess

entire,and

be defective in that moral

Hence
to a holy choice.
necessary
of these faculties does not

adequateto a holy choice

I marvel
they power itself.

of

some

strength
the possession

even

imply
less

power

; much

are

therefore

definitions of moral

these

and
whole

am

therebyconfirmed

at

and

natural power,
vanced
in the opinionad-

in my
former number, viz. " That the
of this distinction (of natural and moral

and
ability)

the

from it,proceedon
reasoning

220

CALVINISTIC

the

ground of

of

terms."
from

so

individual

an

minds

able

of the many

seem

may

humble

definition

unwarranted

an

This

unphilosophical
analysis

most

mind, and

CONTROVERSY.

that

strong

of

statement

myself,in view
have adopted the

as

opinions here opposed. But neither their

troversy,
opinionnor mine will weigh much, in this consustained
by reasonable
except as
arguments ; and by such arguments the present
writer

expects
reader, to both
Griffin himself

stand

to

of

sides

to

seems

explain himself

this
be

this

on

fall.

or

wishes

to

Divine

I hope
efficiency,

at

Look

then,

subject.

Dr.

how

to

loss

subject.

When

he

the New-Haven
divines,and
oppose
guard againsttheir error, he says, "If you
without
that works
mean
by power, an ability

believe
the
the

that."

And

I shall be the last to

body knows that

of the New-England divines,from
mass
such
beginning,have acknowledged no
"

every

doctrine."
And

why

Because

man

without

it.

is Divine
has

no

Thus

efficiency
necessary?
that will
work,"
ability
"

"

the

he
guard againstPelagianism,
back

either upon
our
Calvinistic doctrine

There

is

he

moment

sets

throws

doctrine,or upon
of

"

native

up

himself
the old

impotency."

standingplace any where else.

divines are
The
New-Haven
right,if natural
is right; and the time cannot
tant
be far disability
when
the love of consistency
will drive all,
who
hold to natural ability,
either on
to the
New
Divinity
ground,or back to old Calvinism.
no

CALVINISTIC

this remark

From

221

CONTROVERSY.

the reader will

how

see

much

depends,if my views are correct, upon the

adjustmentof this question. It is in
proper
fact the turningpoint,
is to give a character
which
Let us
of the Churches.
to the theology
it. Hear Dr.
then be in haste to pass over
Griffin farther. " Now
if you ask me
what is

not

without
which
is never
exerted
power,
? I can
Div ine efficiency
only say, that,in the

that

basis of
of

the Divine

of

account

and
obligation,

common

The

mind, it is
therefore
be

must

sense,

the

by the

called

proper

decision

power."

littlebefore told us, that this

faculties he is not satisfied with

doctor had

was
power
this ; and

"

what

well

instructed

mind, like the

somethingthat forms
the
basis of obligation,"
he knows
not what it
is. He
merely infers there is such a power,
because men
held responsible.But this inare
ference will flow quiteas naturally,
by taking
and
the Arminian
ground of graciousability,
could be ?
doctor's,

It is

"

the other difficultiesbeside.

save

it will

the

save

that will not

ened

by
is
ability

without
We
and
It is
these

aid, and

shall find

"

yet that this

sufficient for all purposes

that aid.

examine
the

to

this definition of
exercise

power

form

of

of natural
us

take up

moral

power.

power."

that,while

But
.

have

we

Divine

sufficient without

basis of

same

obligation

if we
equaldifficulty,

writers tell

same

rate,

any

of holding
to an ability,
absurdity
work," without being strength,

Divine

this natural

grace

"

At

we
obligation,
"

are

222

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

entirely
dependentupon God's grace for moral
nition
power" in other words, accordingto the defiof moral power, we
are
dependentupon
"

grace for the exercise of

and

since

natural power

natural

our

power
the faculties of

means

"

the
will,and conscience
understanding,
is simplyand evidently
this : we
statement
are
dependent upon Divine grace for the exercise
of our
conscience,and will,in
understanding,
making a holy choice. Why ? Because the
praved
conscience,and will are so deunderstanding,
by nature, that it is not in their nature

the

to

"

"work"

in this

exercise,without

this Divine

Is not this holdingthe graciousability

grace.
Is it singularthen that Dr. Griffin
after all?
"
They (sinners)
say, in another place
bound to go forth to their work at once, but
are
it is their
:
they are not bound to go alone
themselves
and duty
to cast
instantly
privilege

should

"

Holy Ghost, and not to take a single

step
in their own
V
Or is it any wonder
strength
that the Christian Spectator should say, that
of Dr. Griffin bringshim dithis statement
rectly
the ground of evangelical
Arminianon
ism?"
that "the mass
is this the ability
And
of the New-England divines have held to from
the beginning
?" Not exactly.They onlyslide
this ground,occasionally,
when
over
on
theyare
the one
on
hand,
pressedhard with Pelagianism
and the old doctrine of passivity
the other.
on
For the truth is,as before remarked, theyhave not
to balance themselves
a single
point
upon between
these two, only as they light
upon our ground.
on

"

the

CALVINISTIC

it is called.

as

power,

that power
a

But
Our

natural powers is obedience.

rightexercise of our natural

of

the

is moral
moral

itself. For

is obedience

obey God

to

rightexercise

power

in this moral
difficulty
It implies
the absurdity,

is stillanother

There

223

CONTROVERSY.

our

power

power

therefore

"

to

is obedience ! !

obey God

standing
giveus a clue to the proper underCalvin isticsaying
of that oft-repeated
You have power to obey God, if your heart is
You can
in short hand
or
rightlydisposed,"
if you will." Now
the verb will here evidently
the right
exercise of the natural faculties
means

And

this will

"

"

"

"

"

that

Hence

above, it

shown

is,as

and

the whole

notable

obedience.

means

meaning

proper
You
have

of this

saying is
power to obey
"You
if you do"
God, if you obey him."
can
This is a sort of logic which, when
scanned

down

"

"

to

its naked

little credit in
to

is the

as
refuting,

logicwhich, in
led

has

that
suppose
is the same,

There

is stillanother

It supposes
cause

thousands

it to have

for
necessity
and

of obedience

with

And

use.

its borrowed

Calvinism,as
or
nearly the

connected
the

its abettors

for its invention and

costume

would

character, one

and

in
it is
same

our
now

get
are

as

titled
en-

yet this
fictitious
land

to

modified,

with Methodism.

sarily
solecism,necesstriking

this definition of power.

no

it ceases.

effect,natural

actual

existence,until

For in the order of

power

effects the act

and this effect of natural power,

producingobedience, givesexistence to moral
;

224

CALVIXISTIC

Thus

CONTROVERSY.

have

obey, superadded
that has actually
to the power
obeyed !
If,however, Calvinists say this is treating
the
because
their very definition
subjectunfairly,
shows
that they do not mean
by it any thing
which enables man
to obey" I answer,
that my
reasoningwent upon the ground, that it was
what
they call it power ; and if they do not
that is only acknowledging
mean
the
power,
positionI started upon, that this Calvinistic
power.

we

to

power

"

is

power
the

no

of

name

things by
and

power

error

common

at all.

And

candour, What

wrong

here

is the

names?

What

appliedare
mislead

to

confusion

be introduced
not
by
may
and well defined terms
in such

that, when the thingsto

applied,are defined,it is seen
thus

use

I ask, in
of calling

that

ner,
man-

they
the

are

terms

than

worse

the

which

applying

mind

useless ; they directly

It is the direct way

isters
bringChristian theologyand Christian mininto distrust and reproach.
with respect to this moral
One thoughtmore,
.

and
The doctrine of
I will pass on.
power,
Calvinism
is, if I understand it,that God controls
the natural power
of men,
of
by means

their

moral

power.
affirm.
And

mistaken
reader

with

Divine

to

is it secures

use

Why

do not

of natural

of them
that I

the

the

am

pressly
ex-

not

others, let the

ations.
considerfollowing

the fulfilment of the

decrees, in respect

reprobate?
in the

to

some

show

to

respect

attend
carefully
What

This

some

to

the elect and the

of the

ability,
repent

reprobates,
and

get

to

226

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

in which these terms

propositions
sound very differently
to the common
the

therefore

trust

it has

been

made

reasoningsupon it,are
analysisof
unphilosophical

the

to appear,

definition of

on

and

terms," and

efforts of the Calvinists to

all the

that

and
ability,

founded
mind

ear.

this distinction of natural and moral

"

found,

are

a
an

most
warranted
un-

that, after
find

out

other
an-

sity,
alternative,
they will be under the necesif theywould be consistent,
either of going

less
ground, of remedigian
impotency,or of advancingon to the Pelaground of the New Divinity
; or they must
theory of gracious
accept of the Arminian
ability.And that the reader may be prepared

back

the

to

old

Calvinistic

I will here remind him of

selection,
the arguments adduced
in favour of the latter
doctrine,in the last number, while I next proceed

to

his

make

to

answer

that have
for

been

obvious

an

the objections
specifically
it,which however
urged against
more

reason

must

be

withheld

until

the next number.

OBJECTIONS

In

TO

NUMBER

XII.

GRACIOUS

ABILITY

ANSWERED.

consultingdifferent authors to find the

that have been urged against
strongestobjections
doctrine of ability
our
by grace, I have fixed
upon the doctrinal tract, alreadyalluded to, entitledjMan a Free Agent without the Aid of
"

CALVINISTIC

Grace,"

Divine

and in

total of these

preciseorder
pass

over

some

227

CONTROVERSY.

in a
concentrating

as

small

clear and

able manner,
objections.I may not
of this writer,and
of his remarks

pass,
com-

the

sum

follow the

possiblyshall
of

as

minor

importance; but the substance of his reason,

ing shall receive such notice as I shall be able
to give it.
first objection
1. The
is,in substance, this :
be
that without beinga free agent man
cannot
in fact enters
into the
free agency
definition of an intelligent,
morallyresponsible

; that

man

very

such

by

from
objection
gainsallitsplausibility

the

being;

and

therefore he

be

must

nature.

This

writer's definition of free agency.

of
he says, " in the possession
and
conscience,

will."

Now

we

"

It consists,"

understanding,
grant that the

tary
volunpossesses these is an intelligent
have
we
as
agent. But these faculties,

beingwho
seen,

may

purposes,

be

disordered,so

they may

that, for all holy

be defective.

The

standing
under-

may be darkened, the conscience may

ened
be seared,the power to choose goodmaybe weakeither positively
or
Libertyis a
relatively.
soul ; and as such is as
ceptibility.
subjectto derangementas any other mental susdistinct facultyof the

say, suffered materially

has not his original
that man

It has, we

by the fall; so
whether we
to good. And
or
aptitude
facility
ly
directconsider this as a weakness
appertaining
whether
of the will itself,
to the faculty
or
consider it a relative weakness, (which is
we

228

CALVIXISTIC

probablythe
loss of

the

CONTROVERSY.

from
resulting
philosophical,)

more

in
equilibrium

moral

of the uncontrolled

the

mind, by

of the

passions,
in either case
the primarycause
and the practical
Sin has pervertedthe soul,
result are the same.
and given it an
unholy declination from righteousness
reason

to

rectify.With
call

may

he

is

which

extent

an

this view

man

only free

to

sway

but God

none

can

of the

ter
the wrisubject,
free agent if he pleases
; but
and not to
unrighteousness,

holiness.
Our

was
objector
might be disposedof

he

says,

does

such

that his argument

in this way ; and hence in
aware

Some

of man,
in his natural state, nsfrceonlyto evil. But in
a

note

what

stinct 1
he

writers

do

to

power

speak

differ from

freedom

no

murders

who

than

With

"

fellow

in-

mere

otherwise,how

creature

is

criminal

more

rock
that destroys
falling
him ?"
The
fallacyof this argument
consists chieflyin a misrepresentation
of our
has no
theory. Instead of holdingthat man
the

or
tiger,

even

"

power to do otherwise,"we
this author, that man
has
command

do

to

otherwise

is of grace, and not

of

much

believe,as

ample power
;

nature.

at

we

as

When
of

I
explained,

be

his

but that this power

Any farther supposed
of the

difficulties
growing out of this view

subjectwill

as

trust

satisfactorily

advance.*
man

his

it, and

guard, that

afflicted

was

paroxysms
gave

he

were

warning

might

not

with

the

coming
to his

on

friends

injurethem.

hydrophobia.
he
to

was

be

aware
on

tbeir

Suppose, how-

CALVINISTIC

2.
the

229

CONTROVERSY.

is conscious that he possesses

constitute free agency."
faculties which

Every man

"

"

Here

againwe
We

definition.

shall find

that every man

the faculties of

the writer's

in view

keep

must

in grantdifficulty
ing

no

is conscious

that he possesses
conscience, and
understanding,

tute
by grace, constifree to a holy choice, is denied ; and
man
To affirm
this is the very questionin debate.
it therefore in argument is beggingthe question.
his
to say, as
If,however, the author means
that man
to imply,
reasoningon this pointseems
is conscious of beinga free agent, in the responsible
will ; but that these, unaided

of the term, this is also granted

; but
this does not touch the questionwhether

sense

then

this power is of grace or of nature.

But, says
" When
under the unfluence of
the writer,
man,
grace, does choose the good,he is not conscious
of any new
facultyor power to choose, but only
he

that power

uses

in

different

The

manner.

facultywhich chooses evil and which

chooses
differently
good, is the same
power
Whoever
used."
ing
disputedthis? understandof the soul, as this author
by power a faculty
all acknowledgethat
does.
We
evidently
faculties by grace ; but we
the soul gets no new
believe that the mind,in the exercise of its natuor

power

"

of a sure
neglectedto avail himself

ever,

case

he

be

knew

guilty,not

result

to

murder

others

beyond the

And

of it. Would

only

from

yet this

but

remedy,
of

his

all the

malady

man's

voluntarily

he not in that
evils that might

; but

madness

direct control of his will.

also
was

of self

entirely

230

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

is assisted by grace to make

faculties,
choice.
But, says the writer,in this
ral

"

Power

to choose

power

between

to choose

two

either." If the writer

tion,
connec-

objectsis

this is

an

identical

to

means

either the one

say that power to choose
is power
other of two
to choose
objects
"

right

or

the

either

: it is onlysayproposition

to say,
ing,If a thingis,it is. But if he means
when
two
are
presentedto the mind, and
objects
of a power
finds itself possessed
to
the mind
attach itselfvoluntarily
to one, that therefore it

has the

same

power
this is denied ; and

to

attach itself to the

other,

proof is givenor pretended

nothingbut a denial is
by the objector,
On this pointthe founder of the
necessary.
Calvinistic school was
undoubtedlycorrect
when
and theologically
correct
philosophically
has not an equallyfree election
he said, Man
of good and evil."
this objection
founded on
But that I may meet
consciousness,full in the face,1 am preparedto
as

no

"

"

"

far from
so
assert, and I think prove, that man,
beingconscious that he has by nature adequate
to serve
God, is conscious of the very
power
of this. What
reverse
trulyawakened sinner

deep conviction of his utter helpless,

How
?
ness
experiencesof intelligent
many
?
and piousCalvinists could I quote on this point
As
a
specimen take that of the Rev. David
Brainerd,who stands high in the Church, not
all Christians
but among
only among Calvinists,
has not

I quote a passage from his

experiencequotedby Dr. Griffin : " I saw that

who

know

him.

231

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

for me
to do
utterly
impossible
toward helpingor delivering
myself.
that my
state
was
greatest certainty

it

any thing
I had the

was

for ever
miserable
for all that I could do, and wondered
that I had never
been sensible of it before."
"

is very strong ; too unqualified,

perhaps,but itis the natural languageof a weak

This

passage

sinner, convinced,as
without

receiveth

before

they
helplessness

be
utter

fullydoes such a one

the natural
that
Scripture,
of
the thingsof the Spirit

How

grace.

the truth of

prove
man

strong,of their

become

can

all must

not

"

God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither

cerned
dishe know
can
them, for they are spiritually
the Father,
knoweth
man
no
;" that
the Son shall reveal
but the Son, and he to whom
"

rit
necessitythat "the Spiof Jesus Christ,and
should take of the things
them."
show
them
unto
Indeed, but for this
the
darkness and weakness
of the understanding,
penitentsinner would not feel the necessityof
would itin fact be
the agency of the Spirit
: nor
him."

Hence

the

trine
It is on
this ground that the docnecessary.
has led to the idea of conversion
of natural ability
moral

by
that

man

conscious
and

weak

The

same

suasion.

may be conscious
but at the same
that that
for

of

having an

time

holy purposes,

unaided

of conscience.

that it often becomes

us

dead, and needs quickening.Hence

often prays

"

be

is
understanding

is also true

teaches

it is evident

Thus

as

too

derstanding,
un-

fully
dark

by grace.
ence
Experilanguidor
tian
the Chris-

232

CALVINISTIC

Quick

"

God

! my

Awake

Hence

of sinners.
and

make

sin is

pray God

we

eye,

conscience

nigh,

it still awake."

keep

also

an

soul when

my

And

apple of

the

as

CONTROVERSY,

So

also

to

alarm

learn

we

the conscience
from

Scripture

experiencethat the conscience needs purging

from dead works," for the very object
that
be able "* to serve
God with filialfear ;"
may
"

we

learn also that

we

weak

"

"c.
whether

we

may

"

defiled

sciences,"
con-

consciences,"" seared consciences,"

And here let it be noticed,
that

understand

we

have

these passages

ing
apply-

as

the regenerate or unregenerate,to derived

contracted depravity,
the argument
or
depravity
againstthe objectorwill in every case apply
to

with

resistless force,viz. it shows

of the soul may

have

become

so

that this faculty

disordered

as

to-

its

and
original
healthyaction impaired,
that in this case
nothingcan give it its original
and strength
but the God
who
made
sensibility
it.

dered
If sin does disorder the conscience,it disorAdam's
moral

own

and

if he

likeness,then

similar conscience.

And

begatchildren in his
his posterity
had a

therefore it is

ry
necessa-

that, as by the offence of the first Adam

sin abounded, so by the obedience of the second,
grace may
evil.
Let

us

conscious

abound
next

in

examine

way

to meet
directly

the will.

that this also is weak

does the awakened

until he

becomes

the

Are

we

How

edly
repeat-

not

sinner resolve and fail!

deeplyimpressedthat he

ia

234

CALVINISTIC

will is so

weak

of God

to

would,

much

as

CONTROVERSY.

to

need

him

enable

to

do the

is this true

more

grace

that
tilings

he

of the unrenewed

of the

If this account

sinner.

the continued

apostle's
ence
experi-

thing,it is as

diction
express a contraof the doctrine,that we have natural
to serve
God, as could be put into u-ords.
strength
means

any

bold to say that this is the

And it presents an
of all Christians.

And

am

experience
argument

the doctrine of natural ability

which
against
not
metaphysical
reasoningcan overthrow

no

deed
in-

"

have
not
argument to prove that we
conscience,and will ; but to show
understanding,
that,havingthese in a disordered and debilitated
to aid them, in order
state,grace is indispensable
an

to

an

the

How

efficient holy choice.

judgmentmay

of the Divine

be

broughtto

law, it will

as

often

soever

preference

often

be

carried

of the unholypassions
until
by the strength
away
Lord Jesus
it is delivered by the grace of our
Christ.

We

conscious

are

that
therefore

ice

have not natural power to keep the Divine law.

3. But it is objected
again," that the Scriptures

requireus
the

to

service of God

is, that these

use

our

;" and

faculties

are

natural

hence

faculties in
the inference

adequate to

this

service.
It is

to our
no
objection
certainly
with man
that the Scriptures,
dealing
requirehim to use his natural powers

doctrine,
he is,
as
to

serve

powers should he serve

him ?
I again repeat that the questionis not,
whether
whether we have mental faculties,
nor
God.

With

what

other

CALVINISTIC

can

or

may

man

God

serve

simply whether the

of
given independently
We

say

the

it is not

which
Scriptures,

with these

faculties,
to obey is

command

but

grace.
to the

235

CONTROVERSY.

considerations

; and

of

in

proof refer
ponding
promisecorres-

givea

and assurances
every command,
graciousaid suited to every duty all of
with

of

"

impty, not only man's

explicitly
need, but also the groundon which the command
the
is predicated.And
with this idea agrees
allegedcondemnation,so often presentedin the
This
is the condemnation, that
:
Scriptures
into the world, and men
have
lighthas come
which

most

"

loved darkness."

"

He

that

condemned

believeth

is

not

already." But they grievedhis

therefore he is turned to be their
Holy Spirit,
How shall we
enemy."
neglect
escape, if we
"

"

great salvation."

so

These, and

other

many

passages, show that the

and condemnation
is not

turningpoint of guilt

natural

neglectand

grace

powers,
bestowed.

This

pointmay

to

of that

much

He

stretch it forth.

What

command,

was

to

and

bones,
use

yet it was

have
to

those

no

of

what

was

new

understood

the

the

ground
impliedin it?
would be given

was

groundof

And

abuse

commanded

it was, that aid

him to do it ; otherwise the command
forth a palsied
limb would have been
The

of

the abuse

be illustratedby Christ's healing

hand.

withered

the
man

the

as

so

to

stretch

ble.
unreasona-

that the

muscles, or

nerves,

man
or

to
accomplishthis with ; but he was
he had, assisted,
as they would be, by

236
the

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

it is true,
So man,
his natural powers in obeying

of God.

gracious
power

is commanded
God

to

; but

of

the

without

not

Divine

aid,the

mise
pro-

always either expressedor

is

which

impliedin

use

command.

ascribe no other inability

Scriptures
consists in
to obey God, but that which
to man
results from the perversion
of those faculties
or
which constitute him a moral agent."
It is true, the Scriptures
for his
blame
man
ascribe to
they certainly
inabilityfor inability
him, and why ? Because where sin abounded
4.

The

"

"

grace

has much

more

abounded.

That

sinners

perverse and unpreparedfor holy obedience

their own
fault,
up to this hour is undoubtedly
It met
for grace has been beforehand with them.

are

them

at

the very

threshold of their moral

cy,
agen-

their
thingnecessary to meet
It has dug about the fruitless figtree.
case.
It has laid the foundation to say justly, What
?" If
could I have done for my vineyard
more
the sinner has rejected
all this,
and has increased
his depravity
then
by actual transgression,
rassments
for all his embarindeed is he justly
chargeable
with

every

"

and moral
assumed

to

tarily
weakness, for he has volun-

himself

the

of
responsibility

and he has added to this

depravity,
the accumulated
guiltof his repeatedsins.
with a good deal of
5. It is farther objected,
make man's
that Arminians, after all,
confidence,
of his
natural power the ground and measure
no
guilt,since
part of his free agency arises
from furnished grace, but it consists simplyin

his native

"

CALVINISTIC

237

CONTROVERSY.

abuse that grace, and of course

to use
or
ability
distinct from, and not producedby
in an ability
the grace."
Let

us

however, if there

see,

covered
sophistry
that man's

mean

is not

some

do

Arminians

up here.
to use
ability

not

ent
grace is independ-

of,and separate from the grace itself. They

say that man's

assisted by
directly

are

powers

throughthis assistance they have

or
ability
strengthin those powers which before
they had not, to make a rightchoice. To talk
of ability
to use
graciousability,in any other
It would be like talking
sense, would be absurd.
of strengthto use
strengthof beingable to be
This absurdity,
able.
however, appears to me
theory,
justly
chargeable
upon the natural ability
taken in connection with the Scripture
account
The Scriptures
of this matter.
instruct us to
for strength
look to God
; that he gives us
that

so

grace,

"

"

that he
man,

become

to

power
"

children

the

with might
strengthens

that

we

however, tells
of this ; an
turns, and

may
us

be able"

that

on
ability
by means

we

which

an

our

of which

the

inner

This

"c.

have

in

;"

God

of

we

theory,
back
ability
responsibility
become

can

partakersof the grace of the Gospel. This is

to representthe Divine Beingas taking
certainly
to make
measures
able,and addingpower
ability
to make
adequatestrengthsufficiently
strong.
Such is the work
of supererogation
which this
theorychargesupon the Gospel,for which its
"

advocates

alone

not, without

are

answerable

; but let them

better ground,
attempt

to

involve

238

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

jections
absurdity.But the strongestobof those who differ from
in the opinion
They are of a doctrinal,
us, are
yet to come.
rather than of a philosophical
character, and are
and will,for this reatherefore more
son,
tangible,
to the geneinteresting
perhaps,be more
rality
Let us have patience,
of readers.
then,
us

in such

to

follow them

an

out.

Objections.On the ground of

the
it is objected
that, 1. "As
graciousability
Doctrinal

6.

consequence
all his

sin."

"

2.

Adam
fall,

himself

and

of committing
incapable
Every sinful action performed

"

in this world, since the fallof Adam, has

the effect of supernatural
grace." 3.

been

needed

Man

he

of Adam's

became
posterity

another

"

"

wicked, but

was

The

moral

of God,

the grace

he

because

difference

between

is not to be ascribed

another

of
posterity

Adam

for actual sin."

with

needed
6.

"

the doctrine

no

This
of

was

to

not

because

weak."
one

God."
Saviour

man

4.

and

5. "The
to atone

ent
opinionis inconsistThere
grace." 7.
"

guiltin the present rebellion of the

Is not this grace a greater
8.
infernal regions."
calamityto our race than the fall of Adam V1
and
I have thrown these objections
together,
in connection to the reader,for
them
presented
that they all rest mainlyon one
the reason
or
which will
to correct
two erroneous
assumptions,
them all.
be substantially
to answer
One
erroneous
assumptionof this writer is,
can

be

no

"

that
which

"

there
is not

is

no

free

adequateto

to do wrong,
agency
do right."This writer

to

seems

think

needs

which

239

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

this

self-evident

proposition,
proof; for althoughhe has used

no

of times, he has left

tion.
by any thingbut his naked asserThis proposition
has alreadybeen denied,

it in argument
it unsustained
and

an

you

see

number

denial is all that in fairness

unqualified
be claimed by an
to meet
can
qualified
unan
antagonist
assertion.
Our
object,however, is
truth,and not victory. Let me request you
then, reader,to look at this proposition.Can

self-evident proofof this assertion ?

any

If the Creator
the

giveexistence

to

an

ligent
intel-

being,and infuse into his created nature

elements of unrighteousness,
and giveto his

faculties an
without
then

should

irresistible bias to

for escape,
notions of justice
would
cide
de-

a remedy,or
providing

indeed

all

that such

our
a

sin, and all this

a

beingought not

way

to

be held

sponsible.
re-

But this is not the case

with any of
the sinful beingsof God's moral government.
"

Not

of the

fallen

angels,for they had original

it and fell not of

power to stand,but abused
fallen man,
for in the firstplace his is not a
"

created
was

of Adam, it
depravity
; but,in the case
contracted by voluntary
when
transgression

he had

stand ; and
it is derived and
posterity,
power

to

in the

case

of his

propagatedin the
and in the second
of generation:
course
ordinary
place,a remedy is providedwhich meets the
of man's moral condition,
at the very
exigencies
of his being. This it does by
commencement
graciously
preventingthe imputationof guilt
until man
is capableof an intelligent
survey of

240

CALVINISTIC

his moral

condition

CONTROVERSY.

for

"

by the

as

offence of

nation
condemunto
judgment came
upon all men
of one, the
: even
so, by the righteousness
free gift
of
unto justification
came
upon all men
becomes
life." And when man
ral
capableof moaction,this same
graciousremedy is suited
and to justify
his native depravity,
to remove
him from the guiltof actual transgression
; for
he is faithful and just
if we
confess our sins*
to
righteousnes
us
our
sins,and cleanse us from all unforgive

one,

"

It does not appear, then,either

of the proposition
the obvious character

from

that
the condition of sinful beings,

from
or
itself,
"

the

free agency

same

which

wrong, will enable him also

that Adam,
it is not true

enables
to

do

by

to

man

do

Hence
right."

the

lost his
fall,

sin in the
to sin,or that there is now
no
power
infernal regions. It is true, the writer tries to
sustain this idea

be

to

ceases

for

that
farther,by asserting

moral

being

no

wrong
be
can

is unavoidable."

doing what

however, than

that

is unavoidable

which
held

"

for
responsible

This

reiteration of

is little better,

the former

assumption. If the character and conduct of a

beingare not nou\ and never have been avoidable,
then indeed he ought not to have guilt
imputed
"
moral
no
say that there is
wrong" in the case, is to say that characters and

to

him.

actions

But

are

to

not

wrong

in

themselves,oven

where

justto impute guilt. And this

is an idea which is impliedalso in another part
of this writer's reasoning
that,
; for he tells us
accordingto the doctrine of graciousability,
it would

not

be

242

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

responsiblefor it,
is a question
to be decided
by circumstances.
If a beinghas had power, and lost it by his own
for
avoidable act, then indeed he is responsible
becomes
his
his impotency his very weakness
unavoidable

sin

shall be

"

crime, and every

from
resulting*

act

of omission

or

commission

impotency,is justly
imputed to him, the assertion of our objectorto
Hence
it is incorrect
the contrary notwithstanding.
bellion
to say there is now
no
guiltin the reof the infernal regions."It is of little
his moral

"

whether, in this

you assume
guiltis in the firstact, by which the
to do good was
lost,
or in each successive
ability

consequence
that all the

act

of

sin, which
of

that

follow

the unavoidable

was

the first. In
the

are

case,

measure

hence, accordingto the

quence
conse-

either case, the acts

of the guilt
; and

nature

of the mind, the

as
felt,
constantly
the acts
For all practicalpurposes,
occur.
and
of guilt,
the Divine
therefore,the sense
administration of justice
in either
will be the same
view of the subject. The writer supposes
the
of
servant's cuttingoff his hands to
a
case
avoid his dailytask,"and says,
for this he is
to blame, and ought to be punished
;" but thinks
he ought not to be punishedfor his subsequent
deficiencies. But I ask, How
much
is he to
blame, and to what extent should he be punished
His guilt
?
and punishment are to be measured,
of wrong he has
certainly,
by the amount
done his master
sion
that is,by every act of omis-

consciousness of

guiltwill

be

"

"

"

consequent upon

this act, which

rendered

CALVINISTIC

omissions

these

unavoidable.

he

is

act

refer this whole

may

Therefore

of omission ; and
to the first
punishment

for every
justlypunishable
you

243

CONTROVERSY.

: it
separately
administr
amounts
to the same
thingin the practical
of government and of justice.Indeed,
to say that each
act is to be
succeeding
broughtup and taken into the estimate,in order
is to acknowledge
to fix the quantum of punishment,
sins ; else
that these succeeding
acts
are
why should they be broughtinto the account at
? Take
all,in estimating
guiltand punishment
The
another case.
drunkard destroys
or
pends
susthe rightuse of his reason, and then murders.

act

to
or
exclusively,

Is he
because

#ofthe

he

to be

held innocent of the murder

drunk ?

was

murder

to

is to be

or

was

the whole

be referred to the act of

If you

intoxicated?

all the acts

the

say

former, then

punishedfor

any crime
in a fitof intoxication ; and one
has
intoxicated in order to be innocent.
man

guilt
getting
no

committed

only to get
If you

say
in

drunk is the same

then, as getting
latter,
case
as
one
another,every inebriate is guiltyof
murder, and whatever other crimes drunkeness
Is either of
occasion,or has occasioned.
may
the

these

correct
suppositions

Shall

we

not

rather

say that the inebriate's guiltis to be measured

by the aggregate of crimes flowingfrom the

voluntaryact
in the

of

drowninghis reason

before

Instead then

And

so

of

saying,
that on
in the
our
principlesthere is no guilt
I would
present rebellion of the infernal regions,"
case

us.

"

say that their present rebellion is the fruitsand

244

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

guilt.Thus

of their

measure

being who

has had

of his present acts.

And by examination

much

enhance

we

and

power
we

so much
by borrowing
which
follow. And
iniquity

act, it is

and

say, the acts

Why have they

round
?
guilt

make

lost

it,is guilty

first

the acts of

no

?
guilt

Evidently
of that guilt

you have taken the amount

And
attached it to the first act.
these acts

by how

of the
guilt
from

will you then turn

which
follow have
no

because
and

see,

shall find that

the estimated

that

we

in themselves

does this

innocent ?

The

idea is preposterous. As well may you say that

fountain are
of a polluted
the filthy
streams

impure in themselves,because but for the

fountain theywould not be impure; as to say that
bly
of unholyvolitionswhich unavoidathe current
heart is not unholy
flows from a perverted

not

and criminal.

assumptionof this
vine
Writer is,that if it would be unjustfor the Diafter it
Being to leave his plan unfinished,
be predicated
on
is begun,the whole plan must
It is true, he has
and not on
justice,
grace.
in so many
ing
not said this,
words, but his reasonof grait. For he says this scheme
cious
implies
abilityannihilates the whole doctrine of
able,
grace." Because God, if he held man accountas
a
bound to givehim this ability,
was
it is not an
of justice
matter
ability
by
; hence
by justice.The whole of
grace, but an ability
the
and much
this reasoning,
more,
goes upon
of a planof grace,
that the completion
principle,
Another

erroneous
clearly

"

CALVTNISTIC

245

CONTROVERSY.

begun,cannot be claimed on the scale

without making the whole a plan of
of justice,
justice.But is this true ? Is not a father,
utter he has been instrumental of bringing
a
son
into the world,bound in justiceto providefor
after itis

and
owe

educate

not

the
the

If

he not be called a

cruel wretch ?

the persons

show

much

And

cases

are

yet in both

these

unworthy. The son

of moral principle,
obliquity
man

with

bear
on

whom

him, and
the

cian
physi-

Here
poor and perverse.
in which justice
demands
thai un

favour begun

else what

ton
wan-

be

may

yet the father should

merited
what

he

would
it,

him.
The
discipline
operatedmay be
then

son

should cut off

physician
limb of a poor man,
his life,
is he
to save
bound
in justice,
after he has commenced
to take up the arteries and save
operation,
from dying,
man
by the operation. And if
and

may
and

allthis ?

he should not do

cases

And

yet does not the

debt of gratitude
when
to that father,

has done
the

him

should

be

continued,or

favour in the commencement,

be favour in the whole, would

and

was

would

theless
never-

be most
manifest
by its incompleteness,
Such is the state of the questionin
injustice.

respectto the Divine administration. The

race

of

had become

man

obnoxious

to the

whole

Divine

in their representative
and federal
displeasure,
of his sin. This is expressly
head, by reason
stated :
By the offence of one, judgmentcame
"

upon

all

all die."

men

to

condemnation."

In this situation we

the strictjustice
of

the law

may

"

In

Adam

suppose

that

requiredpunish-

246
ment

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

in the very character

in which

the offence

sciously
personallyand conhe
sinned ; and so, according
to justice,
suffer. The
must
prospective
generationsof
in him, as they had not
seminally
existing
men,
and personally
sinned, could,in jusconsciously
tice,
only experiencethe effects of the curse in
in which they sinned,viz.
character
the same
uuless provision
and seminally,
could
passively
be made, by which, in their personalexistence,
they might free themselves from the effects of
of his wisdom
sin. Now
God, in the plenitude
for a new
and grace, saw
fit to make
provision
of
for man, on the basis of a covenant
probation
was

Adam

committed.

grace, the different parts of which are all to be

racter.
viewed together,
in order to judge of their chaIn this covenant
and

when

the

stood in the
did when

same

he

Adam

promisewas

had
made

relation to his

neiv

to

trial;

him

as
posterity

he

he

out
was
sinned, and the curse
the prospective
If,by the latter,

againsthim.
of men
generations

were

cut
justly

off from sible

posthis existence

by the former
If by the
was
mercifullysecured to them.
ty
corruptionof the race, throughsin,the possibiliof salvation was
cut off,on all known
ples
princiof administrative justice
; by the provisions
existence ;

of salvation was
secured
possibility
race
implies
; and this possibility
able
to render grace availnecessary provision

of grace the
to the whole
every

in accordance
with moral
efficient,
If "God, who
responsibility.
spared not his
and

own

Son, but freely

gave him

up for

us

had
all,"

CALVINISTIC

not

"

with

him
for

necessary

247

CONTROVERSY.

also

freely
given us

would
salvation,

our

not

all things"
the Divine

procedurehave been characterized both by folly

and injustice
If his plan of grace had only
?
ing,
gone so far as to have givenus a conscious bewithout giving
the means
of making that
us
existence happy,would it not have been wanton
cruelty? And yet, takingthe whole together,
who does not see
that it is a most
stupendous
system of grace, from the foundation

the topof such manifest

Let us not then be guilty
stone ?
istration,
to take a part of the Divine adminas
folly,
and make
viewed

up

to

judgmentupon that,as

of
independently

the rest,and then transfer

As in
this abstract character to the whole.

chemical

combinations,though one of the ingredients

taken alone might be deleterious,
yet the

compound

nutritious

be

salutary,so
in the new
covenant, if we separate legalexac
tions and penalties
from gracious
the
provisions,
of the former may be unjustand cruel,
operations
hath combined
yet the whole, united as God
them, may be an administration of unparalleled
It is in this heavenlycombination
that
grace.
and truth are met
together,
righteousness
mercy
and peace have kissed each other."
Now,
therefore, if we confess our sins,he is faithful
and justto forgive
us
our
sins,"for on this ground
be ujusi and the justifier
of them
he can
that
believe."
is thus involved in
Althoughjustice
the system, and to leave out part of the system
would be manifest injustice,
yet the whole is the
blessed Gospel;" the GospeLofthe grace cf
may

"

"

"

"

or

248

calvinistic

controversy.

It is objected,
I know, that the idea that,
of the Gospel,man
would
but for the provisions
God."

is fanciful and
propagatedhis species,
I
unauthorized by Scripture.The Scriptures,
about
grant, do not strike off into speculations
what God mighthave done, or would have done,
This is foreign
if he had not done as he has.
from their design; and I am
perfectly
willing
stand as the Scriptures
to let the whole
present
it. But when our
opponents set the example
of raising
think tiie true
to what
an
we
objection
system, by passingjudgment on a part,viewed
not

have

must
we
abstractly,
own
ground,then, I
man

would

have

and

more

the

course

not.

more

with the

of

Whoever

existence

idea

their
that

propagate his
gether
grace, is alto-

by Scripture.
reasonable,

of nature,
I answer,
It seems

reasonable,and

me

to

unauthorized

that he would

suppose

allowed

said,that it seems

in accordance

On

say, the

of
provisions

any
fanciful and

Will it be

would

been

without
species,

them.

meet

course

in accordance

to
to

with

suppose that he would

maintains
that the personal

to
justice,

of Adam's

not implied
was
posterity
and included in the provisions
of grace, in the
take into his theory one
of
new
covenant, must
the
either
followingappendages; he must
could justly
believe that the whole race
be consigned
for the
to personaland unavoidable wo,
sin of Adam, or that all could be justly
condemned
"

for the sin of their

upon

them

without

equallyunavoidable

own

nature, entailed

and therefore
believe thai
must

their agency,
\

or

he

250

CONTROVERSY*

CALVIMSTIC

plan,that,1. Adam did

himself incapableof sinning,
not render
by the
but rather rendered himself and his posterity
fall,
incapableof any other moral exercise but
We

way.

what

our

on

see,

sinful ; and

was

it

was

this

on

account

is necessary, in order to
graciousability
has
a second
probation.2. Sin, since the fall,
not been the result of supernatural
grace, but the
natural fruit of the fall; and supernatural
grace
that

needed

of

the

grace
wicked," and

was

4.

and

another

any

one

God," both
he

because

"

"

3.

is

"

could think

Man

"

because

he

weak."

was

difference between
one
to be ascribed to God."

moral

The

"

sin.

counteracted

has

all that

is

"

man

How

able
contrary opinioncharge-

surprising.It is more
Calvinism that is chargeablewith this
properly
Calvinism
sentiment.
says, Regenerationis a
rightchoice. It says, also,that power to sin
come
bewe
impliespower to be holy; and of course
that by which
as
holyby the same
power
is to

us,

upon

me

sin.

And

it farther says, that the power

of nature

and

not

we

and
put all these together,
most

to

the sinful nature

"

But, on

God."
of

man

by the power of
of Adam"
posterity

The

to atone

for actual

the

not

low
fol-

ence
differ-

moral
is not

contrary,we

to be

say

changed in regeneration
5.
the Holy Ghost.

is

sin."

did

sinful nature

"

For

not of gracious
result,
power,

but of

the

"

and another

man

one

let the reader

if itdoes

see

that
conclusively,

between

ascribed

Now

of grace.

is

as

need

Saviour

actual sin is the

this author supposes,

retained
voluntarily

and

indulged.If our

the

sentiment,that grace

actual sin of Adam's

that grace

have

not

sinned.

of

author

that God
moral

"

But

"

on

them

if this makes
rule

There
is

grace
the

fall

would

God

the

with the

is" constant

here,
difficulty
on

But in

us.

the

of sin.

cause

have

seen,

doctrine

of

per-

grace."

guiltin the present

of the infernal regions." 8.
This
a
greater"blessing to our race than
of Adam"
a
was
calamity;" for
i:

"

"

"

sin

where

we

heavilyas

other sense, grace is not

This opinionis," as we

rebellion

was

grace

of Adam
posterity

same

as

fectly consistent

"

sense,

and if there is any

agents

"

of the

cause

could prove
is the author of sin,because he created

"

7.

the

sin,by the

it presses
any

is the

because we
hold
posterity,
of their personal
ence,
existcause

without which

cause

opponents chargeus with

grant that,in that

we

6.

the

was

251

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

abounded, grace

did

much

more

abound."
Thus

and

I have

endeavoured

defendthe

doctrine

of

doctrine

always

maintained

explain,
prove,
a
graciousability,
to

in

orthodox

the

Church, until the refinements of Calvinism

it necessary
on

the
fall.

to

call it in

which, viewed

orthodox
I have

and

in its different

Arminian
been

question
;

the

system
more

trine
doc-

bearings,

must

minute

made

and

stand

or

ed
extend-

in my remarks
from this consideration ; and
also from the consideration that while this doctrine
has of late been
all classes of

assailed by
violently
Calvinists,
lished
very littlehas been pubmost

in its defence.

If the reader

has

had

252

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

patienceto follow the subjectthrough,he is

now
perhapspreparedto judge whether our
holy volitions are the result of a graciousability
or

of natural power.
Should I find time to pursue
it would
be in place now

doctrine of
the

nature

choice
would

to

farther,
subject

examine

the

examination
regeneration
; in which
of inherent depravity,
and of that

which

is conditional

the

to

noticed.
fully
permit."

be

if God

this

"

more

birth,

new

This

will I do

XIII.

NUMBER
REGENERATION.

in any one
cardinal doctrine
error
important
of the Gospelwill make
a glaring
deformity

An

in the entire system.

doctrines is marred or

Hence

when

one

of these

a corresponding
perverted,

change must be made in most or all of the others

of consistency.
to keep up the appearance
These remarks applywith special
emphasisto
the doctrine of regeneration.
As this is a focal
in which many
other leading
doctrines centre,
point,
this doctrine must
of necessity
racter
give a chato the whole
Gospel plan. This might
be inferred a priorifrom the knowledge of the
relation of this to the other parts of the Christian
illustrated in
system, and it is practically
the

who

of
history

the

Church.

There

believe,that by the various

terms

are

those
used in

CALVINISTIC

to express
Scripture
or
regeneration

intended but

the

led
change commonly calthe new
birth,nothingis

outward

some

change of opinionin
or

the like.

253

CONTROVERSY.

some

of

lief
bespeculative
it is baptism,
or
a

matters

Some

or

ceremony,

say

of faith ; others that it is a

publicprofession
try,
renunciation of heathen idolamere
speculative
and an
acknowledgment of the Christian
faith ; others that itis merelya reformed life; and
few maintain that it is the change that we
a
shall undergoby death, or by the resurrection
of the body. These persons, and all in fact who
birth somethingshort of a radical
make
the new
cy's
for consistenchange of heart,are obliged,
the other doctrines to

sake,to accommodate
their views

regeneration.Hence

of

they very
generally
deny constitutional or derived depravity,
the inflexibility
and rigorousexactions of
the Divine
the

law, the destructive character of sin,

the

atonement,

the

Spiritupon

of the
supernatural
agency
human
heart, justification
by
radical

and the like.

faith,

Thus

leads
pointactually

to another

it may be called.
It does not come

designto

enter

But

errors.

of these

error

gospel
"

on

one

if gospel

within the scope of my present

into a refutation of the going
forefrom

the

disastrous

results

may infer the importanceof

and of understanding
guardingcarefully
clearly
the

errors

we

doctrine
Scripture

where

the

is not

error

above

of the
so

new

birth.

stances
radical,as in the in-

alluded to, the evil may

and in

some

cases

Even

fatal.

derable,
be consi-

254

CALVINISTIC

The

Arminians

CONTROVERSY.

and

Calvinists agree

in this

in so far as that they both make

it a
doctrine,
radical change of moral nature, by the supernatural
of the Holy Ghost.
But they differ
agency

respect to the order in which

in

the several

parts of the change take place in respect to

"

the

and

manner

degree of

and
Holy Spirit,
which

human

also

in

the agency

respect

has in the

agency

of this

change. And in some,

Calvinists differ as much
points,
as
they do from us.
It is my

present purpose

to

to

we

the

part

accomplishment

if not all of these

from each other

pointout

more

present and defend what

the

to

prominentCalvinistic modes
and explaining
this doctrine,
with the
attendingthem : after which I shall
the

of

some

of

of

stating

difficulties
endeavour

believe to be the

doctrine of regeneration.
Scripture
First Theory. The
notion that the mind is
thing
entirely
passivein this change,that is,that nois done by the subject
of it,which is preparative
"

or

in any way
or
conditional,

in its accomplishment,
has been

tive
co-opera-

prevailing

sentiment in the various modifications of the old

Calvinistic school.
that the mind

It is not

indeed

is inactive,either before

time this renovation

is effected

by

the

pretended
or

at

the

Holy Spirit.

the contrary,it is said that the sinner

is resisting
with all the power of the mind, and
On

with

all the

obstinacyof

the

most

inveterate

the very moment,

and in the very
So that the sinner is regeneact of conversion.
rated,

enmity,up
not

to

only without

his

but
co-operation,

also

in

spileof

255

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

his utmost

Hence

resistance.

it is

maintained,that,but for the irresistibleinfluence

sinner
of the Holy Ghost
upon the heart, no
would

be converted.

to this view
leadingobjections
of conversion
connected
is,that it is inseparably
with the doctrine of particular
and unconditional
The
election.
two
imply each
reciprocally
stand or fall together.
other,and must therefore,
and unconditional
But this doctrine of particular
election has been sufficiently
refuted,it is hoped,

1.

One

of the

that gave rise to this controversy ;

and irresistible
if so, then the doctrine of passivity
in the

sermon

grace is not true.

2. Another
very serious

this

which
difficulty

theory of conversion has to contend with is,

in numerous
clare
that the Scriptures,
passages, debe resisted,
that the Spiritof God
may
grieved,
quenched,and utterly
disregarded
; and
that the

grace
in vain.

of God

The

may

passages

be

or

to establish

that
are
so
frequent
propositions
But if this
to pointthem
out.
of
grace of God and the Spirit

irresistible.
be yet farther
3. It may

abused,
I need
be

so,

grace

ceived
re-

these

not

stop

then

the

are

not

trine
objectedto this docof the mind's passivity
in conversion,that
it is a virtual denial of all gracious
influence
It has been
upon the heart before regeneration.
shown
in previousnumbers
that man
not
was
able to comply with the conditions of salvation
influences
and that the gracious
without grace
cf the Divine Spirit
are
givento every sinner
"

256

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

But there would be

to regeneration.
previous
in it,
and no consistency
if
for this,
no
necessity
there are no conditions and no
on
co-operation
the part of the sinner in the process of the new
of this doctrine
the advocates
birth. Hence
that the first act

maintain
consistently

very
grace
which

the

upon

heart

of

regenerates him.

Since

conflicts with the Bible

influence

anterior

to

is that

sinner

the

then this

doctrine

of

conversion, it

of

theory

gracious

cannot

be

admitted.
all

removes
theoryof regeneration

4. This

the part of the sinner to the removal

of the power
and guiltof sin. It teaches

conditions

on

that if the sinner should do any thing

acceptable
itwould
to God, as a condition to his conversion,
did not need converting
; that such an
trine
idea,in fact,would be inconsistent with the doc-

imply he

and
depravity,

of
idea of

salvation
which

ground on

irreconcilable with the

by grace.

And

this is the

the old Calvinists have

charged us

so

peatedly
re-

trines
with the denial of the doc-

of grace, and with

justified
by our works.

that
holding

we

may

be

in these notions
somethingvery singular
of unconditional
the necessity
respecting
in order that it may be by grace.
regeneration,

There

These

same

is

Calvinists tellus that the sinner

can

repent,and ought to repent,and that the Scrip,

ner
requireit at his hand. What ! is the sinwould
able and obliged
to do that which
destroythe whole economy of grace ! which
the atonewould blot out the Gospeland nullify

tures

258

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

that,in this way,

have

been

should infer that such would

We

ruined.

thousands

of

tens

be the

result of the doctrine,from only understanding

its character ; and I am
fullysatisfied that,in
I
personalacquaintance,

my own
hundreds

have

who

Antinomianism
with

of

the

hand, or

one

tell

this is the

us

doctrine ; but it appears to me

fruit. What
else could
well

might as

man

to do

as

any

Teach
Antinomian

by

this,and

rate, what

can

beneath

do 1

dethrone
his

"

the Mediator,
own

version.
con-

ensues,

if you
the law, and
or

the

Nothing !
he

the

the

carelessness

him, but

of

legitimate
expect? A

we

that awaits

he

Calvin-

be

to

thingtoward

the fearful doom

from

to

doctrine

abuse

feelingswill follow
mind by the curse
of

the

arouse

attempt

of

paralyzed

despairon the other,by this same

passive,unconditional conversion.

ists,it is true,

with

met

lulled in the cradle

been

on

have

nnregeneHell rises
do

nothing.
He
looks until he is excited to phrensy,from
he very probablypasses
which
to raving
over
madness, or settles down into a state of gloomy
despair.
6. Another
very decisive objectionto this
doctrine is,the frequent,
and I may say uniform
require
languageof Scripture.The Scriptures
us

seek

to

heart

"

ask

knock

"

notice how
the whole

"

"

"

open
No

these instructions
volume

of

can

to

come

"

repent believe
receive
Christ,"c.

God

unto

"

to meet

"

look

the door of the

one

can

fail to

over
sprinkled

are

revelation.

in pointhere, all these

specially

Christ

are

And

what

spoken

is
of

CALVINISTIC

and

urgedupon

shall follow

and

regeneration
"

which
one

cannot

we

of

passage

him, to them
of God, even
If any
of

the

even

"

conditions,too, without
expect these blessings.Take

to

to

"

As

as
many
to become

received
the

his name."

on

becomingthe

"

sons

sons

expressedin

this text, means

neration,
regesettle
it
will
"Which

verse

"

of blood, nor
of the will of man,

of the will of the

not

The

but of

God," John

I may
have
sion
occahereafter ; it is quotedhere

latter

remark

show

"

many

the next

flesh,nor
i, 12, 13.

as

gave he power
that believe
to them

as

born

that
blessings

of salvation,
of
blessings

doubts whether

one

God,"

were

conditions of

as

us

259

CONTROVERSY.

upon
that the new

verse

birth is

undoubtedlythe

pressly
subjecthere spoken of. And we are here extaught,in language that will bear no
other
that receiving
Christ and
interpretation,
his name
the conditions of reon
are
generation.
believing

If there

no

other passage

the

Bible

this

plainunequivocaltext ought to

But

the truth

to

direct

were

our

minds

this

on

in

subject,

be decisive.

is,this is the uniform

Scripture. And

are

there any

languageof
passages against

lieve,
becannot
cannot
these,any that say we
come,
seek, "c ? or any that say, this work of
is performedindependent
personalregeneration
of conditions ?

I know

fairlyadmit

are

him
God

of

of

which

none

will not

different construction.

often met

We

"
with this passage
It is not of
that willeth,
of him that runneth, but of
nor
that showeth
mercy." See Rom. ix,16.

But whoever

"

this
interpreted!

of

personaland

260

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

individual

can
ined
hardly have examregeneration
the passage
and candidly.But
carefully
that renews
the
told again,it is God
are

we

heart ; and if it is his work, it is not the work of

I grant this ; this is the very sentithe sinner.
ment
I

to

mean

be conditions

should

maintain
there

"

hear

are

but then there may

else we
conditions
or
;

"

the

psalmist
praying for this,in
cation
languagethat has been preservedfor the edifiof all subsequentgenerations,Create in
clean heart,O God, and renew
a
me
a right
rit
spiwithin me."
This is a practical
comment
on
not

"

"
Christ's conditional salvation,
Ask
receive."

and ye shall

Since then this doctrine of

ditional
passiveand uncontion
regenerationimpliesunconditional elecsince it is in opposition
to those scriptures
teach that the Spirit
and grace of God

"

which

be resisted and

may

virtual

in vain

received

"

since itis

denial of all

graciousinfluences upon
the heart before regeneration since it leads the
abettors of the theoryinto gross contradictions,
by their endeavours to reconcile the can and the
of their system
since its practical
cannot
dency
tena

"

"

is to make
to

despair
"

sinners careless,or drive them

since it contradicts that
and finally,

class of

of which are
some
scriptures,
very unequivocal,that predicatethe blessings
of regeneration
and
certain
justification
upon

numerous

preparatory and conditional

we
therefore

conclude

acts

that this

of the sinner

theorycannot

"

be

true.

Second

Theory. To
"

avoid these difficulties,

CALVIXISTIC

to

make

261

CONTROVERSY.

the sinner feel his

and to
responsibility,

bringhim into action,a new theory of regeneration

is proposed. This constitutes a leading
characteristic of the New
Divinity.It is the
tain
Its advocates main-conversion.
theoryof self
that there is

no

mystery

more

or

tural
supernain
the
ed
callprocess of the change,
agency
the
new
birth,than there is in any other
It is
leadingpurpose or decision of the mind.

true,they do not whollyexclude the Holy Spirit

and
from this work, but his agency is mediate
indirect.

He

throughthe
acts

and

in

acts

truth

as

an

undefinable

some

instrument.

The

way,
truth

upon the mind, in the way of moral suasion,

the sinner,in the view and by the influence

of truth,resolves

givehimself up to God and

and this is regeneration.
The
to his service
is of God
but the actual change is
preparation
work.
man's own
The God of providence
veals
reto

"

"

for its
arranges the means
the Spirit
of grace appliesit to
promulgation,
the sinner looks at it,
reflects
the understanding,
the

truth and

and at lengthis persuadedto

upon it,
the work, and regenerates himself!
That

we

may

be the better

set

preparedto

about

meet

it should be noticed that it is

hypothesis,
from the notion that all sin consists
inseparable
in voluntary
exercise,or in other words, in a
series of sinful volitions.
Regenerationis a
change from sin to holiness and hence a regenerate
If
of a sinful state.
state is the opposite
than a
then a regenerate state is nothingmore
series of holyvolitions,
an
unregeneratestate,

this

"

262

CALVINISTIC

which

CONTROVERSY.

is
is its opposite,

unholy volitions. Thus

doctrine of regeneration
by

will must

stand

or

ries
se-

it appears that
the act of the

of

this

than

nothingmore

fall with the notion that all sin

voluntaryexercise. Any argument,

this latter theorywill
therefore,broughtagainst
this new
idea of
bear with equalweight against
are
Bearing this in mind, we
regeneration.
preparedto objectto this doctrine,
consists in

1.

itis inconsistent with the doctrine of

That

constitutionaldepravity.This is

grantedby the

tional
supporters of the theory,and hence constituis no part of their system.
All
depravity
the arguments therefore that have been adduced
in favour of derived,inherent depravity,
that
or
be urgedin favour of this doctrine,
will stand
can

directly
opposed to
The

arguments in favour of
need
to

has been
2.

this view

repeated; and
in
previousnumber

not
a

be

regeneration.
views of depravity

the reader

is referred

which

point

this

discussed.

Another

to
objection

is,that it makes

place at

our

of

this

theoryof

ration
regene-

entire sanctification take

the time of

holiness,are

Conversion,
regeneration.
than a decision of
nothingmore

the will ; and since the will can

be more
never
than decided,
of course
the decision at tion
regenerais the perfection
On
this ground,
of holiness.

therefore,though Christians
"

cleanse

themselves

from

and

are

exhorted

all filthiness of

to

flesh

holiness in the fear of the

spirit,
'perfecting
Lord ;" though the saints are
commanded
to
confess their sins,"that
"grow in grace,"to
"

CALVINISTIC

theymay be
though some
"

"cleansed from all unrighteousness"

of the Corinthian

carnal and

in Christ
must

we

walked

"

if
still,
call the

Christians

were

men," and for that

as

after years

were,

263

CONTROVERSY.

of

experience,
only babes

embrace

we

son
rea-

convert,

at

this

sentiment,

his first spiritual

breath,as holy as he ever can be in any of the

! Surelythe
subsequentstages of his experience
apostlestaughtnot this ! And yet so strongly
are

men

doctrine

impelledforward by their systems, this

of perfectholiness at conversion is the

very sentiment that many

New
are
now
Divinity

of the advocates

of the

propagatinga

clear

"

follows
proofthat itnecessarily

of

of

This

conversion.

from their

theory

it strikes
itself,

ought to destroythe doctrine.

3. Another
and
bearingof this hypothesis,
which

I think

me,

one

prove fatal to it,is,that the

in
Scriptures
representthis change to be chiefly
must

the

whereas
this doctrine makes
it
affections,
in the will. That
the Scriptures
exclusively
I supplacethe change in the affections chiefly,
pose will not
out

denied.

be

stoppinghere

If it.should be, with-

quote specific
passages, or
consideration alone
arguments, one

use

to

many
will be sufficient to set

True
and
than
view

the

questionat

rest.

"

holiness consists in love to God

evangelical
rather
man
; and sin is lovingthe creature
The
the Creator.
apostle bringsinto
both the

regenerate

in this passage
thingsabove, and not
state

Numerous

are

"
"

on

and

the

unregenerate
Set your affection on
thingson the earth."

the passages

which

teach

that

264

CALVINISTIC

love to God

is the

The
of

CONTROVERSY.

of the Christian character.

essence

therefore,are
affections,

this

change. But
theorythe change is

we

told

are

in the will.

the

by

seat

this

It is

new

only to

God, and we are converted.

Either this theory,
or the Bible account
therefore,
resolve

to

serve

of this matter
To

"

be wrong.
avoid this difficulty,
it may

change of

must

be

said,that

the will

tions.
impliesa change of the affecBut this is changingthe position which
If
is,that a decision of the will is regeneration.
however
this new
be insisted upon, it
position
be reconciled
with the phraseology
used
can
onlyby making a change of the affections a
subordinate part of regeneration,
whereas
mere
the Scriptures
make
the change consist essentially
"

in this.

But

there is stilla

serious

more

in this idea,that the change

difficulty
will implies
a
change in the affections.
impliesthat the affections are
times
is

under

the

control of

will.

the

of

the

It
at

cessarily
ne-

all

But this

it is unscriptural.
It is
as
unphilosophical
even
directly
contrary to the observation and
who have paidonlycommon
knowledgeof men
and casual attention to mental phenomena.
The
will is oftener enthralled by the affections,
than
the affections by the will. Even
in common
and worldlymatters
let a man
try by an effort
of the will to begetlove where
it does not exist,
to transfer the affections from
or
one
objectto
as

another, and how

and

hatred go
might as well

or

succeed

will he
come

at

attempt,by

an

his
act

Will

?
bidding

love

You

to
of the will,

266

CALVINISTIC

This

4.

the

idea of the character

birth makes

new

times,

sin and

of

regeneration. I

this that he is not

obnoxious

do

does

act ;

whenever

or

the control of

under

of

not

the

not

ment
punish-

to

for past 'unholyvolitions. But if sin

exercise,whenever
only in voluntary
mind

of

sinless,at particular

man

without

even

by

mean

CONTROVERSY.

sists
con-

the

its action is not

will,there is nothing

the man.
to
appertaining
personally
the action of the will is suspendedby an
When
emotion of wonder
or
surprise in
all-absorbing
sound sleepwhen the mental states, if there are

sin

"

"

any,

not

are

under

the

control of

the

will
"

in

of

suspended animation, by drowning,

in short,whenever
the
otherwise
or
fainting,
is often
mind is necessarily
as
wholly engrossed,
the case, by some
scientific investigation,
or
of worldlybusiness,
of a moral character,
matter
not

cases

"

then, and

in every

such

case,

whatever

there
guiltfor past transgressions,
And
no
personal unholiness.
by the same
we
reasoning
may show that the regenerate pass
a
great portionof their time without any personal
may
is

be the

holiness !

Accordingto the theorywe are opposing,

regeneration,
speaking,means
strictly
nothing.
The work of grace, by which a sinner is made
for heaven, embraces
essential points,
two
meet
jxirdonand renewal. The former is not a positive
change of character,but a relative change,
5.

from

state

But

of condemnation

to

state

if it have
regeneration,
a mere
meaning,cannot mean
as

of
any

quittal.
ac-

propriat
ap-

change

CALVINISTIC

267

CONTROVERSY.

of

relation,
any construction or system that forsuch a meaning upon
it does,in fact,do it
ces
Hence, being born again, being renewed,
away.
beingcreated anew, beingsanctified,
being
translated from darkness to light,
being raised
other scripture
from the dead, and numerous
forms of speech,so
are
expressions,
figurative
from the idea they are used to express,
foreign
that they are worse
than unmeaning they lead
But if these expressions
to
error.
mean
any
than pardon,what is that meaning?
thingmore
This doctrine makes
the principal
change take
placein the neighbourhoodof the will ; not in
the will itself,
meaning by that,the mental power
by which we put forth volitions. This facvliy
of the mind is sound, and needs no change all
the other mental susceptibilities
are
sound, the
of the mind and the susceptibilities
of
essence
the mind are perfectly
free from any moral per"

"

version.

What

It is the mental

is there

then

action that is bad.

in the

"

that is to be

man

changed? Do you say his volitions? But these

he changes every hour.
Do you say, he must
leave off wrong
and
have rightones
?
volitions,
This

too

with

and this acting

rightmotives," you say,
deed
rightmotives is the regenerate state." In! Suppose then that he has resolved to
God, from rightmotives,what if he should

from

serve

he

often does.

"

But

he

must

do

it

"

afterward

resolve,from

false shame

or

fear,to

neglecta duty,is he now

umegenerate ? This
is changing from regenerate to unregenerate,
from

entire holiness to entire unholiness with

268

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

breath.

Trulysuch

But

say, after he

is nothing.
regeneration

submitted,he
now
a
governingpurpose" to serve God,
and this constitutes him regenerate ; aye, a gov.
you
has

has

once

"

that does

erningpurpose

not

Let

him.

govern

divide a volition ; it
it be understood,you cannot
has an
entire character in itself; and if it be

precedingholyvolition

unholy,no
it.

Hence

sanctify

can

change of volition from wrong

rightto wrong, is a change of
play
regeneracy and unregeneracy

every
and from
to right,

state, so

that

in and out

of the human

of every

criminal

aspiration.Is
of

it,if

you

tion
alterna-

every pious
doctrine of the

thoughtor

this the

And

birth ?

new

in the

bosom

Bible

yet this is all you

resolve it into the

make

can

action

mere

of

the will.
G.

This doctrine of self-conversion,by

of the will,is directly

contrary to
would

be tedious to

all those
to
as

work

and in

us.

me

There

God
is one

Scripture.It

my readers to quote
attribute this work
rectly
di-

speak of it
for,
accomplishes
himself
that

passage which
is sufficient of

however, and
point,
settle this question. "But
in

act

and

passages that
and
the Holy Spirit,

which

an

as

many

as

is much
itself to

received

the sons
him, to them gave he power to become
of God, even
that believe on his name.
to them
Who
were
born, not of blood,nor of the will of
but of God,"
the flesh,
of the will of man,
nor
This is a two-edged sword
John i, 12, 13.
it cuts off,as we have remarked
before,passive
"

and unconditional

the
on
regeneration

one

hand

CALVINISTIC

and also,as we
act of the
an
words

how

other.

in
put together,

be
to

self-conversion

see,

the

will,on

better

compass,

now

may

can

269

CONTROVERSY.

the true

answer

I know

not

small

so

by
a

objectsof

these two opposite

theories of regedestroying
neration,
and asserting
the true theory. Here
is,first the receivingof Christ,the believing
"

on

his

Christ

name

this is the

"

givesthe

condition.

Second,

and pripower,"viz. strength

vilege

"

the

to become

sons

of God.

This

is the

This becoming the sons

regeneration.Third
of God," or being
born," is not in a physical
yet by human will,
way, by flesh and blood,nor
but of or by God.
Can any thingbe clearer or
"

"

"

decisive ?

more

Indeed the very terms, regeneration,

born,birth,
"c, implyof themselves another and an efficient

agent ; and

then

to

these with the Divine

connect

the

have done some

Scriptures
half dozen times in the phrase, born of God,"
of
and several other times in the phrase,"born
:" to have this called being begotten
the Spirit
again,"and the like,is enough,one would think,
if words have any meaning,to show that man
heart.
The same
does not change his own
may
as

agency,

"

"

be

said of the terms

creation,renewal, and

Scripturesuse
Christ claimed
his

and
life,

to

to

translation,
resurrection,
various

the

change. Jesus
power to lay down
again;" but this is the

express
that he had
take it

other terms

this

"

of self-resurrection power
that we
and even
this was
ture
by his Divine na-

only instance
read

of;

; for he

was

"

and
quickenedby the Spirit,"

270

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

raised

"by

teach

has

sins,"he has power

man
Truly this is giving
to

of the

"

approaches
To

quickenwhom

change the heart of the sinner is

and he that atDivine prerogatives,
tempts

himselfand

end

the

whatsoever
endeavour

to

be

here

not

me

of the

of the

is born

trusts

to

is carnal

he

that

is born

whatsoever

Let

in trespasses
his lifeagain.

attributes.

does it belong "to

to convert

in

his

To

he will."

find

these theorists

lay down

that

power
of the Divine

one

Christ alone

one

dead

"

to take

and

near

to

power

and then, after he is

life,

very

But

of God."

the power
that man

this,will

still. For

flesh is

flesh,but

is spirit."
Spirit

misunderstood.

I shall

show, in its proper place,the

ditional
con-

in this work.
I have
of man
agency
only time to add, in this number, that I consider
duties upon
which
the
those scriptures
press
sinner
And

applyingto

as

those

even
occur

"

conditional agency.

which
times
someexpressions
the sinner
Bible,requiring

strong

in the

himself

make

this

new

heart"

"
"

to

cleanse

his heart,""c, will find an

purify
in this
and a pertinent
application

hands and
solution

of the

subject.

For

if there

conditions,without which

are

certain

the

work

to

his
easy
view

ing
pend-

will not

then there would be a propriety,

accomplished,
while pressingthis duty,to use
expressions
though
showing that this work was conditionally,
the agency
of the
not
resting
efficiently,
upon
be

sinner.

In my
there is

next
no

I shall endeavour

to

intermediate Calvinistic

show

that

ground

be-

the two

tween

271

CONTROVERSY.

CALVIXISTIC

theories examined

in this number.

and
If that attempt prove successful,

has been

that

be

admitted,then
to

this

on

the two

with too

encumbered

are

to

found

we

if in this it

theories examined

embarrassments
many
shall be the better prepared

listen to the

of the Scriptures
teachings
importantand leadingdoctrine of the

Christian faith.

XIV.

NUMBER

CONTINUED.

REGENERATION,

in any received theory is

inconsistency
its supporters to some
cation
modificonstantly
driving
of their system. This is a redeeming
in the human
courages
mind, and greatlyenprinciple
the hope that truth
will finally
triumph.
It has alreadybeen noticed that the doctrine
is so pressed
of entire passivity,
in regeneration,
with difficultiesthat it has sought relief in the
oppositenotion of self-conversion. But this
latter hypothesisis, in turn, encumbered, if
An

possible,with still greater embarrassments.

The
presumptiontherefore is,that the truth lies
between

by
the

them

fair and
fact.

Calvinisls

it will doubtless be found,

that this is
thoroughinvestigation,

But

and

here

the

questionarises,Can

consistently
occupy

any

such

middle

the other
ground? In other words, retaining
Calvinistic
of Calvinism,can
our
peculiarities

272

controversy.

calvoistic

brethren
extremes

both ?

which

between
these two
any position
the
difficultiesof
will avoid

brief

cide
examination,it is hoped,will de-

assume

this

question^
Theory^-Dr.

Third

of

clergyman
and

is

at

now

in East

Tyler is

"

the head

purpose

of

faith,

school
theological

Windsor, Conn., which

the avowed

spectable
highly re-

Calvinistic

the

of the

got up with

was

New-

the
counteracting

pect
theology. We should not therefore susthe New
toward
him of leaningtoo much
Divinity. He tells us that the only depravity
God
that there is
is to be unwilling
to serve

Haven

"

"

other

no

obstacle

the way
lies in his

in

salvation except what

"
to be born again is

of the sinner's

will"

own

"

that

simplyto be made willing

God
to do what
requires." What is this but
The
will is here made,
1
the New
Divinity
the sole seat of depravity
most
explicitly,
; and
is an
But every
act of the will.
regeneration
of the will is the sinner's

act

the

agent, by that

fore
act, and there-

own

act

of the will which

himself.

constitutes

regeneration,converts
Perhaps Dr. Tyler will say, the
does

case
"

willing."God
day of his power."

favourite

It is borrowed

phrase
from

makes

him

the third

tenth Psalm, "

willingin the day of
"

verse

he is

willing
"

It is remarkable

this is with the

and

although the word

althoughthere is not

sinner in this

himself, because

convert

made

the
a

not

"

in

what

Calvinists.
of the

dred
hun-

Thy people shall be

thy power." Now

made"

in the text ;
the slightest
evidence that

is not

274
act

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

but influenced to

of power,

nation
holy determi-

throughthe medium
indirectly,
by the Holy Spirit then
presented
"

forward

be thrown

should

we

case

of motives,
and in that
on

to

the

The sinner's voluntary

self-con version system.
himself,would be
act, by which he regenerated
as

his
trulyand entirely

as

own

any

other act of

the will ; therefore he would be self-regenerated

be regeneration,
not
also would
This
by the
but hy
Holy Spirit,

the truth ; which

is another

feature of the New

would

make

rather

Divinity. This also

consist in the will,or
all depravity

in its acts

has

which

been

shown

in the preceding

well as
as
unscriptural
whether
is valid,
This objection
unphilosophical.
is supposed to be in the power of
the depravity
in the acts of the will. But since, in
or
willing,
pravity
direction is deDr. Tyler'sview, to will in one
number

and

to

to

be

will

in

another

direction

is

do
and since all that motives can
regeneration,
but only prompt
is,not to change the will itself,
it to new
voluntarystates, it follows conclusively
that Dr. T.

makes

all holiness and all unholiness

therefore the moralconsist in volitions ; and

exercise system is true ; which is another feature
of the New
C\o not

need

Connecticut

Divinity.Truly I may repeat, we

another theological
seminary in
to teach

this doctrine.

theoryof Dr. T.,

like him, are
he and all those who
reason
I think,with a palpable
paralogism"
chargeable,
in a circle. They say, in the express
they reason
languageof Dr. Tyler, All men may be

Finally,accordingto

this

"

CALVINISTIC

saved
from

they will"
coming to Christ
if

No

"

"

is,since

that

275

CONTROVERSY.

who

will and

is hindered

man

is willing
to come"

"

be

is to be
willing
this languagegravelyteaches us,
regenerated,
be saved, if they are
All men
may
rated"
regeneto

to

"

No

is hindered

from

coming to
Christ (to be regenerated)
who is regenerated
/"
And
indeed this view of regeneration
not
only
"

"

makes

man

learned

divines talk

but the

nonsense,

Scripturesalso. The invitation, Whosoever

ever
Whosowill,let him come," "kc, must
mean,
"

"

is regenerate, let him

other passages.
Thus this
of the

and

many
closelyhemmed

who
in

on

come," and

theoryof

hold

with

Dr.

so

of

Tyler,

him, is

so

both sides,that it must

itselffor support,either upon the doctrine

of passivity,
self-conversion ; at the same
or
time that in other respects it involves itself in
throw

inconsistent and

anti-scriptural
dogmas.
But that we
leave no
ined,
positionunexammay
take another view of the subject.
let us
Suppose, instead of saying regenerationis
simplya change of the will,it should be argued
that a change of the will impliesa change of
the

and
affections,

this therefore is included

in

regeneration.Then I would ask, whether this

change of the affections is in the order of cause
in the order of time, -prior or suband effect,
or
sequent to the act of the will. If this change
is prior to any action of the will in the case,
then the sinner has no
voluntaryco-operation
in the work ; and this bringsus up once
more
The
regeneration.
upon the doctrine of passive

276

CAI.VINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

heart is changedbefore the

of the change
subject
action of the will precedesthe
heart, then this change will be

If the

acts.

change of

the

effected in

one

of

Either this rior

anteways.
volition does itself change the heart ; or it

is

preparatory condition,on

mere

God

of which
the

case

two

changesthe
himself

man

In the former

heart.

would

occasion
his

change

own

heart, and

this is self-conversion ; and in the

latter alternative we
have a conditional ration
regenewrought by the Holy Ghost, and this is
the very

doctrine for which

to

contend,in opposition
If it should be said,this

Calvinism.

we

change of the will and this change of the heart

take placeindependent
of each other,that would
not help the matter, since in this view the change
of heart would
be passiveand unconditional.
Thus

whichever

press
Indeed there

way
upon it
can,

there

God

can

must

be but

as

Calvinistic

this system turns, its difficulties

and it finds no
relief.
still,

conceive,be

no

diate
interme-

theory of regeneration,and
other alternatives

two

"

the

renew

either

of all
heart, independent

co-operationon the part of the subjectof this

ditional
change and this is the old doctrine of unconDivine efficiencyor the firstacceptable
of the will must
be regeneration
act
; and this
"

"

is the

new

doctrine of

Let the
self-conversion.
reflect closelyon this subject,

reader,let any

one

and

doubt

I cannot

There
the

is

no

but he

will say with

third alternative.

case

will admit

may

not

of

none.

contradict many

The
The

nature

former

of those

me,

of
ory
the-

scriptures

277

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

in the work
of
efficiency
incompatible
grace upon the heart,but it is utterly
with those that urge the sinner to duty.2
The
latter theory correspondswell with the
in the
to duty,so abundant
urgent injunctions
but is wholly irreconcilable with
Scriptures,
The true
those that speakof Divine efficiency.
also corto both ; and must
theorymust answer
respondwith all the other parts of the Christian
Is there such a theory? Every honest
system.
if
after truth will embrace
it doubtless,
inquirer
be presented for truth,wherever, and
it can
discovered,is
whenever, and by whomsoever
to be preferred
to error, however
infinitely
long
Such
and fondlyit may have been cherished.
a theory I will now
tryto present and although
and in
I may
fail in making it very explicit,
bringing forward all its defences, yet if the
generaloutlines can be seen and be defended,it

that

speak of

Divine

"

"

"

will,I trust, commend

itself to

the favourable

notice of the reader.

ScriptureDoctrine of Regeneration.I approach

the two
this subjectby layingdown
fundamental
:"
following
principles
is performed
work
of regeneration
1. The
of the
by the direct and efficient operations
Holy Spirit
upon the heart.
this regenerating
exerts
2. The
Holy Spirit
only on conditions,to be firstcomplied
power
with by the subjectof the change.
The
first principle
I deem
it unnecessary
to
"

defend

farther than

remarks.
foregoing

it has been

It is not

defended

in the

to by any
objected

278

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

Christians that I know

orthodox

of, only so far

and of conviews of self-conversion,
as the new
version by moral
suasion,may be thoughtan

exception. And this we have

of limited
will be an exception
The

duration.

sentiment

to

reason

extent

conflicts

and

hope
short

directly
class of scriptures,
and
with such a numerous
with the most
of mental
approved principles
time, such a
philosophy
; and has, at the same
direct tendency to annihilate all the essential
it cannot
features of regeneration,
long find
It may
Church.
encouragement in a spiritual
however
into their
such

fond

for a time, for

converts
many
of taking the work of salvation

own

hands

make

are

men

and

converts

be
ultimately

if it should,between

; but

the true

as
separation
separates orthodoxyand

now

The

so

Church

there

wide

that which

as

will

Socinianism.

fundamental

other

to
seems
principle
from the scriptures
follow,almost of necessity,
that so abundantly
point out the sinner's duty

and

agency,

however,
principle,

The

by

in connection

all classes

of

with his conversion.

is

strenuously
opposed
Calvinists. The
oppositeof

vinism,
this is in fact the essential characteristic of Calif any
much
however

notion

one

the

called ; for
Calvinistic system may be
can

be

so

modified,in other respects,this is clung to

the

elementarygerm

which

of the system.

Even

which
not
no

makes

allow it

so
a

much

intermediate

constitutes the identity

the

New

of human

conditional

as

action

"

volition between

Divinity,

agency, does
it allows of

the mental

CALVINISTIC

of

states

occasion

worldly love
on

which

the

and

Divine

love,as
transfer is made, or

hinge on which
accomplished.

the

conditional
is
considers

279

CONTROVERSY.

On

the

lution
importantrevo-

the

the volition itself as

the

contrary, it

the transfer
"

the

change. Thus
warilydocs Calvinism,in all its changes,avoid
if I were
conditional
regeneration. Hence
vinism,
called upon to givea generaldefinition of Calthat should include all the speciesthat
volition constitutes

the

entire

I would say, Calvinists are those

claim the name,
For
who believe in unconditional regeneration.
this

the moment

pointis givenup by

any one,
Calvinist.

parties
agree that he is not a
sive
offenBut why is conditional regeneration
so
the Scriptures
Is it because
1
directly
is hardly pretended. It is
it?
This
oppose
supposed,however, by the Calvinists,that to
acknowledge this doctrine would requirethe
all

renunciation

of

certain

doctrines

other

which

Scriptures.This lays the

that have
been
foundation for the objections
made
againstthis doctrine. It is objectedthat
a
depraved sinner cannot performan acceptable
condition until he is regenerated that God can.
not consistently
accept of any act short of that
which constitutes regenerationthat the idea of
conditional regeneration
a
impliessalvation by
not
works, in part at least,and
wholly by
taught in

are

the

"

"

grace.
I

have

mentioned

connection, not
moment,

these
much

to

in
objections

this

at

this

attempt,
direct refutation of them, as
so

to

ad-

280

CALVINISTIC

vert

to

what

I conceive

in the
difficulty
between

of

us

minds

to be

the

of those

groundof
making the

the

jections
ob-

It appears to me
that the difference
from a difference
results principally

views

our

CONTROVERSY.

in

respect to the constitution and

the constitutional action of the mind

itself. The

fied
philosophical
part of our theologywill be modiby our views of the philosophy
very much
Let it be grantedthen :
of mind.
1. That
the mind
is possessedof a moral
called conscience,
which
susceptibility,
generally
lays the foundation of the notions of rightand
"

by which we feel the emotions of

for our
approvalor disapproval
past conduct,
and
the feelings
of obligation
with respect to
and

wrong,

the present and the future ; and that even

in an
often opeunregenerate state this susceptibility
rates
in accordance

with its

design,and
original

therefore

agreeablywith the Divine will.

which
2. That the understanding
or
intellect,
in
is a generaldivision of the mind, containing
itself several distinct susceptibilities
or
powers,
may,
so

in

unregenerate

and
enlightened

Divine
wrong
at

an

truth
;

and

as
as

least,the way

state

informed

on

of the

mind,

be

of
subjects
rightand the

the

perceivethe
to perceive
also,to some
of salvation pointed
out
to

extent

in the

Gospel.
That

the

affections

and

propensities
(sometimescalled the heart)are the principal
often arrayed
seat of depravity and these are
in direct hostility
to the convictions of the judgment
and the feelings
of moral obligation*
3.

"

282

CONTROVERSY.

CALVIMSTTC

and with as littlemetaphysical

brevity,
that they
as
; for the reason
technicality
possible
are
designedto be understood by all. Bating

much

be ndk
the deficiencies that may on this account
ticed by the philosophical
reader,I think it may
that these, so far as the powers
be assumed

of
operations

and

the mind

concerned, em-

are

generaloutlines of what we
call conditional regeneration.I am
not aware
that they are in opposition
to an
one
principle
of Scrioture
tneology, or mental philosophy.
brace

And
reason

the basis and

is found consonant
if this process
with
and Scripture,
in its generalfeatures,
it

will be easy
such as
are

to

show

that

its relative

bearings

happily harmonize all the

doctrinal phenomena of the Gospelsystem.
We
plantourselves then upon these general
and as abilitywill permit,or truth
positions,
shall endeavour
fend
to justify,
to deseem
may
them
be
as
againstsuch objections
may
known
been made
to have
are
or
anticipated,
here assumed.
against
any of the principles
be objectedperhaps that this is
1. It may
the
making too broad a distinction between
different mental powers, givingto each such a
distinctive action and operation
to infringe
as
plicity.
upon the doctrine of the mind's unityand simmost

It is

believed,however,

our

more

here

own

minds,

or

satisfied shall

assumed

are

the minds
we

more

this

attentive observance

pointis reflected upon by an

of

the

of

others,the

be that the

correct.

That

these distinct properties

of mind

no

principles
there

one

are

doubts.

CALVINISTIC

It is in accordance

speak of

283

CONTROVERSY.

with

universal

language,to

of the conscience,of the

intellect,
distinct properties
as
will,and of the affections,

of the

the

mind.

The

of mind are
as
properties
clearlymarked
by our consciousness,as the
And
senses.
propertiesof matter
by our
of the invisibility
of
although,in consequence
mind, there is doubtless a more
perfect
unityin
each

individual mental

property, than in each

distinct quality
of matter, stilleach of the mental
has its appropriate
and distinctive
qualities

Calvinists themselves

character.
this.
tests

They allow we
good or evil,even

they allow

have
in

moral

an

acknowledge
which

sense

unregenerate state

the

intellect may
perceiveand approve
of truth, even
when
the heart rejects
it ;

they allow that to perceiveand to judge,to feel

moral obligation
and to will,are distinct operations
of the mind ; and that our perceptions
and
conscience may be right,
when
affections
our
our
So far then we
are
are
agreed,and
wrong.
far they make
distinctions in the mind, as
so
wide as any that have been claimed in the principles
above laid down.
I grant,
Theologians,
have, in many

instances,confounded

reasoningsthe

will and

this has

also sometimes

the

in their

affections.

beeij done

by

And

writers

But it is most
of the mind.
philosophy
evident,I think, they have done this without
Mr. Locke says, " I find the will
good reason.
on

the

often confounded

with

desire,and
especially
This

he thinks is

an

several of the
one

affections,

put for the other."

error, of which

"

any

one

284

calvixistic

who

in

his

Professor

will

mind"

own

himself

thoughtsinward

his

turns

controversy.

Upham,

be

upon what
convinced.

of Bowdoin

Maine,
College,
is generally
as
Calvinist,
supposed,in

late excellent treatise

the

on

clearlyproves,

I think, that

mind, which

term

we

that which

from

we

the state

"

desire."

term

that desires and

direct

opposition.Hence

And

will,asserts, and

of the

is entirely
distinct
volition,

proves
our

passes
Rev.

volitions
love

as

he

Nay,
often

are

in

desire,
implies

often conflict with our

volitions may
love.
this is precisely
the state the awakened

sinner is in when

he

"

do

would

is present with him."

be said,and
2. It may

said, that this view of the

has

good,but

sometimes

evil
been

subjectinvolves

contradiction ; that it is the same

to say, the
as
wills againsthis preference,
in other
man
or

words,
cannot

he

what

he

does

choose.

not

this

answer

in

argument
alluded

wills

better than by an
objection
Professor Upham's work, already

to, in

which

he

says,

of

similar

" It will be
this very subject,
found
itself into a verbal
examination
to resolve

on
objection

on

that
and naturally
vanishes as soon
as
fallacy,
"It is undoubtedly
is detected."
true
fallacy
that the common
usage of language authorizes
choice
and
to
us
apply the terms
choosing
to either the desire or volition ;
indiscriminately

true, that we
applythem to these different partsof our nature
"
in precisely
the word
sense."
When
the same

but itdoes

choice

not

follow, and is

not

it has
impliesdesire at all,

reference

to

CALVirttSTIC

number

285

CONTROVERSY.

of desirable

objects
broughtbefore the
mind
and impliesand expresses the
at once,
ascendant
At other
or
predominantdesire."
times we
the terms
choice and choosing
in
use
when
it is appliedto
to the will
application
a

"

"

that power,
it expresses
the mere
with the
will,and nothingmore,
in the other case, that more
than
volition was
present,in view of the
the

forth
putting

of the

fact the circumstance

present,which

are

choice
acts

or
are

as
exception,
one
objectof

mind, before

The

verbal

It is in

act.
voluntary

that two

or

suggests the

use

objects

more

of the word

in either case."
choosing,
entirelydifferent in their

"

althoughunder certain circumstances

is appliedto them."
Hence
name
"

contradiction is not

If we

one.

ever

of the

act

But

nature,

the

same

he

adds,

real,but

choose

merely a
againstchoosing,

merely that choice which

volition,placed againstthat choice which
this is nothingmore
than to
And
desire."
it will be

the

found

is
is

say
conflict with each

that volitions and desires may

other,which we know to be the fact in

numerous

instances.
and in farther
reply to the foregoing,
it should be urged,that
defence of the objection,
there could be not onlyno motive for the volition
If in

in fact be put
but
in this case,
that it would
of
forth againstall motive, since the feelings

the heart
I

would

be

of

reply, that

racter,
directly
oppositecha-

it is not

true

that there

for the action of the will,

It is seen
in opposition
to the sinful affections.
would

be

no

motive

286

CONTROVERSY.

CALVIJN'ISTIC

alreadythat the judgment in the awakened

the
sinner
is againstcontinuingin sin,and
conscience

for the past,and its

for the future,
are
powerfulmotives

of the

rebukes

admonitions

the unholy affections.

The
to
opposition
of compunctionand of moral obligation
feelings
gain great accessions of strength,moreover,

in

of the Divine

the terrors

from

law, which

alarm

fears,and from the promisesof the Gospel,

the

which

under

that

true

it is

And

sinner.

hopes of the awakened

and emphatically
especially

the

encourage

the

influence
existing

of these

from

hopes, the voice of conscience

effectual in promptingthe sinner to
the wrath to come," and
lay hold on

hope

set

fears

and

"

most

"

there

before him.''

is

motive

no

for

or
volition,

shall conflict with

effort that

flee
the

it be said then that

Can
a

is

the

mental

unsanctified

affections ?

Again it is said, for every inch of this

that the action of the mind
ground is disputed,
and cannot
under such motives is purelyselfish,
therefore performconditions acceptable
to God.
that to be influenced
To this it may
be replied,
and personal
by motives of self preservation
3.

salvation

criminal ; nay, it is commendable.

In proof of this but one
argument
is not

is

fears and
God
moves
necessary.
upon our
hopes,for the express purpose of inducingus to
him ; and he applies
forsake sin,and serve
these
motives
is

so

to

man

obvious

deny it.

But

in his unregenerate state.

a
fact,itis presumed none
is it wrong

for

us

to

be

This
will

prompted

CALVIXISTIC

action

to

himself
excite

by

287

CONTROVERSY.

those

urges
upon
fears and
our

God

considerations which
us

If

he

attempts
prompt us to

to

a
hopes to
of self preservation,
for
itbe wrong
course
can
be influenced by this means,
and in this
to
us
I should hardlyknow
direction?
how
to hold

an
"

argument with a man

and yet this sentiment
under

now

that should

is

assert

this

impliedin the objection

examination.

Beside, these

conditional to

are
not
wholly,
regeneration
from
motives of personal
perhaps not chiefly,
interest.
Our moral feelings
have a great part
it is principally
And
in this work.
by arousing
an
accusing conscience that fear and hope aid
in the performance
of the conditions of regeneration.
But whatever
be
there may
proportion
of the ingredients
of personalfear and hope in
the feelings
into this conditional action
that enter

acts

of the

mind, it

is certain

of

sin, and

that the

fear of the

the

hope to escape
themselves
less
not
criminal,much
them, are
then are
a complex
they capableof rendering
but a part,
state of the mind, of which they are
Indeed this objection
to
unacceptableto God.
mental act. merely because it is prompted by
a
self love, has always been
of
to me
matter
a
consequences

wonder.
use

that form
own

of

Selfishness
in

bad

is

sense,

term

and

of self love that leads

which
we
us

we

erally
gen-

by it

mean

to

seek

our

and the injury

at the expense
gratification
to the will of God.
others,or in opposition

But

that

own

and especially
interests,
our
highest

self love which

leads

us

to

seek

our

eternal

288

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.
cordance
injuryto others, and in acDivine will,is never
thought

without
interests,
with the

has a
criminal, I believe, except where one
particular
system to support by such a notion.
that system is itselfof a doubtful character
which
requiressuch an argument to sustain it.

But

one
"

has been

which
objection
above
principles
provinceof the

Another

4.

of the

it is the

affections,and

made

laid down

to

is,that

will to control the

affections the will ; and

that the will alwayspossesses the power to do this,
not

the

unregenerate state." If so, then

has power, at any time,by an
act of the
man
Let him try let that unholy
will,to love God.
in

even

an

"

sinner try.

Can

haps,for

the Calvinists have

so

he

succeed?

You

say

per-

said, He
"

can

will to love God if

if he will ;" that is,he can
is no
he does will to love God ! This
great

discoverysurely,and it is certainlyno proper

Can he,
to the question. I ask it again,
answer
by a direct act of the will,love God ? Do you
He
say, by varying the form of the answer,
If you
if he chooses ?"
mean
can
by choice
"

the act of the

will,this is the

same

answer

over

again,the follyof which is so apparent. But

if you mean
by choice the desires of his heart,
then your answer
of the heart

by

can,

an

amounts
are

in favour

the

need

of

In

that

case

of

If the desires

loving God,
But

are

in favour

of

he

if

loving

alreadybegotten,and there is
the act of the will to produce it.
would
be, the
proposition
your

love

no

this

of the will,love him.

act

the desires of the heart

God,

to

is

290

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

binds it hand and foot,and hurls it into the

\vill,
There are not unfreAgain he says,
the
where
and
propensities
quently cases
passionshave become so intense,after years of
to
as
control,or in other words,
repetition,
almost entirely."
enthral the voluntarypower
(Treatiseon the Will.) Dr. Griffin,also an

dust."

"

Calvinistic writer,says, in decided terms,

The judgmentof the intellect and the decisions

able
"

of the will

idea

The

both controlled

are

of
be

however, may

the

since

none

are

But

avoid.

cannot

the heart."

enthralment

to
objected

viz. that if admitted

by

on

of

the

another

will,

ground,

it would

bility,
destroyaccountaaccountable for what they
I have not said theycannot

avoid it ; neither have

I said

we

are

not

tary
volun-

the
either in keepingor discarding
the contrary.
I assert directly
heart.
decides
probationer

happy.

But

effectual

only

which
then

he

whether

his
when

cannot

only,will

decisions

do
God

he

unholy
Every
he will be holy or
be holy are
to

seeks

that from

for himself.

give him

the

God

Then, and

victoryover

the old man, with the deceitful lusts of the heart*

But this is conditional regeneration.

Having said thus much in defence of the

laid down, the way
philosophyof the principles
with
that they accord
is prepared to show
trine
and to defend them
with the docScripture,
which

we

build

upon

them

from

the

which have been

supposed Scripture
objections
But
this will furnish
urged againstthem.
matter

for another

number.

CALVINISTIC

291

CONTROVERSY.

XV.

NUMBER

REGENERATION,

CONTINUED.

In

and vindicating,
in the preceding
proposing
of mind
number, those views of the philosophy
which
are
supposed to throw lightupon the
it was
not intended to
process of regeneration,
be intimated that a knowledgeof this theory is
the new
birth.
necessary in order to experience
In the practical
of life men
do not
purposes
ordinarily
stop to analyze their mental states
before they judge,feel,and act.
They have
the

use
practical

that suffices.

of their mental

In this way

the most

the most

unphilosophical
may

then, it

may

be

and
faculties,
ignorantand

be saved.

asked, is it necessary

Why,
to

enter

into this

To this it may
be
at all?
analysis
that whenever
the adaptrace
we
can
replied,
tation
of the provisions
of grace and the reason
of the Divine requirements to the known
facts
and laws of the human
mind, it will strengthen
our
our

confidence in the economy

admiration
of the wisdom

God,

and

sharpen

our

of grace, increase
and goodnessof

weapons

of

defence

againstthe cavils and assaults of an opposing

is this philosophical
skepticism.But especially
examination necessary
whenever
a
superficial
or
an
erroneous
philosophywould force upon us
mist
erroneous
an
theology. The metaphysical
with which
of

some

theories have

and
regeneration,

distorted views

that have

the

veiled the

delusive

resulted from

trine
docand

this

292

CALVINISTIC

radiance

of

pure

corrected

and

be removed

obscuration,
may
the

CONTROVERSY.

by

philosophy. But
best,more
likelyto

as

err
philosophyis,at
these subjectsthan revelation,the former
on
should
by
always be corrected or confirmed

human

the latter.

How

How

is it in the

under

case

do the assumed

nation
exami-

correspond
opinions

with revelation?
Let

glanceagain at
points assumed
principal
often

us

The
positions.

our
are

"

that

is

there

of moral
feelings
the one
on
as
hand, enlightened
obligation
they
and by grace, sanctioned as they
are
by reason
are
by fear and hope,and the unholyaffections
of the
the other ; that under the promptings
on
the will frequently
moral feelings
puts forth its
tions,
the unholy affecto resist and subdue
strength
a

conflict between

the

in every such
the effort fails
case
unaided by the sanctifying
grace of God
but

when

"

victoryis finally
gainedby a conditional
occasion
act of the will,throughwhich, or
on
and changes
of which, God subdues the passions
These
views have been vindicated,
the heart.
as
beingin accordance with the philosophyof
mind.
The question
now
is,Are they sustained
1 I answer,
Yes, most clearly.
by Scripture
If the ApostlePaul had attempted,
by a set
and

that

argument,

to

he

not

could

than
explicitly
the

7th, and

have

done

affirm these views,

it better or
more

in the latter part of

the first part of the 8th chapters
he has done

Epistleto the Romans.

apostle,"another law

of the

the

illustrate and

"

I see," says

in my

members,

CALVINISTIC

293

CONTROVERSY.

warring againstthe law of

to
bringingme into captivity

mind, and
my
the law of sin,

is in my members."
The law
in his members
was
undoubtedlythe carnal

which
the

unholy

affections.

These

of sin
mind,

warred

against
law of his mind, his enlightened
judgment,
feelingsof moral obligation
; and in this

the
his

the former

warfare

will ;

captivethe

so

would, he did not, and

that he did."

"

and carried
victorious,

were

To

that

the

"

good

that he

the evil that he would

will

not,

present with him,"

was

entire

perform,he knew not." See the

illustrates our
passage, for it beautifully

whole

theory.

but

how

"

to

between
the

out

mind,

is the

the strugconflict,
gle

sin ; here is pointed

of sin,viz. the " flesh" or carnal

conscience

seat

which

Here

and

is but another

tified affections and

name

for the

appetites
; here

unsanc-

is the will

the side of duty,

to turn the contest
on
struggling
in vain ; every effort results in
but struggling
defeat- it is taken captive,and
overcome.
settles down
Despairfinally
upon the mind, as
far as personalstrengthis concerned, and the
for help,and cries
anxious soul looks abroad
Who
from the body of
shall deliver me
out,
"

"

"

this
comes

sets

Then

death !"
!

Jesus

him

free !

it is

Christ,the

that

Saviour

deliverance

of sinners,

Professor Stuart,of Andover, himself

vinist,has
Arminians

shown

most

Cal-

what
conclusively,

longcontended for, that this

to the
portionof revelation refers specifically
this be
of regeneration.But whether
work
have

294

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

can
grantedby every Calvinist or not, no man
deny but that the grand philosophical
principles
here fully
heretofore contended for,
illustrated
are
"

the

division

same

of

the mind

the

"

same

thraldom of the will,and the

deliverance,
throughfaithin Jesus Christ

conflictthe
"

same

same

Lord.

our

The

in part
principles,

same

least,are

at

recognizedin Gal. v, 17, "For the flesh lusteth

and the Spiritagainst
the
againstthe Spirit,
flesh ; and

these

contrary the

are

to

one

the

do the things
that ye cannot
that ye
would."
In short,all those passages where the
of subduing the carnal mind, of
difficulty

other, so

the old
keeping the body under, of crucifying
all those passages that speakof a warfare,
man,
and the like,recognize
the
internal conflict,
an
here contended for. These principles,
principles
adverted to in the Scriptures,
so
are
frequently
proved to be in exact conformitywith ex periWho
that has passedthroughthis change,
ence.
but

this

remembers

members

Who

resolutions

conflict,this

recollects how

but

broken

were

in the

war

often

as

his best

made

as

and

his heart
how, after various and vigorous
efforts,
seemed

to

He

found

even

when

himself
secret

he

to

treason

was

worse

grow

and

lurkingin

worse

his bosom

tryingto repent of

his past

disloyalty.
"

The
He

more

felt the

he strove

guiltand

againstits power,.
sin the more."

Every additionaleffort sunk

him

but
apparently

CALVINISTIC

in

the lower
until

"

pitand miry clay,'*

cry,"until the Lord

the horrible

the Lord

"

295

CONTROVERSY.

heard his

"

up, and set his feet upon a rock,

established his goings,and put a new
song

brought him
and

in his mouth."
That

Scripturesspeak of

the

conditional

action of the mind, preparatory to the work of

from express passages,
regeneration,
appears
of that
from the general tenor
well as
as
upon

which enjoin
duty
scriptures
and
sinner, and predicate
justification
class of

numerous

the

salvation upon

those

duties.

John

i, 12, has

quoted and commented

upon, in
which the new
birth is suspended
upon receiving
The
his name.
on
Christ,or believing
many
dent
of healingthe body, by Christ, are evicases
illustrations of the healingof the soul.
for supposing
In fact,we
have good reasons
that,
alreadybeen

in

most

body

were

of these
healed

always on
believing.John

was

cases

at

the

at

the

least,the soul and

same

condition

time ; and

of

iii,14, 15, "As

this

asking and
Moses

lifted

must
so
even
up the serpent in the wilderness,
of man
be lifted up ; that whosoever
the Son
but have
should not perish,
believeth in him

life." Here our Saviour shows the

everlasting
analogy between the cure of the Israelites by
lookingat the brazen serpent,and of sinners by
lookingto Christ. But how were the Israelites
healed ? By the conditional act of lookingat
the brazen serpent. So looking
at Christ is the
condition of healingthe soul. Take away this
condition and the whole analogyis destroyed.

296

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

Let this condition be understood,and the text

of
will accord with others,equallyexpressive
conditions,

"Look

kingdom of

God

and

and

me

earth."

of the

ends

all the

unto

his

"

ye saved,
Seek
first the
be

righteousness."Seek
"

God hath
be found."
Lord while he may
determined that all nations " should seek the

the

Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and

find him, though he be not far from every one

pretendto say that this

?
looking and seeking impliesregeneration
This is mere
assumption; where is the proof?
infer this idea from the Scrip
who would ever
of us."

Will

any

themselves 1

tures

one

What

! is the sinner

erated
regen-

his

soul, the

poisonousbite of sin,is healed ? Has

the Lord before he has soughthim ?

he found

before

he seek after he has found

of

God

when

God

must

The

him ?

kingdom
is religion
in the soul
it is
ousness,
rightepeace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ;" and
have it in posare
we
regenerated,
session,
"

and
we

And

"

we

But

of

malady

the

are

have

therefore

commanded

must
this,
therefore,

to

no

need

seek the

be

work

to

seek it.

kingdom of
preparatory

to, and

"
Come
conditional of regeneration.
all ye that labour and are heavy laden,
unto
me
and I will give you
rest." " Take
yoke
my

To
be restless,and not to
you,""c.
the yoke of Christ,
is to be unregenerate;
on
but such are
and take the yoke, and
to come
then,and on that condition,
they will find rest
to their souls.
The
and the bride say,
Spirit
and
Come, "c, and whosoever will,let him come

upon
have

"

298

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

believe for him ! But this will hardlybe

the idea that these acts do
pretended
; and

and

themselves
been

an

birth,has already

new

be defective and indefensible.

suppose
as

is

to

seen

To

constitute the

follow tion,
regenerafruit of the change itself,

that these acts

effect

or

and relation in
deny them that position
placedby the word of
they are actually

to

which

It makes

seek, after he has found ;

ask, after he has received ; repent and believe,
after he is possessed
of that salvation,
to obtain
God.

one

enjoined. The phrase,

be of
ologyto suit this theory,should evidently
ner
different character.
When
the sinan
entirely
he shall do to be saved,the
asks what
should be
answer
Nothing until God renews
which

these duties

are

"

"

the heart ; and then as a fruit of this you will

of course
seek,ask, bdieve" "c.
If,indeed,the
sinner is to do

nothinguntil

God

renews

him,

is it necessary
that he should
first be
?
awakened
addressed
Why is the command

why

to

him

at

all ?

Why

does

not

the

Holy Spirit

the heart,while the transgressor

immediatelyrenew
is stupidin his wickedness, instead of
after him to awake, Jlee,and escape for
calling
his life?
Do you say you can
give no other
than that it pleasesGod
to take this
reason
course

call up his tion

attenhim ?
I
to the subjectbefore he renews
with the

sinner,and

answer,

then it pleasesGod

certain

preparatory

acts

that there should be

of the mind

and this
:
regeneration
the principle
for which we
to

to

in order

admitting
contend,and this

is in fact

CALVINISTIC

299

CONTROVERSY.

if it be acknowledged,
it
as
especially
must
be, that these preparatory mental
evidently
acts
states
or
are, to
any extent, voluntary.
of making these
Thus, not only is the absurdity
most
acts the result of regeneration
apparent ;
but in tracingout the consistent meaning and
that are
practicalbearingof those scriptures
more

find them
unconverted,we
the third alternative,
that these acts
establishing
addressed
of the
and
God

to

mind

are

will

the

are

preparatory

to

regeneration,

prescribedconditions
accomplish the work.

the

on

Thus

which
the

Scriptureargument is found to confirm the

view of the subject,
and both are
philosophical
strengthened
by Christian experience. The
doctrine of conditional regeneration,
therefore,
is confirmed
by a threefold argument, no part
of which, itis believed,
be easily
overthrown.
can
Against it, however, there are several strong
have
objectionsurged, which
already been
mentioned,and which we are now
preparedto
hear and examine.
1. It has been

that to admit human

objected,
in this change,is to
agency and co-operation
deny salvation by grace. But how does this
Suppose the very conditions are by a
appear ?
graciousappointment suppose the operations
of a gracious
system are in this way better
adaptedto a moral government suppose this
"

"

conditional action of the mind

to be itself the
result of a gracious
the
influence,
enlightening
and quickening
and arousingthe
understanding,
moral sense
finally,
suppose these conditions
"

300
not

be

to

renders

less meritorious causes,

much
efficient,

by which

the

mind

itself more

Divine favour
show

CONTROVERT.

CALVINISTIC

if you

"

either

or
changes itself,
morally deservingof the

I say suppose
how

can,

such

all

this,and then

conditions

can

tract
de-

from the grace of this salvation.

at all

It has been

since man
that
never
objected,
is what he ought to be until he is renewed and
made
holy,therefore any act short of that which
either constitutes or implies
cannot
regeneration
God cannot
be acceptable
to God
consistently
approve of any step that fallsshort of man's duty.
It is his duty to be holy, and therefore any thing
be
short of this is sin,and consequently
cannot
ful
acceptedas a condition." We should be careto discriminate between
related,
thingsclosely
distinct from each other.
It is
and yet actually
one
thingto be pleasedwith the character of
2.

"

"

the mind
the

as

Divine

whole, in vie"v of its relations

law

and

its necessary

for heaven, and another

a

mental
particular

in reference
or

to

state,

an

awakened

sinner is in

or

more

volition,
proposedend,

instance
and

qualifications
pleasedwith

conditional

its adaptation
to

specific
object.For

think that

be

thingto

to

an

the Calvinists

inquiring
anxiously

suitable state of mind

to

than one perof regeneration,

blessing
fectly
stupidand thoughtless.If they do not,
why do they try to bringsinners to thoughtfulthem
to a
ness?
Why do they try to awaken
them
tremble
of their danger,and make
sense
Or
?
under the view of the Divine displeasure
why do they call their attention to Gospelprovi.
receive the

CALVINISTIC

301

CONTROVERSY.

Is not this a preparatory

rant
process ? And have theythe Divine warfor such a course
? Is this the method which

sions and

the Divine

crucified Saviour ?

Being takes

to

save

his rebellious subjects?

this method
Then, doubtless,

is well

pleasing
end
this specific

and in reference to
he has in view, he is pleased
with each
him

to

step in the process.

He

is

sive
succes-

pleasedwhen

pays attention to the word ; he is

gins
pleasedwhen he is awakened, and when he bethe

sinner

inquire,What shall I do to
be saved?"
This is justas he would
have
it,
and justas he designed
the entire character
; although
of the sinner is not acceptable
to him until
he is made
then,
holy. The very principle,
by
objectedto by the Calvinists is recognized
their own
theoryand practice.Now if we say
God is pleasedto accept of the sinner's prayer,
and faith,
and sorrow
for sin,as a condition of
is there
what he will do for him, what propriety
God
in replying,
cannot
accept of any thing
short of a holy heart ?
We
know
he cannot
approve of a heart until it is holy ; but he can
and volitions as suited,
approve of certain feelings
to be the
accordingto the Divine appointment,
condition on which he will make the heart holy.
Do you ask on what groundhe accepts of this ? I
the groundof the merits of Christ ; the
on
answer,
groundon which the whole process rests. God
to

tremble

and

"

does not

accept of the prayer, repentance, and

faith of the regenerate,because they are regenerate,
and

ceptance
by reason of their holiness ; but their aciswhollyand continually
throughChrist.

30"

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

Through the same medium and

sinner is heard
of the inquiring
If your

had leftyou

servant

the service he

serted
and deunjustly,
to perform,
obligated

was

tell him, if
finally

and you should

he would

turn
re-

his duties you would forgive

the
accept of him for the future,would it

and

resume

past,and

inconsistent to

pleasedwhen
say, you were
and pleased
began to listen to the proposal,

be
he

he took the firstand every

beingsuitable and necessary

when
as

in
although,
would

claim,you
your
and

view

not

be

succeeding
step,

it not
I advocate a
believe when

posed,
pro-

and

service ?
the

gradualconversion.
God

the end

duty
your
pleasedwith him, as
until he was
actually

your
inferred from

be

to

of his

acceptableservant,
employed in
faithfully

Let

at

merits the prayer

and answered.

I do

the heart

renews

above

that
I

not.

he does

it

but the preparatory stepsare nevertheless

of this
to the accomplishment
indispensable

once

work.

And

God

step of attention
with

is well
on

pleasedwith

the first

the part of the sinner, and

succeedingstep of prayer, anxious

of moral obligation,
inquiry,
feeling
purpose to
forsake sin,looking
after and attempting
lieve
to beevery

in

Christ,not because these are

but because
requires,
they are the
for what is to follow.
preparatives

all that he
necessary

3. The

way
one

to
to

is this :

will prepare the

remarks
foregoing
meet
to the last,and
a similar objection
extent

some
"

Are

the

same

in substance.

these conditional acts

It

of the mind

holyor unholyexercises ? If holy,then the work

of

303

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

and therefore
is accomplished
already,
regeneration
these cannot be the conditionsof that change.
then
If unholy,
to

be

theycan

no

holy God, and therefore

other than offensive

cannot

be conditions

In addition to what has

to him."
pleasing
been alreadysaid,having a bearingupon this
it may be stated that the terms
holyand
question,
in this connection
as used
unholymay be equivocal,
would be
; and thus the supposeddilemma
well

in words

more

than in

than in

reality.This
under

argument
but the two

the

kinds of

fact,more
dilemma
idea

in appearance
is urged in the
there

that

can

be

exercises,
holy and unholy.

stand
enough,onlylet us underIf by holy exercises are
is on the
the entire feeling
those in which
meant
side of God, I readily
No, the mind before
answer,
ness
If by holihas no such exercises.
regeneration
is meant, that the judgmentand conscience
And

are

this may be true

what is meant.

on

the side of

the state

truth,I

of the mind

when

answer,

it is

Yes, this is

trulyawakened

by the Holy Spiritand by Divine truth. It is

immaterial to me, therefore,
whether the
entirely
call the exercise holy or unholy,proviobjector
ded
he draw no
inferences from the use
special
of a general
that the positions
here assumed
term
do not authorize.
that the objector
Sure I am
in the exercises of the
cannot
say there is nothing
sinner, such as God
unregenerate, awakened
would
have for the end proposed,until he is
preparedto say that a fear of the consequences
of

sin,an

of
enlightened
judgment,the remorse
conscience for the past,the feelings
of obligation

304

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

for the future,

and the

sin
over
hope of victory
to induce the sinner
throughChrist,all combining
and layhold upon the hope set
to flee for refuge,
before
have

all wrong, and not as God would

? But when
is preparedto say
a man

him,

them

are

this,it is difficultto see how he could be reason,

ed with farther,
for he would seem
to have given
and Scripture. And yet who does not
up reason
know

that these

awakened

to

while

even

him

know

like

the exercises of the

are

soul

of sin and its consequences,

sense

yet his unholyaffections hang upon

body of death ? Yea, who does not

as

"

that it is this

body of death, from

which

he cannot

escape, and this abhorrence of sin and

itsconsequences,
that rein him up, and incline
him to a surrender of his soul into the hands of

Christ,from whom,
power
is the motive

as

to become

he receives
consequence,
of God. " But what
son

a
a

?" it is asked," is not this unholy?"

1 If by momean
tive
pray what does this inquiry
is meant
the movingcause
out of the mind
;
that cannot
be unholy,tor it is the Holy Spirit,

And

and

the

holy word

of

the sinner to Christ.

God, that
If

are

thus

urging

the
by motive is meant
of the mind, that prompt
judgmentsand feelings
to these
voluntaryefforts to avoid sin and its
these are
standing
underthe enlightened
consequences,
and the feelings
of obligation,
already
come
is welalluded to, which, I repeat,the objector
to call holy or unholyas he pleases
; all I
claim is,theyare what God approves of,and are
the necessary conditions of his subsequent
work

of

renewingthe

heart.

306

ed

CALVIXISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

Bible grounds
on
regeneration
ward
repentance and faith; for repentance to-

conditions of

as

"

are

and faith in

God

Lord

our

Jesus

Christ' are

laid at the foundation of all Gospelrequirements.

sinner came
the awakened
Whenever
to the
to know
apostles
they always met

he should do to be saved,

what

with,' Believe

him

Christ,and thou shalt be saved.'

Jesus

the

apostleswent
they preached every
'

"

out

that

"But," continues

which

evident there
and

can
are

be
no

the

men

the

should

pent.'
re-

"if
objecior,

onlyduties

claimed

cises
exer-

or

it is
conditions,
such conditions ; for repentance

faith,so far from

are
regeneration,

ever
When-

preachthe Gospel,

to

where

repentance and faith are

are

the Lord

on

either the

as

beingconditions
birth

new

of

or
itself,

birth."
Christian graces, implyingthe new
will not
The premises,in the above objection,

Repentance and faith are supposed

But
to be the Gospelconditions of regeneration.
it is denied that these are necessarily
regeneration
in any
that they imply regeneration
or
itself,
be

denied.

other
are,

that

sense,

it is
are

birth.

than

as

antecedents

it.

There

acknowledged,a repentance and a

Christian graces, and imply the

This is the

of

faith that

thingshoped for."
life which the
spiritual

"

faith
new

is the substance

of
It is that principle
Christian has in his soul

fi The
lifethat I now
live I live
say,
This is that repentfaithin the Son of God."
ance,

when

by

to

he

can

also,which
the foot of

feel,

keeps the

soul

the cross, and leads

at
continually
it constantly
to

CALvirasTic

Every

"

The

307

controversy.

Lord, I need

moment,

merit

of

thy

death."

But because

sary
repentance and faith are the necescharacteristicsof the Christian,
and because

the

they are

perfectas

more

it
ripens,
there
the

does

not

racter
the Christian cha-

therefore

follow that

repentance and faith conditional to

birth. The very fact that repentance

are

no

new

and faith

urgedby Christ and his apostles,

as the initiatory
step to salvation,
proves the opposite
of this. They do not say, Repent and believe
the Gospel,and this is salvation,but, Repent
be
and believe,and ye shall (on this condition)
saved."
And surelyit is unnecessary
to prove
were

"

here that salvation in the New

a

means

Our

he saved his

called

was

well be
acts

are

of

therefore be considered
unless the mind

converts

generally
holiness.

or

Jesus,because

their sins.

peoplefrom

Beside,it may
repentance

for heaven

meetness

blessed Saviour

Testament

argued,that
the

as

faith and

mind, and

the

cannot

birth

new

itself,

since
itself,
especially

they are enjoinedduties,and must therefore be

said that God
It is no where
voluntaryacts.
repents and believes for us ; but it is expressly
and repeatedly
us.
taught,that God renews
Repentance and faith,then, are our work, but
it is said in one
is his. I know
regeneration
exalted "to
place,Acts v, 31, that Christ was
giverepentance to Israel." But the act itselfof
be said to be given. This
repentance cannot
"

would

giveme

be
a

an

absurdity.How

mental

act ?

Hence

can

Dr.

any

one

Doddridge,

308

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

and very
although a Calvinist,
very candidly
pentance
justlyremarks, on this passage, that to giverefor
signifiesto giveplace,or room
he
to sustain which
interpretation
repentance,"
quotes Josephusand others who use the phrase
"

in this

If then repentance and faith are

and if they are
duties,
us, as our

sense.

enjoinedupon

spoken of
every where
work of salvation,
and as
conditions

to

be otherwise

as

in the
prerequisites

preparatory steps and

it
how can
the process of holiness,
than that these are
antecedent,in

the order of nature, to regeneration

?
in support of this
It may farther be argued,
of faith and

repentance, that no sin can be

until repentedof
forgiven
repentance therefore

view

"

precederemission of sins. This I suppose

Calvinists allow, but they say that,in the order

must

given
of nature, the heart is renewed
before sin is forand that repentance, therefore,which is
"

either

the

fruit of

it,is

birth

new

itself,or

condition

of

the immediate

but not
justification,

of

regeneration.If this be correct, then the

soul is made
holybefore it is forgiven.But St.
Paul informs us, Romans
iv,5, that God through
If then there be any
faith justifieth
the ungodly."
"

antecedence

in the order of the two

parts of the

of grace, we must suppose that justification

has the precedence,
and that regeneration
follows,
work
and

hence

repentance and
Indeed

cannot

see

why

repentance

the sin of the heart

necessary to remove
to forgive
the sin of the life. If God will not

is not
as

faith precederegeneration.

as

sin without repentance, will he

forgive

renew

the

CALVINISTIC

heart without it?

If not, but
this 1
where

of

Has

he any
the

if,on

salvation in us, upon

we
safelyconclude

our

may

believe
necessarily

that

be renewed.

same

Faith in fact

throughwhich

nay, then

must

we

repent in order

we

be

to

said of faith.

exclusive channel

effect is produced
gracious

every

The
upon the mind.
without faith,
for it

repentance,then

our

may
to be the

seems

promised

contrary,he every

"

The

where

suspendedthe workingout

have

to

seems

309

CONTROVERSY.

sinner

cannot

be awakened

precedesevery judgmentin

ing,
favour of truth,and every motion of moral feeland of course
every favourable concurrence
of the will.

never

mercy,

could throw himself

would emnever

Saviour,until he believed.
the Scriptures
lay such great stress upon

Christ

Hence

sinner

the Divine

upon
brace

The

as

faith,and make

his

it the

indeed the

grand,and

condition of the work

immediate

of grace

only
upon

motely,
Repentanceis a condition only rein order to justifying
faith ; agreeable
to
the teaching
of Christ, And ye, when ye had
not that ye might be.
heard, afterward repented

the heart.

"

But faith is necessary immedi.

antecedent
ately,as that mental state directly
to the giving
up of the soul into the hands of

lieve on

him."

stillbe told that

Divine mercy.
And shall we
1
faith is not the condition of regeneration
The

order of the work seems

1. A degree
to be
of faithin order to repentance. 2. Repentance,
will
in order to such an increase of faith as
lead the soul to throw itself upon Christ."
"

3.

The

givingup of the

soul to Christ

as

the

310

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

onlyground of hope. 4. The change of heart

of the Holy Spirit.
by the efficient operation
"

Now

^whichever of these

on

four

stages of the

the objector
lays his
except the first,
and says, That is not a condition of refinger
it will be
for it is regeneration
itself,
generation,
that that very part is conditional.
seen
If,for
process,

he
instance,

fix

the

on

second

stage, and

tend
con-

I call rewhich
pentance
regeneration,
in order to regenerating
faith ; even
that would be conditional regeneration,
for it is
preceded by faith" and so of all that follow.
And surelyno one
will pretendthat what I call
ing
the firststage,the faithwhich precedesawakenthat that is

ing
conscience,and the excitalternations of fear and hope in the anxious
And
and inquiring
if
sinner,is regeneration.
this firstdegree of faith is not the change,then
inconsistent to talk of unconditional
it is utterly
for this faith stands at the head
regeneration,
it is a mental act necessarily
of all that follows
and

of

remorse

"

the

whole

shall

presently
see,

it is

upon

the

to

preparatory

agency

broughtagainto
called the
on
Spirit,

of him
"

an

that

act

of the will.
our

And

work.

Hence

depends
we

are

by

the

Holy

ground of certain conditional

of the change.
is the subject

the

who

or

acts

of repentance and of
of the two mental states
definition

But the very

nature

the very
faith,
by these terms,"itis said,"proves
expressed
a

we

conclusion,that the change

birth is effected

new

as

that

possess them, must be regenerate ;

be condiat any rate,that these states cannot

person,

to

tions

of

to
regeneration,

sinner."

Let

performedby

be

attend for

us

311

CONTROVERSY.

CALVINISTIC

the

moment

to

this objection

is,"say

some

Cal-

in detail.

What

is repentance ?

vinisticwriters,"

would
what

have

if we

that the

and

It

The

changeof mind.

this,and

means

rendered

"

it should

so

if it had

been

so

have

ginal
oribeen

rendered, it

this controversy at rest." But

should grant (what I do not believe)
set

word
original

this,and this only,

means

change of mind
called the new
A
birth is meant
by this term.
a
change of judgment is a change of mind
change of purpose is a change of mind
any
such
change of the generalcurrent of feeling,
that from carelessness and stupidity
in sin to
as
what
state of anxietyand
earnest
a
inquiry,
shall I do to be saved ? is a change of mind.
^
And such a change of mind indispensably
precedes
regeneration. No person ever, from
beinga careless,hardened sinner,becomes an
anxious and earnest
inquirerafter salvation,
without an important
change in his judgment,
tion
moral feeling,
and volitions. Hence this definiunless he
does not at all help the objector,
can
always mean
by
prove that the Scriptures
this term that change which they elsewhere call
have already
the new
birth. Indeed, since we
stillit would

not

follow that the

"

"

"

shown

follows

that repentance is our

work, and
God's
of the heart exclusively

the

work, it

that the change of

incontrovertibly,

called repentance is not

If repentance

meant

the

new

that

newing
re-

mind

birth.

change of

mind

312

CALVINISTIC

CONTROVERSY.

birth,then the regeneratewould

be often
sliding
born again,and that,too, without backcalled the

new

for those who

repent the

grace

deeply.
Again :

most

it is

in order

doubtless,in

that
objected,

"

faith is

not

of

mind, and therefore cannot

ner,
condition,
performedby the sin-

voluntary state
be considered

growingthe fastestin
and the most
constantly

are

To believe is
regeneration."
tary.
involuninstances,
perfectly
many

There

to

numerous

are

in which

cases

is

obligedto believe,both againsthis will

and against
his desires. There are other cases,
cerned
again,in which the will is not onlymuch conin believing,
but in which
its action is
in order to believe.
And the faith
indispensable
of the Gospel is pre-eminently
instance of this
an
kind.
cometh
Faith," saith the word,
by
hearing." But hearingimpliesattention ; and
act
every deliberate act of attention impliesan
of the will. A man
can
more
no
leap,by one
man

"

"

from
transition,

the faith that

the soul,than
justifies

make

lead

to

world.

of entire carelessness into

state

But he
To

this result.

he

can

the steps that

believe to the savingof
can

take

the soul

consideration,
requires
selfexamination,
of faith,
or the truth to
a knowledgeof the object
seek,
be believed,
and prayerful
earnest
looking,
ing. But is there no act of the will in allthese ?
of
takes of the things
It is said that " the Spirit
Jesus Christ,and shows

them

unto

us."

is doubtless true, that the soul cannot

a

view of Christ

as

encourages

him

And

it

get such
to

throw

314

CONTROVERSY.

CALVIMSTIC

theory clashes with that of many

great and good men, it is believed to be the only
explainthe practice
theory that will consistently
It is,in my
and preachingof these very men.
and
view, the only theory that will satisfactorily
explainthose great and leading
consistently
principles
by which evangelicalChristians expect to
However

the

the world

convert

the
on
seen

Christ.

Christian

the

sooner

to

Church

this foundation,the better.

that

mixture

of

to extreme

of

the truth !
light

is established

We

have

mutations

from

dangerousheresy.

the Church

May
was,

shall be
He

who

hasten

THE

be true,

already

in the essential doctrines

error

leads to various

and

And, ifthis

How

rooted and

said, Let
that

extreme

fore
long begrounded in
light

be

glorious
day !

END.

""