PREDESTINATION
AND
THE SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE,
STATED AND DEFENDED
FROM THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ARMINIANS,
IN A REVIEW OF TWO SERMONS, PUBLISHED
BY REV. RUSSELL RENEAU.
BY P. H. MELL,
PROFESSOR OF GEEEK AND LATIN, HISRCER UNIVERSITY, GEORGIA.
THIRD THOUSAND.
CHARLESTON, S. C. :
SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY.
SMITH & WHILDEN, DEPOSITORY AGENTS.
1 858.
PREFACE.
The following tract appeared, first, in weekly numbers, in
the columns of The Christian Index, and is republished, with
slight alteration and addition, at the request of many brethren.
The controversial feature is retained, not because it is thought
that Mr. Reneau's name will.add any dignity to it, but because
1. I have not time to re-write it.
2. If ail allusion to Mr. R.'s publication were removed, it
would lack congruity and completeness. It discusses Pre¬
destination and the Saints' Perseverance, because they are
doctrines assailed; and it is ostensibly confined to a consider¬
ation of Mr. Reneau's arguments.
3. Those who have requested its republication desire it to
retain its original form. Mr. R.'s production, which it re¬
views, has been extensively distributed through parts of
Georgia and Tennessee, and has been lauded as a complete
refutation of Calvinism. It is thought, therefore, that, in
such localities, it is better calculated to do good in its present
form. Besides, men are more likely to read an argument
when it is associated with controversy, than when it is pre¬
sented in the form of abstract discussion.
I have been pained to notice, for some years past, on the
part of some of our ministers, in some localities in the South,
a disposition to waive the doctrines of Grace, in their public
ministrations. While some have been entirely silent about
them, and have even preached, though not ostensibly, doc-
iv
PREFA CE.
trines not consistent with them, others have given them only a
cold and half-hearted assent, and some few have openly de¬
rided and denounced them. This, in many cases, has resulted,
doubtless, from a lack of information, and from an apprehen¬
sion, therefore, that the doctrines of Grace are synonymous
with Antinomianism. For this reason, I have thought that a
concise and popular exposition of those doctrines was urgently
demanded. It is true, there are many able treatises on them
extant; but they are all locked up in voluminous bodies of
divinity, and therefore not accessible to the general reader.
I confess, then, that it was to supply, to the extent of my
ability, this demand, and to counteract, as far as I was able,
the tendencies to Arminianism, that I took up my pen. For
this purpose, I was glad that the pretext of answering Mr.
Reneau was afforded me; and, with this object in view, I
extended the discussion on the subject of Predestination be¬
yond Mr. R.'s objections. Should this publication have the
effect to confirm my brethren in the faith once delivered to
the saints, and serve, in any degree, to counteract the tenden¬
cies in our midst to Arminianism, I shall have accomplished
my main design in writing.
Of course, it will be understood that the term Calvinism is
used in conformity to custom, and not to imply that the doc¬
trines embraced in it originated with the Genevan Reformer.
Merger University, Ga., December, 1850.
PREDESTINATION
and
SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE.*
SECTION I.
Religious controversy should never, without pressing
necessity, be entered into. However pure may be the
motives which, at first, influence the combatants on both
sides, and however unexceptionable the manner in which
the discussion may be conducted, it is next to impossible
to confine it to the naked question at issue, and it seldom,
if ever, fails to be unprofitable to those engaged in it.
Stimulated by knowing that they are contending under
the eye of their respective friends, whose cause is en¬
trusted to their hands, and too proud to consent to appear
inferior to their opponents, they are too often tempted to
lose sight of the glory of God, and to struggle merely for
victory—for victory which is seldom conceded, but which,
if even by general consent achieved, is too often con¬
nected with alienation of feeling, and the excitement of
bitter animosities in the minds of partisans on both sides.
* The Substances of two Discourses on Predestination, and on
Receiving the Grace of God in Yain, preached at several Camp¬
grounds in the State of Georgia, in 1849; by Russell Reneau.
Oxford, Ga,—Office of the Southern Family Journal. 1849.
1*
6
PREDESTINATION AND
Men do not enter into controversy with the desire to as¬
certain the truth. Each steps into the arena with the
conviction, not to be shaken, that he is the champion of
the truth ; and, having taken his stand, be feels it incum¬
bent upon him to sustain not only his opinions, but him¬
self. Who ever heard of a controversialist that acknowl¬
edged himself to be convinced of error, and that openly
yielded to the force of his antagonist's arguments ? True,
those who, not being committed to either party, dispas¬
sionately witness the contest, may be aided in the acqui¬
sition of truth ; but, with the combatants and their friends,
the more ordinary result is, that they are each more
firmly established in their respective sentiments. To a
man of pacific temper, therefore, it is disagreeable to en¬
gage in controversy, and the earnest seeker after truth
will more easily attain to it by any other process. But
yet religious controversy is sometimes necessary. The
world abounds in errors, and we are commanded to con¬
tend, and earnestly too, for the faith once delivered to
the saints. Assaults upon truth committed to our trust
should be met, whatever may be the character of the as¬
sailant, and whatever the manner in which he conducts
his assaults. True, it is always more agreeable, and some¬
times more consonant with one's self-respect, to pass by
in silence the dogmatic and the uncandid ; but necessity
requires, however much our disgust may be excited, that
we notice even them—otherwise they may be wise in
their own conceits, and the wavering may have misgivings
that their attacks can not be repelled. In engaging in
controversy with persons of this description, however, we
should see to it that we are influenced solely by a regard
for the truth, and that we be not provoked into the same
unlovely spirit which they betray. It is always an evi-
saints' perseverance.
1
dence of an unsanctified temper, or of the weakness of
our cause, or of both, when we indulge in personalities or
abuse. Never, until we feel that our arguments are ex¬
hausted, are we tempted to stand by our arms. The
weapons of the Christian's warfare should never be carnal,
and his self-respect, as a gentleman, should make him scorn
to bandy epithets with an antagonist. Not that we would
be understood to say. that a Christian should never use
severity. It is often as necessary to answer the man as
the argument, and, in doing so, rebuke, administered with
a proper spirit and in a proper manner, exerts sometimes
a wholesome influence.
Thus much would we say, partly in deprecation of the
necessity which seems to impel us to controvert the posi¬
tions of the publication whose title we have given above,
and partly as an assertion of the principles by which we
shall be governed in the attempt.
This is a pamphlet of twenty-eight pages, and contains
the substance of two sermons, delivered in various parts
of Middle Georgia, in 1849. They created quite a sensa¬
tion at the time, and their author, having no further use
for them for the pulpit, has slightly expurgated them, and
the world is now blessed with them in a more permanent
form. They are designed as attacks (in their author's
opinion, it would seem, very effective ones) upon the Cal-
vinistic doctrines of Predestination and what is called the
Final Perseverance of the Saints. There is nothing orig¬
inal about them, excepting the spirit that is exhibited, and
some ingenious misapprehensions of the plain language
of the Calvinistic writers, which no one before has been so
constituted as to fall into. Leaving these out of view, the
remainder is made up of arguments, in a diluted state,
borrowed, without acknowledgment, from standard Ar-
8
PREDESTINATION AND
minian writers; and if we were assured that our readers
are in possession of the authors on the Calvinistic side of
the question, we should consider our's (excepting in so
far as we may be performing a service to our author) a
work of supererogation. This publication, we suppose, is
but an earnest of what is to follow, as we are told, on
page 1st, " We are determined that if it (Calvinism) lives
any longer than we do, that it shall not be our fault."
We hope that, on this announcement, our Calvinistic
readers will not give way to unnecessary alarm : Calvin¬
ism has survived Arminius, and Whitby, and Wesley, and
Fletcher, and Watson, and a host of other able assailants
—let us live in hopes, therefore, that it may possibly sur¬
vive Mr. Reneau.
Our author, however, has formally declared war against
Calvinism, and, in effect, announced that he has not only
drawn his sword, but thrown the scabbard away. The
war, under his direction, is to be of the most sanguinary
character. Nothing short of complete extermination will
satisfy him. " We have determined that if it (Calvinism)
lives any longer than we do, it shall not be our fault."
No quarter is to be granted—perhaps none is to asked.
Conscious of his strength, he may he confident that he
will occupy the victorious position of Samson, when in
triumph he sung: " With a jaw of an ass have I slain a
thousand menor, perhaps, like the same Samson in
adversity, he anticipates that, by a mighty effort of
strength, he will rejoice to overwhelm, in one common
destruction, both himself and his enemies. However this
may be, we confess it shocks us to hear such a blood¬
thirsty determination announced. There are to be granted
no terms of honorable capitulation—the forces of Calvin¬
ism are not to be cheered with the hope that, if it come
saints' perseverance.
9
to the worst, they can save their lives by surrendering at
discretion. Entreat as piteously as they may for mercy,
it is in no case to be granted them. The life-blood of one
or both, it is sternly decided, must water the ground ! Is
not this the nineteenth century? Has not the savage
ferocity of war been mitigated by the spirit of the gospel,
and by the humanizing influences of advancing civiliza¬
tion ? We hope our author, for his own sake, will recon¬
sider this determination. It may make Calvinism desper¬
ate. If he has no bowels of mercy, and no respect for
" the spirit of the age"—if none of the softer or nobler
motives can influence him—then let prudence and sound
policy cause him to haul down that blood-red flag. If he
has unrelentingly determined that the forces of Calvinism
shall, in no case, be prisoners on parole, let them have
the consolation to know that they shall be prisoners of
some sort, or they will sell their lives as dearly as pos¬
sible.
But, after all, we are more than half inclined to think
that the danger to Calvinism from him has its existence
only in our author's harmless self-complacency. That he
considers himself a warrior of no inferior stamp, destined
to achieve victories which no polemical hero before him
(he tacitly acknowledges) has been adequate to, is abund¬
antly evident, not only from this, but from other passages
of his production ; but we see no reason why any body
else should labor under the same delusion—surely there
is none to be found in the performance before us. It is
no uncommon thing for men to " think of themselves
more highly than they ought to think." Where they are
composed of materials suitable for the pnrpose, and placed
in a favorable position, a very little encouragement makes
them in fancy swell out beyond all reasonable proportions,
10
PREDESTINATION AND
and there is no conception of themselves too exalted for
them to entertain. Herod, while listening to the adula¬
tion of his courtiers, fancied himself a God; and a wise
king of Macedon, aware of this propensity of poor human
nature, enjoined it upon one of his household to repeat to
him daily, " Remember, O king, that thou art mortal!"
We are not quite sure that a monitor of the same kind
would not he of service to our author.
Notwithstanding, however, he broadly intimates that
he has much confidence in his success, his language would
seem to imply that he has some apprehension that he
may, after all, fail in his superhuman enterprise. " If '\t
lives any longer than we do, it shall not he our fault."
He will, at least, make a conscientious use of the strength
he possesses. He feels that a solemn responsibility rests
upon him in the premises—that much has been given
him, and therefore much will be required of him. The
blood of all the controversialists flows through his veins ;
the strength of all the champions of Arminianism nerves
his arm; " his height is six cubits and a span" (1 Sam.,
xvii. 4), and he is commanded to use his resources for the
annihilation of Calvinism. Will he come up to his re¬
sponsibilities ? If he fails it shall not be his fault! But
suppose Calvinism should not be accommodating enough
to die when he attacks it, how will he infallibly know
that he has acquitted himself as in duty hound ? We
fancy that we see him now harassed by the most painful
uncertainty. Some months ago he made his first attack,
and discharged at his enemy seventy-two paragraphs
(all numbered off"), and since then silence has reigned over
the field of operations. If he fancies that this silence is
caused by his complete success, and that Calvinism lies
among the slain, it becomes our painful office to inform
saints' perseverance.
11
him that it is not dead, but sleepeth, and tbat we are the
only one of its friends that seem to have been awakened
by the noise of the attack! But, then, what-becomes of
his conscientious determination so to act as to avoid
blame ? Could he not have hurled one paragraph more ?
Did he have no other shot to fire ? Perhaps another shot,
more lucky than the rest, might have reached his enemy's
heart, and freed the world from bondage. Why, then,
did he not discharge it ? If he did all that he could, what
becomes of his ostentatious profession of strength ? Verily,
there seems to be an antagonism here—Strength vs. Con¬
science. His exalted conceptions of himself or his con¬
science, one or the other, must give way. Our author's
estimate of his powers must be lowered, in the present
aspect of the case, or (his conscience remaining lively) he
must be in the most painful state of uncertainty as to
whether he is to be any longer responsible for the exist¬
ence of Calvinism. Verily, Atlas requires much strength
to sustain the weight of the world !
" I am determined, that if it survives my attacks!"
Surely Mr. Reneau's perception of the ludicrous must be
defective. Calvinism has never heard of him before, and
if its advocates ever thiuk of him hereafter, it will never
be in a connection flattering to his vanity.
We confidently believe tbat no publication in the lan¬
guage, of the same length, contains as great an amount
of bitterness, and as many examples of misrepresentation,
as that upon which we are animadverting. The author
seems to have written with the feelings of the man who,
having the most self-satisfying confidence in his own
prowess, and having ostentatiously called upon the whole
world to witness the ease with which he would demolish
his antagonist, is made conscious at last of a disgraceful
12
PREDESTINATION AND
failure, and vents his impotent rage by abusive epithets at
a respectful distance :—like the Mexican chief, who soothed
the mortification of repulse by pronouncing the American
general so ignorant of military science as not to know
when he was defeated—or, more properly, like the blus¬
tering and quarrelsome urchin, who said that if he could
not chastise the larger boy, he could make faces at him.
The following examples of his style and spirit, under
appropriate heads, are given, not because they are the
worst of their kind, but because they are shorter, and can
be more easily extracted :
His Courtesy and Liberality.—" But, in order to carry out
their Calvinistic scheme, this talk, etc., has been made a part of
their visionary scheme and theories." " To exhibit still further
the mad scheme of this system," etc., p. 16. "Ho man that pre¬
fers the truth to his own prejudices, it would seem to us, could
doubt that Jesus did intend, on this occasion, to teach that his dis¬
ciples might lose their religion." " Caivinists, holding on to their
error with a zeal worthy of a better causg." " If we were to ad¬
mit this foolish hypothesis," p. 19. "No man can mistake here,
provided his prejudices have not blinded him, and so wholly per¬
verted his understanding that nothing could instruct him," p. 21.
" Is there a man on this camp-ground stupid enough to believe
such to be the true meaning of these texts of Holy Writ ? Every
one who has sense enough to know the road to mill knows better,"
p. 23. "We feel that enough has been said to satisfy every honest
inquirer after truth, that it is possible for a man to receive the
grace of God in vain, and thus perish everlastingly," p. 23. " Do
Caivinists think the world dull enough to believe that such argu¬
ments make out their doctrine," p. 27.
/
His Candor.—" It is palpable that Caivinists hold that God's
elect are ordained to everlasting life, without any regard to their
Christian character," p. 14.
His Dogmatism.—" This is indeed a very convenient method of
reproving an unscriptural doctrine," p. 6. " If we believe no more
saints' perseverance.
13
concerning predestination than the Bible teaches, we will never
believe the ©alvinistic notion on that subject," p. 11. "Neither
these" (passages of Scripture) " nor any others, prove anything at
all in their favor," p. 27.
His Refinement.—" If a poor reprobate were to commit such
crimes, eternal damnation in hell-fire would be the consequence;
but let one of these predestinated pets commit them, and they will
have the head-ache, or some other punishment, and then bask in
heaven's smiles, world without end," p. 15.
Anywhere else than in a sermon, this would be called
slang. Other examples under this head we deem it pro¬
per to suppress, as they are too gross to meet the eye of
our lady readers.
His Deference to the Bible.—" Convince us that Christianity
tolerates such things, and we will plead its cause no more," p. 15.
Finally, in the way of extracts: "We fear our Calvin-
istic friends will not easily forgive us for our frank deal¬
ing with their favorite doctrines," p. 17. " If our Calvin-
istic brethren feel hurt, they may rest assured that we
deliver these sentiments out of no unkind feelings. It is
because we thus believe that we thus preach," p. 12. We
hope that, after this, none of our Calvinistic readers will
be so unreasonable as to be dissatisfied. True, our author
says that they are " silly," and " dull," and " stupid," and
" prejudiced," and " dishonest," and " without sense enough
to know the road to millbut " it is because he thus
believes that he thus" writes. Let us therefore be grate¬
ful for his tenderness, and repress our complainings.
The Bible addresses us in plain and intelligible lan¬
guage. While there are many mysteries in it that angels
desire in vain to look into, and many things difficult to
be understood, which the perverse frequently wrest to
2
14
PREDESTINATION AND
their own destruction, those truths which pertain to eter¬
nal life are revealed in the most unambiguous language.
God does not dishonor Himself, and trifle with his crea¬
tures, by making their salvation to depend upon the re¬
ception of doctrines that are either unintelligible or con¬
tradictory. His system of heavenly truth is harmonious
and consistent, and revealed with perspicuity and precision.
Commencing here on earth with the first "principles of
the doctrine of Christ," with "repentance from dead
works and faith toward God," it ascends a glorious chain,
each link shining more brightly as it rises into the pure
heavens above, until it glitters in the effulgence that shines
from God's throne. We are not only commanded to
search the Scriptures, but we are encouraged by the
promise that we shall know if we follow on to know the
Lord. Like his sanctification, the path of the Christian's
knowledge is as the shining light, that shines more and
more unto the perfect day. God designs that His people
should understand his truth—nay, He has made their sal¬
vation to depend upon their belief of it—and it is His will
that they should all come into the unity of the faith, that
they should be one, as Christ and the Father are one.
Why, then, is there such a diversity of sentiment in the
Christian world ? Why is it that even evangelical sects
draw from the Scriptures systems so diametrically oppo¬
site ? That good men do differ in theological sentiment
is indisputable, and is as lamentable as it is true; but the
reason is not to be found in any ambiguity in the Word
of God. Some of the difference, perhaps, is to be as¬
cribed to the diversity of their mental constitution, and
the different way in which the same evidence strikes dif¬
ferent minds; much to the force of early bias, to the in¬
fluence of association, and to the distorted media, there-
saints' perseverance.
15
fore, through which the truth is seen; much to the care¬
lessness with which many read the Scriptures, and to the
indolence which causes them to construct a system out of
fragments of Bible truth; but, without doubt, no incon¬
siderable part of the disagreement is to be attributed to
presumption. Professing Christians (sometimes uncon¬
sciously) not unfrequently form in advance an idea in
their minds, drawn from the teachings of others, or from
their own reflections, of the character of God, and of the
doctrines which he ought to promulgate, and then after¬
ward consult the Bible to prove that their views are
correct; and some carry their presumption to such daring
lengths as to reject the Bible, if it fails to sustain them in
their positions. May not those opinions, which would
rob Christ of His divinity, which deny the doctrine of the
Trinity, and those others, which would make eternal life
the portion of all mankind, have their origin here ?
While we are far from the bigotry which would make
us assert that the denomination to which we belong are
the only people exempt from this presumption, and as far
from the illiberality which would induce us to apply it to
any individual who may differ from us—while we are
free to grant, until evidence appear to the contrary, that
all evangelical Christians who differ from us are as honest
seekers after truth as we are—we feel no hesitation in
placing any one in this category who openly confesses it
to be his appropriate place. Such our author has done.
He has, in effect, declared that, if it can be shown to him
that the Bible teaches Calvinism, he will reject it, and
turn his back upon it. " Convince us that Christianity
tolerates such things, and we will plead its cause no more,"
p. 15. Like the madman in "The World's Anti-Slavery
Convention," who said, Convince me that the Bible sane-
16
PREDESTINATION AND
tions slavery, and I cast it to the winds, and learn my re¬
ligion from the flowers of the field. The " things" he
refers to here are such as he ascribes—it matters not
whether justly or unjustly—to Calvinists, and which do
not, therefore, by universal consent, bear upon their face
the infallible marks of falsity. Convince him that the
sentiments of Edwards and Doddridge, and a host of other
worthies—who lived in the faith, and who, being dead,
yet speak—are tolerated by the word of God, and he will
plead its cause no more ! Verily, he has placed himself
in a dilemma from which it is impossible that he can be
extricated. If he knew in his heart that these sentiments,
which were so horrifying to him, were no less decidedly
objected to by all other Christians, and that he could
therefore, with safety, stake his reverence for the Bible
upon their falsity, then he was guilty of bearing false
witness against his brethren. But if he sincerely believed
that they were the sentiments of his opponents, then he
stands convicted of prescribing terms to Almighty God,
and of saying to Him that, if it can be proved that He
sanctions Calvinism, he will plead his cause no more!
He utters a threat, that, in a certain contingency men¬
tioned, he " will plead the cause of Christianity no more."
It is evidently his intention here that somebody should
take warning. But who ? Hot his opponents surely—
for if their measure of his efficiency come up to the half
his pretensions, they would rejoice that there is a pros¬
pect of his quitting the field; not his friends and co-
laborers—for they are innocent of any blame in the pre¬
mises. Against whom, then, is the threat uttered? Is it
possible that our author is unconscious of its impious
nature!
The advocates of Calvinism seem to be in a strait here
saints' perseverance.
17
betwixt two. If they permit the argument to go against
him by default, they give up what they conceive to be
important Scripture truth; if they vanquish their assail¬
ant, they do it at the expense of making an infidel of
him, or, we should rather say, of driving him into open
connection with infidels—for his threat contains, already,
all the essential elements of infidelity. No explanation
can make it much better for him; but we would fain
hope that this sentiment escaped him in the heat of
chronic passion.
And this is the man that, with so much confidence, in¬
timates that he is destined to exterminate Calvinism from
the land! How will he do it ? He has fallen upon a
poor expedient to prepare the way for success. We
thank God that, in this highly favored land, the doctrine
of the Reformation so generally prevails : <l The Bible,
without note or comment, the only and the all-sufficient
rule of faith and practice." The people profess to yield
themselves with humble submission to the teachings of
God's word, and they will say to him, and to all others
like him, " Let God be true, but every man a liar."
It is a rule in parliamentary proceedings, that if the
provisions of a bill do not conform to its title, it is to be
rejected. Were our author's first sermon tried by the
same principle, it would meet with the same fate. It has
seldom been our lot to read a production (as far as the
argument is concerned) so desultory and incongruous.
He uses his arguments in as arbitrary a manner as he
does the figures with which he begins his paragraphs.
Question them as closely as you may, you will fail to learn
from them their adaptation to the case in hand. Old as
they are, and as much as they have seen of the world, we
venture the assertion they have never found themselves in
2*
18
PREDESTINATION AND
such strange connections before. What dependence they
have upon each other, and what support they mutually
afford, it is difficult to discern. And yet they need all
the assistance they can obtain: for, divest them of the
martial livery put upon them by their present owner, and
exorcise them of the evil spirit with which they are pos¬
sessed, and they are exhibited to be of the most feeble and
attenuated nature, with hardly strength enough to main¬
tain a perpendicular attitude. Besides, being employed
from their youth for other purposes, now that old age and
hard usuge are added to constitutional weakness, they do
not possess the flexibility which would make them useful
auxiliaries, in an employment so contrary to their natures
and their habits. Never, perhaps, were very innocent ar¬
guments so badly treated—another example, doubtless,
tending to establish the truth of the old saying, that we
esteem that lightly which cost us little.
But we have said that the production is desultory and
incongruous. In the title, the author proposes to attack
Calvinistic Predestination; but, in giving a description
of it, he defines (in a lame and ungrammatical way) Elec¬
tion ; while the attack itself is leveled chiefly at the doc¬
trine of necessity, as opposed to the Arminian idea of
liberty, or self-determining power! Why is this ? Is it
because he is ignorant of that he professes to assail; or,
aping a skillful general, does he design to weaken the
point aimed at, by compelling the garrison (as expecting
a general attack) to occupy, at the same time, the whole
line of defense ? Does he amuse us with feigned attacks,
that he may mask his real intentions ? If so, we submit
to him whether this comports with the confidence, more
than hinted, that his forces are sufficient, by dint of mere
strength, to raze our fortress to its foundations, and to put
saints' perseverance.
19
the garrison to the sword ? And it may be well, too, for
him to bear in mind, that while deceptions, on a warlike
theater, and on a large scale, are called by dignified
names, and, when successful, are applauded, in a more
limited sphere they degenerate into mere tricks, which
not unfrequently bring their perpetrators into merited
contempt.
Election and the doctrine of Necessity are important
parts of Predestination, but they do not constitute the
whole of it. Why, then, did he not give to his readers a
definition of Predestination, in the very words of its ad¬
vocates, and attempt, fairly and in a manly way, a refuta¬
tion of it, in all its parts, and as a whole ? Only two sup¬
positions can he given. Either he did not comprehend
that to which he was objecting, or he designedly left it in
uncertainty, that he might avail himself of all the preju¬
dices and misapprehensions of his hearers—that, by using
disjointed parts (and disfigured at that) of the Calvinistic
system, united with others of his own invention, he might
construct a hideous image (adapting it to his capacity as
an adversary) and call it Predestination; and, having
demolished this, his depraved creature (to the relief of
Calvinists, no less than of Arminians) might set up a shout
of triumph, as if he had gained a victory over Calvinism.
This course may have been very successful (on a small
scale) for the time ; but our author will find that it will
re-act, with retributive force, upon himself. He may
have thought, while skipping about, with such marvelous
agility, over all parts of the field (excepting the right one)
—making so much noise, and raising such a smoke—that
he would bewilder his adversary, and gain the admiration
of the lookers-on ; and, if he should fail of victory, find,
at least, in the smoke and dust, a concealment from the
20
PREDESTINATION AND
resentment he provoked. But let him know that Calvin¬
ism, if it feel so disposed, can trace him out in the deep
obscurity he has created, and, having dragged him forth
into the light, can bestow upon him, before the world, the
chastisement which will be salutary, not only for his cor¬
rection, but as a warning to all like him inclined.
Our author possesses some of that ingenuity which is
efficient in misrepresenting an opponent, and is gifted, in
no ordinary degree, with the powers of denunciation and
abuse ; but he seems to be entirely destitute of analysis.
We defy any one to extract a complete skeleton from his
sermon. It would seem as if he sat down to write, with¬
out any system in his mind, and with nothing to guide
his ideas, but the bitter feelings by which they were im¬
pelled. The only difficulties, therefore, in the way of
answering his arguments, consist, first, in finding out
what they are ; and second, in perceiving what bearing
they have upon the subject, after they are discovered. In
his title he essays to give us a treatise on Predestination;
but, excepting the arbitrary use of the word, his denun¬
ciation is of any other Calvinistic doctrine rather.
Amphora ccepit
Institui; currente rota cur urceus exit ?
Again, he professes to treat of Calvinistic doctrines;
but, in his statement of them, he quotes from the writings
of Dr. Hopkins! Now, every polemic theologian ought
to know that the doctor was the founder of a distinct
school, and is not acknowledged as a Calvinist at all.
Many of his sentiments, doubtless, as well as those of
James Arminius, conform to our system ; but this makes
the one, not more than the other, a disciple of John Cal¬
vin. Why, then, is Dr. Hopkins cited in this connection ?
saints' perseverance. 21
If he meant not to violate the common principles of fair¬
ness, he furnishes us witlg another instance of his inability
to pursue steadily the object before him. Having a
grudge against the Calvinists, he belabors the Hopkin-
sians! Let him take care, lest he may, by mistake, kill
the .wrong man. That would be very sad, and may be, if
possible, a source of regret even to him. But why did
he not quote from those, exclusively, who are universally
acknowledged as standard Calvinistic writers ? To have
done so would have given him less opportunity, perhaps,
for the exercise of his peculiar gifts ; but it would have
been more candid, and we will say, also, more manly. It
matters not, though the language quoted from Doctor
Hopkins expressed exactly Calvinistic sentiments; it is
enough to know that we are no more responsible for him
than we are for Mr. Reneau. And this is another speci¬
men of his candor ! It would seem that he is so bent on
the destruction of Calvinism, as to feel authorized, for this
purpose, to adopt the Roman Catholic principle, that the
end sanctifies the means. This, however, is not one of
the most glaring of the misrepresentations with which his
pamphlet abounds. We do not know that it will be of
any avail; but we would advise him, hereafter, to take
pains, in advance, to understand any thing /before he at¬
tacks it, and to endeavor to treat his opponents with just¬
ice and candor. It may make him feel better, and fare
better—" All they that take sword shall perish with the
sword."
SECTION II.
It would be a sufficient defense of Predestination against
our author, to show that, notwithstanding his professions,
he does not attack it at all; but as he seems to look upon
22
PREDESTINATION AND
his arguments with much complacency, and the task is to
us not destitute of entertainment, we waive this method
of defense, and engage to ramble about with him, and to
sustain any Calvinistic doctrines he may have attacked,
whether designedly or by mistake. As we essay to an¬
swer Mr. Reneau, we must meet him where he is, since
we can not find him where he ought to be. Before doing
so, however, we deem it proper to 6tate the much abused
doctrine of Predestination. We are the more inclined to
do so, as we have reason to believe that our author is not
the only one who entertains confused notions in regard
to it.
" Predestination is that eternal, most wise, and immut¬
able.decree of God, whereby he did, from before all time,
determine and ordain to create, dispose of, and direct to
some particular end, every person and thing to which he
has given, or is yet to give, being ; and to make the whole
creation subservient to, and declarative of, his own glory.
' The Lord hath made all tilings for himself; yea, even
the wicked for the day of evil.' (Prov. xvi. 4.)"—
Zanchius.
The doctrine, as we think, necessarily grows out of the
character of God, and his connection Avith the universe as
its creator, upholder and governor.
The following series of propositions, analytically dis¬
posed, contain, as we conceive, both the statement, and
the proof of it:
1. This earth was created by God, and, consequently,
there was a period when it began to exist.
2. God created it not of necessity, or from impulse, but
according to the good pleasure of his will, and as the result
of a settled purpose entertained from eternity.
3. As an infinitely wise and reasonable being, he had
saints' perseverance.
23
some ultimate object, well-defined and specific, which, he
proposes to attain by its creation. (Prov., xvi. 4 ; Rom.,
xi. 36 ; Rev., iv. 11.)
4. Possessing- infinite knowledge, he knew, by intuition,
not only all things that have existed, and shall exist, but
all things possible—" all possible causes, and all their pos--
sible effects." (Ps. cxlvii. 5 ; 1 Sam., xxiii. 11, 12 ; Matt.,
xi. 21, 23.) Therefore, nut of an endless diversity of
worlds comprehended in the divine knowledge as possible,
he selected such an one as this—composed as it is, and
peopled as it is—as the most suitable means for the ac¬
complishment of his purpose; and decreed- that it should
exist. (Col., i. 16.)
5. That this ultimate object might be obtained, and the
end infallibly secured, he ordained, with unerring cer¬
tainty, all the means necessary, both in the world of mat¬
ter, and in the world of mind. He not only fixed, from
eternity, all the forms, positions, relations and notions of
matter, even to the numbering of the hairs of our heads,
and deciding when a sparrow should fall—in directing
the motions of the particles of dust in the atmosphere
(Is., xl. 12), and ordaining when the sun should shine
(Job, ix. Y), and when the wind should blow (Ps. cxxxv. Y),
but he " fixed, from eternity, all the circumstances in the
life of every individual of mankind, and all the particulars
which will compose the history of the human race, from
its commencement to its close."
6. God's foreknowledge relates to those things that
should occur in time; and he foreknew, therefore, that
those would occur-rather than the other innumerable
things that were possible, because he had decreed that
they, and not others, should exist. (Eph., i. 11 ; Acts, xv.
18 ; Ps. cxv. 6 ; Acts, xvii. 26.)
24
PREDESTINATION AND
7. The world, therefore, in all its physical and moral
details, is just as God designed it to be—the entrance of
moral evil itself not excepted. He did not err in his
plan, therefore evil did not enter unexpectedly to him—he
has not been frustrated in his purpose, therefore it did not
•enter in spite of him. And tbis, too, is in perfect con¬
sistency witb the declaration of Scripture, that God is not
the author of sin.
1. God is not only the Creator but the upholder of all
things. (Heb., i. 3.) In him we live, and move, and
have our being. He not only bestowed upon men their
faculties, but he gives them the ability to use them. He
preserves those powers when they are employed in oppo¬
sition to him, no less than when they are employed in his
service.
2. This he does not from a choice of evils, i. e., not be¬
cause he is compelled, by the force of circumstances,
which he can not control, to take this as an evil rather
than some other that is greater ; for, possessing almighty
power, he might have paralyzed those faculties, or pre¬
vented their abuse, by changing the hearts of their
owners.
3. Possessing infallible prescience, he foresaw all the in¬
stances in which ungodly men would sin against him;
and permitting it in time, he determined to permit it from
all eternity, and decreeing from eternity to permit it, it
entered into his plan, and composed a part of the purpose
which he entertained before the world was.
1. God, as the governor of the world, administers all
things according to his sovereign pleasure. He doeth ac¬
cording to his will in the army of heaven, and among the
inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or
say unto him, What doest thou ?
saints' per severance.
25
2. " He did not merely decree that general laws should
be established for the government of the world, but he
settled the application of those laws to all particular cases."
Our days are-numbered, and so are the hairs of our heads.
His providence takes cognizance of, and controls every
thing, however minute. (Ps. cxxxv. 6 ; Acts, xvii. 25,
26, 28 ; Matt., vi. 26, 30, etc.) " It upholds, directs, dis¬
poses and governs all creatures, actions and things, from
the greatest even to the least."
3. Now, as known unto God are all his works from the
beginning of the world, and, as he is immutable in his
nature, it follows that what he does in time he determined
to do from eternity—that his providence is but the
enforcement of those laws, and the revealment of those
plans, which existed before the world was. Finally, it
follows that " whatever occurs in time was fore-ordained
before the beginning of time."
In reference to men, predestination is divided into two
parts : 1st, as it relates to the elect, and 2d, as it relates
to the non-elect. Having decreed to create a world, and
to people it with beings who would voluntarily sin against
him, he determined from eternity to save some, and to
leave others to perish in their sins. " Willing to show
his wrath, and to make his power known," he " endured
with much long-suffering" these as " the vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction ; and that he might make known the
riches of his glory on" those as " the vessels of mercy
which he had afore prepared unto glory." (Rom., ix.
22, 23.)
To carry out his purpose of grace, he chose some to
holiness and eternal life, entered, for their sake, into the
Covenant of Redemption with the Son and the Holy
Ghost, appointed his Son as their substitute, to suffer in
3
26
PREDESTINATION AND
their stead, and, having died, to rise again, and appear as
their advocate before his throne, appointed all the inter¬
mediate means necessary, and, by an infallible decree,
made their salvation sure. Those, " whose names are not
written in the book of life" (Rev., xx. 15), who are " ap¬
pointed to wrath" (1 Thess., v. 9), who were " before of
old ordained to condemnation" (Jude, 4), who would
" stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also
they were appointed" (1 Peter, ii. 8), he determined to
leave in their sins, and to endure them with much long-
suffering as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.
The elect are chosen, not because God foresees faith and
good works in them; but, in part, that they might have
faith and might perform good works; or, in the language
of the Confession of Faith, quoted by our author, " God
hath chosen them in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out
of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of
faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or
any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes
moving him thereunto." God's act in electing some and
not others is to be resolved into his sovereign will. " He
hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he
will he hardeueth." (Rom., ix. 18.)
While, by an immutable decree, He has made all things
in time fixed and sure, all this occurs in perfect consist¬
ency with the free agency of the creature, and God is not
the author of sin. The elect are, by the influence of
sovereign grace, made willing in the day of God's power,
and those not elected have no active principle of dis¬
obedience imparted to them, and feel no restraint upon
their wills—they aro simply passed by, and permitted to
follow the inclinations of their own hearts. While they
work out God's purposes, they do it unconsciously and
saints' perseverance
21
wickedly. " Him (Christ) being delivered by the determi¬
nate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and
by wicked hands have crucified and slain." (Acts, ii. 23.)
Remark 1. Whatever objections may be raised against
this doctrine (and what doctrine is there against which
objections can not be raised), can be shown to press with
greater weight upon the Arminian system.
Remark 2. Much of the difficulty in the way of the
reception of this doctrine, grows out of the two following
considerations :
1. We are too much disposed to think of the eternal
God as if He were just such a being as we are. Looking
too exclusively upon our free agency and accountability,
we lose sight of God's sovereignty and omniscience. Con¬
fining our observations only to the brief period which
limits our existence on earth, we view Him as a mere
cotemporary with ourselves, whose only jurisdiction is to
reward us if we do well, to note our improper conduct if
we act amiss, and to bring us into judgment hereafter.
It does not enter into our conceptions that He existed
from all eternity, and, as our Creator, has supreme owner¬
ship of us—that He was under no obligation to create us,
nor to destine us for one end rather than another. Our
pride and self-love cause us to rebel at the declaration
that God, in making and in disposing of us, consults his
sovereign pleasure and His glory rather than our interests.
And we are disposed to reply against God. As if He had
not, in the beginning, in reference to us, the same right,
and the same power, that the potter has, out of clay to
make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor.
(Rom., ix. 21.)
2. Another cause of hesitation to receive this doctrine,
springs from a desire to avoid any belief which seems dis-
28
PfiEDESTINATION AND
honoring to God. Taking a partial and superficial (and
sometimes distorted) view of the subject, some consider it
to be inconsistent with His goodness and impartiality, to
decree to save some and to leave others to perish in their
sins. But let them take care, while they quarrel with
what God decrees, that they do not quarrel with what He
does. It is evident that all men are not saved, and that
those that are, are saved by the operations of His grace.
Now, if it is consistent with God's honor to save some, in
time, and to leave others to perish in their sins, it is con¬
sistent with it to decree to do so from eternity. Besides,
supposing we grant that there were do divine decrees, we
see not how the difficulty is obviated. God knew before
He created them, and from eternity, who would reject the
gospel and finally perish, and yet He gave them being
notwithstanding—though He was under no necessity to
do so. He might have created them with dispositions to
do His will, or He might not have created them at all.
Is He not as much responsible for the destruction of the
wicked on the one supposition as on the other ? as much
on the Arminian principle as on the Calvinistic ? God
knows better than we do what is consistent with His
character, and how to preserve His honor—we shall be
perfectly safe, therefore, in believing implicitly all that He
reveals on the subject. And this is His testimony:
"The Lord of Hosts hath sworn (i. e., has immutably de¬
creed) saying, Siyely as I have thought, so shall it come
to pass ; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand. This
is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth ;
and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the na¬
tions. For the Lord of Hosts hath purposed, and who
shall disannul it ? and his hand is stretched out, and who
shall turn it back ?" (Is., xiv. 24, 26, 27.)
SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE.
29
In the above we have given a statement of predestina
tion, in such terms as, we think, to carry the proof along
with it; but, as it is an eminently practical doctrine, and
one much caviled at, we proceed to argue its truth by
starting from a different point. Be it remembered, how¬
ever, that Mr. Beneau has laid us under no obligation to
take this course, nor, indeed, to have said any thing on
Predestination proper. As it is, therefore, a mere gratuity
to him, we hope he will not be insensible of the favor—
though, as his organs are weak, we are not sure that it
may not prove too hard for him to digest. Inched it
would not be surprising if it should turn out to be a file
which he can not bite.
That God, from all eternity, ordained all things that
should occur in time, both in the world of matter and in
the world of mind, will follow, as an inevitable conclusion,
if we shall be able to establish the following premises :
Position 1. God has intimate relations with all the
works of His hands. This, we suppose, none of our read¬
ers will deny. No one entertains the Epicurean notion,
that God, after creating the world, and ordaining general
physical laws for its government, withdrew into some dis¬
tant part of His universe, and, since then, has taken no
cognizance of His creatures. Nor does any one believe
that He is a mere unconcerned spectator of the actions
and events that transpire in this lower world. He fills
immensity with His presence, and mantains intimate per¬
sonal relations with all the works of His hands :
1st. He upholds all things by the word of His power.
(Ileb., i. 3.) We suppose it susceptible of demonstration,
were it necessary, that it requires as great an exertion of
almighty power to preserve, as originally to have called
into existence, the universe ; and that, if His upholding
30
PREDESTINATION AND
and sustaining power were removed, it would instantly
fall back into the nothingness from whence it sprang. By
Him, all inanimate matter, in the aggregate, and, there¬
fore, into its minutest parts, is preserved. In Him, the
tallest archangel, and the most degraded descendant of
Adam live, and move, and have their being. " Thou hast
made heaven the heaven of heavens, with all their host,
the earth, with all things that are therein, the seas, and
all that is therein, and thou preservest them all." (Neh.,
ix. 6.)
2d. God provides for all His creatures. Whether di¬
rectly or through the agency of second causes (which He
controls), he gives to all His living creatures their meat
in due season. (Ps. civ. 27.) To men, He gives rain
from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with
food and gladness (Acts, xiv. 17); and commands His
people to pray to Him daily : Give us this day our daily
bread. He opens His hand, and satisfies the desire of
every living thing (Ps. cxlv. 16) ; gives to the beast his
food, and to the young ravens which cry (Ps. cxlvii. 9) ;
feeds the fowls of the air (Matt., vi. 26) ; and, in a word,
giveth food to all flesh (Ps. cxxxvi. 25).
3d. God disposes and governs all His creatures. He ap¬
pointed the limits to the land, and said to the sea, Hitherto
shalt thou come, and no further; and here shall thy
proud waves be stayed. (Job, xxxviii. 11.) He gathered
together, in heaps, those particles of earth that form the
mountains, and He strewed the grains of sand that form
the sea-shore—giving to each one its allotted place. His
hand keeps on their firm foundations the everlasting hills,
and He disposes every particle of dust; by His direction,
they float through the atmosphere, or settle in the posi¬
tion to which His hand guides them. (Is., xl. 12.) He
saints' perseverance.
31
scooped out the channels through which mighty rivers
flow, and sent the springs to run through tho valleys (Ps.
civ. 10)—marking out all their sinuosities, directing all
their mutations, and guiding all the watery particles, that,
from time to time, unite to replenish their failing waters.
By His direction, some particles of moisture flow toward
the sea, and some, ascending in vapor, form clouds. By
His appointment, they descend in genial showers to fer¬
tilize the fields, or in torrents, causing the channels of the
rivers to overflow, and hearing destruction to property
and to life. The elements are ruled by Him. (Job,
xxxvii. 9-13 ; Is., 1. 2 ; Jon., i. 4, 15 ; Neh., i. 4.) " He
covereth the heavens with clouds ; He prepareth rain for
the earth ; He giveth snow like wool; He scattereth the
hoar-frost like ashes; He casteth forth his ice like mor¬
sels. Who can stand before his cold? He sendeth out
his word, and melteth them; He causeth His winds to
blow, and the waters to flow." (Ps. cxlvii. 8, 16,17,18.)
In no less sovereign way does he dispose of His creature,
man. He decides when he shall be born, and where, and
of what parents, though the most momentous consequen¬
ces attend upon the decision. By His appointment, some
come into existence in the midst of a heathen community,
where their whole lives are spent without an opportunity
to hear of the God of the Bible, or to learn the way of
salvation through Christ. While, to others, the lines are
cast by Him in pleasant places. They are nurtured, by
His appointment, in a community in whose midst Jesus
Christ is permanently set forth—evidently crucified among
them. Some he makes the offspring of ungodly parents,
who rear them up in irreligion and vice, and teach them
to blaspheme His name, and to despise His authority;
while others are descended from a long line of pious an-
32
PREDESTINATION AND
cestry—are raised up in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord, and, like Timothy, have, from their childhood,
the holy Scriptures, which are able to make them wise
unto eternal life. He ordains all the worldly circumstan¬
ces and conditions of men. However wise their plans
and strenuous their exertions, without the blessing of the
Loi'd upon their efforts, they fail of success. " The Lord
maketh poor and maketh rich ; He bringeth low, and
lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and
lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them
among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of
glory." (1 Sam., ii. 7, 8, with Ps. Ixxv. 67.) The ways
of men are ordered by Him. However conscious they
may be of their independence—that they are acting freely,
and following the bent of their own inclinations—an un¬
seen power, controls them in all their ways. "A man's
heart deviseth his way ; but the Lord directeth his steps."
(Prov., xvi. 9.) "There are many devices in a man's
heart; nevertheless, the counsel of the Lord that shall
stand." (Prov., xix. 21, with 20, 24.) They have no
right to say, To-day or to-morrow we will do thus and
so; but, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or
that. (Jas., iv. 15.) He holds, with a firm grasp, the
reins of dominion over His creatures, and worketh all
things after the counsel of His own will. (Eph., i. 11.)
All causes and all effects, in the material world, obey His
command, and all the antecedents and consequents in the
immaterial, He coutrols. The preparation of the heart
and the answer of the tongue is with the Lord. He
works in His obedient subjects to will aud to do of His
good pleasure ; and the disobedient sin against Him, He
not hindering—not, however, in spite of His power (John,
xix. 11) ; and, in doing so, they accomplish ulterior ol>
saints' perseverance.
33
jects that he has in view. (Gen., 1. 20 ; Is., x. 6, 7, 12 ;
Rom., ix. 17 ; 2 Sam., xxiv. 1, 10, with 1 Chron., xxi. 1;
Acts, iv. 27, 28.) God determines the period of human
life. (Ps. xxxi. 15, 39 ; v.; Acts, xvii. 26.) The days
of all the descendants of Adam are numbered. Various
are the terms allotted to individuals; but the times of all
are in His hand. (Ps. xxxi. 15.) Some, in early youth,
are hurried, in impenitency, from time to eternity ; while
others, more favored, are spared to make their peace with
God when their heads are frosted with age. In a word,
God is nigh to every one of us, and His providence ruleth
over all. Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in
heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.
(Ps. cxxxv. 6.) As an upholder, a provider, a disposer,
and a governor, God maintains the most intimate relations
with all the works of His hands.
Position 2.—In all these relations with his creatures,
God governs Himself by a determinate plan. To deny
this, is to rob Him of intelligence and wisdom. Even a
wise man, who has a valuable object to attain, or is en¬
gaged in some important enterprise, lays down a well-
digested plan of operations, and establishes those rules to
govern his exertions which, in his opinion, will be most
likely to insure him success. A skillful general marks out
the plan of his campaigns ; a farmer, a plan by which to
cultivate his estate •, a statesman, a plan by which to ad¬
minister the affairs of the government; and so on, to the
end of the chapter. It is a mark of stupidity and of folly,
among men, to attempt any thing without system, and to
expect to attain great results by impulse and at hap¬
hazard. God, therefore, who possesses the attributes of
wisdom and intelligence, in an infinite degree, knows what
he intends, and what will most infallibly secure that re-
34
predestination and
suit. Now, while it is not necessary for Him to make an
array of forces, so as to overcome obstacles in the way of
the attainment of His results—while it is only necessary
for Him to speak and it is done, to command and it stands
fast'—yet, as an infinitely wise Being, He knows the end
He proposes, and the best means for the attainment of
those ends; and these means He selects; and these
means, selected, constitute His plan. Again—When time
shall be no more, and the history of God's actions toward
His creatures shall be complete, the aggregate of those
actions will constitute a system. Now, this system of ac¬
tions, as a whole, and in all its parts, is such as God
designs it to be—-or it is not. If not, then God acts
fortuitously and impulsively, without any definite object,
and at random. If it is, then He governs Himself, in all
these actions, by a determinate plan,'which infinite wisdom
devised. God works all things after the counsel of His will.
Our God is in the heavens : He hath done whatsoever he
pleased. (Ps. cxv. 3.)
Position 3.—This determinate plan existed from all
eternity. This follows from the infinite perfections of His
nature—from His immutability. If He has a plan, in
time which He had not in eternity, then His mind has
undergone a change. But He says, I am the Lord—I
change not. (Mai., iii. 6.) He is the same, yesterday,
to-day, and for ever, without variableness or shadow of
turning—from His infinite knowledge. If a plan exists in
the Divine mind, it is designed either to produce the oc¬
currences, in time, or to meet them; either it is the cause
of the events, or is caused by them. Upon either suppo¬
sition, it existed from eternity. Though it be granted
that it was devised to meet the events that occur in time,
it must have existed from eternity; since those events are
saints' perseveeance.
85
as fully comprehended in the divine knowledge, from
eternity, as after their occurrence in time. Known unto
God are all his works, from the beginning (or, as the dis¬
tinguished Arminian writer, Mr. Watson, translates it,
from eternity).
Let these premises be granted (and we see not how they
can be denied), and Predestination comes in like a flood.
Now, God's eternal decree, by which He makes all things,
in time, fixed and sure, is nothing but His eternal plan, by
which He governs Himself in His relations toward His
creatures. And His works of providence and of grace are
but the revealment of that eternal plan, and, consequently,
of His eternal purpose. Is it true that the elements and
all inanimate nature are controlled by Him ? Then, all
their conditions and mutations were fore-ordained by Him,
before the beginning of time. Is it true that He rules,
with as sovereign sway, in the moral as in the physical
world ?—that the hearts of all men are in His hands, and
that He turns them as the rivers of water are turned ?—
does He send His Spirit to a certain number, and no
more, and convince them of sin, of righteousness, and of
judgment ?—call them, effectually, by His grace ?—re¬
generate, sanctify and save them ? And does He do all
this in accordance with a plan entertained from eternity ?
Then, it follows that they were predestined to this grace,
according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things
after the counsel of His own will. Has moral evil en¬
tered into His system, and do wicked men sin against
Him, He not paralyzing their faculties, nor changing their
hearts ? And, does He leave some, as vessels of wrath, to
hardness of heart and blindness of mind, that they might
be damned ? And, does all this occur, too, in accordance
with a plan entertained from eternity ? Then, it follows
36
PREDESTINATION AND
that, from all eternity, He decreed, for wise purposes, to
permit the entrance of moral evil into His system ; to
permit men to use the powers He gave them in opposition
to His authority ; then, it follows that some were before,
of old (i. e., from eternity) ordained to condemnation.
(Jude, 4.) Finally, it follows that the world, in all its
physical and moral details, is just as God designed
it to be. , „
Objection 1.—" But, does not this make God the author
of sin ?" Let us get a definite idea of this phrase. What
do you mean by the author of sin? Sin is the trans¬
gression of the law, and the author of sin is one who is
the perpetrator of such transgression. God, in this sense,
can not be the author of sin; nor can the Calvinistic
doctrine of Predestination be tortured into such a blas¬
phemous testimony against Him. " But, does it not
teach that evil entered into His system, in accordance
with his eternal purpose, and that He decreed all the acts
of transgression that wicked men are guilty of; does it
not, therefore, make Him the approver of sin ?" This
question is a pertinent one, and we will meet it with all
fairness. ^Predestination does assert that all the wicked
acts of wicked men were fore-ordained before the begin¬
ning of time; but yet it as unequivocally asserts that God
does not approve of them; since it teaches that He be¬
fore, of old, ordained them to condemnation because of
those very sins. "But, how can God fore-ordain that of
which He does not approve ?" I will answer your ques¬
tion, by propounding another: How can God, when He
possesses infinite power, permit that of which He does not
approve ? When you have answered my question, you
will have furnished an answer to your own. Now, that
moral evil does exist, that wicked men do sin against God,
saints' perseverance. 37
are facts that are indisputable. This happens either by
God's permission, or against His consent. Now, let my
Arminian interrogator take either supposition that he
pleases. If he says it happens against God's consent—in
spite of God's will—then he robs Him of His omnipo¬
tence ; if by God's permission, then he too is imperatively
called upon to defend his system from the odious conse¬
quences which he ascribes to mine. The only difference
between us is, that he says God permits sin, and we say
that He decreed from eternity to permit it. But the ques¬
tion again returns: " How can God decree to permit sin,
without favoring it ?" Let us elucidate this by example :
1. When the tempter approached our first parents in
the garden of Eden, God was not absent,-and was not an
unconcerned spectator of what was transpiring. He might,
had He been so disposed, have prevented it by expelling
the tempter, or by strengthening our progenitors against
his temptations. He did neither, however. They yielded
to bis wiles, transgressed, and fell; and, in consequence,
lost the favor of God, and were expelled from Paradise.
Now, does this statement make God the author of sin ?
Surely not; for He was not the actor of the sin.. Hoes it
' make Him the favorer of sin ? Surely not; for, besides
forbidding the act, He exhibited, after its occurrence, in
the most tremendous manner, His disapprobation by ex¬
pelling them from Paradise, and pronouncing upon them
that awful curse, under which their posterity are still suf¬
fering. " But if the sin of our first parents was so ab¬
horrent to His mind, as it seems to be from His treatment
of it, how could He ordain from eternity that it should
occur ?" Why not shape the question thus : If it was so
abhorrent to His mind, why did He not prevent it, since
He had the power ? Remove your own difficulty first,
4
38
PREDESTINATION AND
before you condemn me for not removing mine, when it
is the same precisely with yours. If it was consistent
with the divine character to permit the entrance of evil in
time, surely it was not inconsistent to decree from eternity
to permit it. Doubtless, it was for reasons the most in¬
finitely wise that sin was permitted to enter into the
world; some of which are manifest even to us. Had sin
not entered, God would not have been manifested in the
flesh ; Christ would not have been preached as the Saviour
of sinners ; the attributes of God's character would not
have been exhibited and harmonized before men by the
cross of Christ, at which mercy and truth meet together,
righteousness and peace kiss each other.
2. Again, take the case of Joseph. His brethren,
through envy and hatred, " conspired against him to
slay him," but, changing their minds, they sold him to a
company of Ishmaelites, who carried him down to Egypt,
and disposed of him to Potiphar. This act, wicked as it
was, was fore-ordained of God; for we are told (Gen., 1.
20) that though his brethren " thought evil against him,
God meant it for good." God ordained the act, just as
it occurred, for the accomplishment of ulterior good. Was
God, therefore, the author, i. e., the actor of their sin ?
Surely not. Did he approve of their conduct ? \Surely
not; for it was in violation of all His precepts that had
any reference to the case—He expressly forbids the act
perpetrated, and punished them for its commission in a
marked manner. But yet, we are expressly told that
" God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this
day, to save much people alive.". " But how is it possi¬
ble for God at the same time to ordain the act, and yet
disapprove of it ?" And yet so it is revealed. We are
not reasoning with an infidel now, but with an Arminian,
saints' perseverance.
39
who, while he rejects Calvinism, believes in Bibleism.
(Perhaps, however, we should except Mr. Reneau, who
says: " Convince me that Christianity tolerates such
things, and I will plead 'its cause no more.") To such,
we will propound questions in return: Was not God
present when this act was committed? Did He unsuc¬
cessfully attempt to hinder it ? Did He not freely permit
it ? Nay, did He not mean that it should occur for good,
to save much people alive ? Is not God, therefore, as
much the author of sin on your principles as on the Cal-
vinistic ? You admit that God foreknew the act; that
He permitted it, when He might have prevented it; and
with the Bible, that God meant it for good ; and yet that
He neither performed nor approved it. How, then, upon
these principles of yours, is it possible for God at the
same time to permit the act, and mean that it should
occur, and yet disapprove of it ? Until you can explain
this, do not condemn us for that which we should not
escape, were we to abandon our ground and come over
to yours.
3. Again, take the crucifixion of Christ. No act in the
annals of the world was so heaven-daring and wicked as
the violence offered to the Lord of glory. But yet God,
from eternity, decreed this event; for grace was given us
in Christ Jesus before the world was. For this purpose
Christ came into the world, and ages before the event,
the minutest circumstances connected with it were fore¬
told through His prophets. He was delivered to the
Jews and Romans by the determinate counsel and fore¬
knowledge of God. It was the will of the Father that the
Son should die on the cross. But does that make God
the crucifier of Christ? Does that make Him an ap¬
prover of the murder committed upon that innocent and
40
predestination and
glorious person? We think that even an Arminian must
go as far as we do, in reference to that most heinous of all
the acts committed by men, and believe that the crucifix¬
ion of Christ was ordained by the Divine Being from all
eternity, and that it could not, in consequence of God's
appointment, otherwise than happen. Let him, however,
entertain whatever opinion on the subject he may—so
that he does not make the Divine Being altogether such
an one as we are—it will puzzle him, as much as he
thinks it does us, to explain how it can be true that the
crucifixion of Christ occurred not only according to God's
fore-knowledge, but by His determinate counsel, and yet
the act did not meet with God's approval. Examples of
the same kind, enough to fill a volume, may be selected
from the Bible ; but let these suffice. (See Ex., iv. 21;
vii. 2-5; ix. 12 ; x. 1, 2 ; xiv. 4, 8. Gen., xlv. 5, 7, 8.
Ps. cvii. 17. Deut., ii. 30. Josh., xi. 20. Jer., lii. 3.
2 Kings, xxiv. 20. Jer., xxv. 9 ; xliii. 10, 11 ; li. 20. Is.,
xiv. 4-6. 2 Sam., xvi. 10, 11. Acts, xxii. 21, 22 ; iv. 27,
28; iii. 17, 18, etc.)
It will be seen, by what has been said, that the Armin¬
ian system is just as liable as the Calvinistic to the odious
objection, that God is made the author of sin. But, worse
than this, it lies open to a more valid objection still: that,
if He is the author of sin, He has made Himself so with¬
out having any definite object in view, or, in other words,
without any reason for it! Arminians believe (and Mr.
Reneau among them) that God not only knew from eter¬
nity all things that should occur in time, but all things
possible, and, consequently, He knew that if He created
Adam and Eve, and placed them in Paradise, and per¬
mitted the tempter to gain admittance to them in the
way he did, that they would fall. All this, however, He
saints' perseverance.
41
did, knowing that sin would inevitably be committed, and
thus evil inevitably enter into the system ; and yet that
most important event that has ever occurred in time, did
not occur under His direction, nor by His appointment!
Again, He knew that if He caused such a being as Judas
to live in the time of Christ, and preserved him by His
providence, that he would be admitted into the family of
the Saviour, and, such things happening as did happen,
he would be guilty of the awful crime of betraying his
Master to the Jews ; yet all these things He ordered and
permitted, without ordaining that Christ should be be¬
trayed and crucified—nay, without even decreeing from
eternity to permit it! Thus laying the Divine Being
open, as much as Calvinists do, to the charge of being the
author of sin, and yet denying to Him all the attributes
of sovereignty and all the characteristics of a reasonable
being ! Is there not room here for some of that virtuous
indignation vented by our author against the Calvinistic
system ?
Thus it is seen that the consequence of making God
the author of sin does not flow from the Calvinistic sys¬
tem, because of its difference from the Arminian; and
thus it will be seen, from the Scriptures, as well as from
Calvinism, that God ordains the sinful act, and yet disap¬
proves of and punishes it. If our object were merely to
defend ourselves against the objections of an Arminian,
we might rest the subject here, and content ourselves with
having closed his mouth; but, as we have a higher ob¬
ject, we will go further, and attempt to show to the in¬
quirer after truth, that Predestination is not only sustained
by the Bible, but is consistent with sound reason.
It is asserted that God, from all eternity, ordained every
sin that is committed ; but yet is neither the author nor
42
PREDESTINATION AND
approver of it. How can these things be reconciled?
The following remarks, it is thought, will aid us to arrive
at a solution of the question :
1. A distinction is to be made, as existing in the divine
mind, between the sinful act and the result to be attained
by it. The one may be abhorrent to God, and forbidden
by Him, and is sinful, because it is a violation of His law*;
the other may be good, and infinitely worthy of accom¬
plishment. Thus, eating the forbidden fruit was a sinful
act, because forbidden by God, and, as such, was infinitely
abhorrent to Him ; while the result attained by it was, in
part, at least (and who will venture to say it was not as a
whole, taking all things into consideration ?) a good in¬
finitely valuable. It gave occasion for the advent of
Christ; for the manifestation of the divine excellencies;
and for the bestowal of that glorious grace, which will
constitute the theme for the praises of the redeemed
throughout eternity. Again, the outrage upon Joseph
was, in the perpetrators of it, an unnatural sin, and, as
such, offensive in the sight of God ; but the result at¬
tained by it was good, and extorted the gratitude of all
those affected by it. Joseph's brethren " meant" it for
evil, but God " meant" it for good, to save much people
alive. Finally, the crucifixion of Christ was not only a
violation of the command of God against the shedding of
innocent blood, but was infinitely heinous as a manifesta¬
tion of the Jews' hostility to Christ's holiness, and was,
therefore, an awful act of wickedness; but what Christian
is unconscious of the glorious consequences of the cruci¬
fixion of Christ ? What humble soul does not adopt the
language of the Apostle, and say—" God forbid that I
glory, save in the cross of Christ, by which the world is
crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
saints' perseverance. 43
2. It follows, from the above, that if God knows that
any thing will result in infinite good (as the wicked cru¬
cifixion of Christ, for instance) it is not unworthy in Him
to decree that it should occur; on the contrary, it is in¬
finitely worthy in Him to do so. Calvinists, therefore,
divide the will of God into secret and revealed—the re¬
vealed to govern His creatures, the secret to govern Him¬
self ; and the latter will he attained, whether men regard
or disregard the former. But here two other objections
are started :—1st, " Does not this imply an inconsistency in
God ; as His secret will is sometimes one thing, and His
revealed another ?" and, 2d, " Is not this saying that God
does evil, that good may come ?"
1st. To the first, we answer that God's revealed will is
always consistent with itself, and His secret will is always
consistent with itself. The former is given in His pre¬
cepts ; and all the commands, warnings, threaten! ngs,
persuasions, etc., are consistent therewith. He never
commands any thing, without sincerely requiring it; and,
having commanded it, He never authorizes any thing that
conflicts with it. His revealed and His secret will have
reference to objects that are entirely distinct, and can not,
therefore, be compared together. Thus, as we have
shown, His revealed will may be entirely opposed to the
violence offered to the Saviour, and to the motives and
feelings that influenced the Jews in that transaction; and
yet His secret will, having another object in view, decreed
that event, in order that the glorious blessings and results
that flow from the atonement of Christ, might be secured.
2d. " Is this not saying that God does evil that good
may come ?"
God is not the doer of evil—the most that can be said,
therefore, is, that He permits evil that good may come.
44
predestination and
Substitute, therefore, for the word does the word permits,
and the question will stand : " Does God permit evil that
good may come ?" That he does permit evil is indis¬
putable. Only three suppositions, therefore, can be made
in the case. Either he permits it without any object in
view, and for no reason at all; or, He permits it that
evil may come; or, He permits it that good may come.
The first, if we understand them, is the Arminian view
but which is the most honorable to God, let the reader
judge.
Finally, if there is any difficulty in this subject, it grows
out of the connection that exists between the omnipotent
and sovereign God, and finite and responsible men. God's
sovereignty and man's free agency are both revealed in
the Scriptures, and, therefore, should be both believed.
And if we can not reconcile them, it is not because they
are irreconcilable, but because the subject is above our,
faculties. We think it has been shown, however, that if
the objection considered above can lie against the Cal-
vinistic system, it can-be alleged, with as much reason,
against tfie Bible; and Calvinism is content to stand or
fall with the Bible.
Objection 2. " Does not the doctrine which teaches
that God fore-ordained all things, even to the sins that
wicked men commit, exonerate the sinner from all blame ?
This is akin to the objection considered above, viz.: that
Predestination makes God the author of sin, and the an¬
swer to one is applicable to the other. The point of the
objection is, that if the creature does what God in His
secret counsels ordained should be done, and thus becomes
an instrument (though unconsciously) for the accomplish-
ment of God's purposes, no blame can be attached to him,
and God has no right to find fault. Exactly such an ob-
saints' perseverance.
45
jection, and in the same connection, is considered and
answered by the Apostle Paul, in Rom., iii. 5, 6, 7, 8.
" But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness
of God, what shall we say ? Is God unrighteous who
taketh vengeance ?" • If our wickedness tends to the glory
of God, and to the accomplishment of His purposes,
would it not be unjust in God to punish us 2 Certainly
not, says he. " God forbid; foi then how shall God
judge the world 2" " But," says the objector, " if the
truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto
his glory, why am I also judged as a sinner 2" " And not
rather," answers the Apostle (as we be slanderously re¬
ported, etc.) "Let us do evil that good may come."
Secret things belong to God ; and it is a worthy view of
Him, that He rules with such an omnipotent sway, that
even our rebellion and wickedness can not happen with¬
out His permission, and can not thwart His purposes.
His revealed will is the rule of our action ; and whenever
Ave violate it thoughtlessly, or through enmity to it, we
are guilty of sin; and are blameworthy, whatever may
be the consequence of our act as it relates to God. As
well might one say, who, with malice aforethought, at¬
tempted to injure seriously another whom he hated, but
Avas thwarted by the skill or power of the latter, and thus
the act, that was meant for his injury, Avas made to sub¬
serve his interest in a high degree—as well might such
an one say, that he was not blameworthy, since his act
(though unintentionally) wrought good and not evil. And
the case supposed would be more pertinent still, and. it
would not in the slightest degree atfect the moral charac¬
ter of the act, if the assailed, unknoAvn to his adversary,
became possessed of his intention beforehand, and deter¬
mined to permit it, because he foresaw how he could turn
46
predestination and
it to a good account. Because the wrath of man is fore¬
seen by God, and is made to praise Him, that does not
make'it the less the wrath of man. That God does or¬
dain particular events, and all the minute circumstances
connected therewith, and yet men act wickedly in bring¬
ing them to pass, is asserted by a multitude of Scripture
passages. Take the following: " Him being delivered by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye
have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain."
(Acts, ii. 23.) See again, Matt., xvii. 12 ; Acts, iv. 27,
28; xxvii. 23, 24, 34, and that remarkable passage,
John, xix. 11. "Jesus answered, thou couldst have no
power at all against me, except it were given thee from
above; therefore, he that delivereth me unto thee hath the
greater sib." Our objector, however, differing from the
Saviour, would say that, under the circumstances, he had
no sin at all!
Objection 3. "But does not Predestination, as ex¬
plained, destroy free agency, and make men mere ma¬
chines ?" No ; on the contrary, it establishes free agency.
Men are free agents, when they act according to their in¬
clinations. Freedom of action is not opposed to necessity,
but to compulsion. A being may be necessarily holy or
necessarily wicked, and yet a free agent—nay, a free
agent for that very reason. Thus, God is a free agent,
though He can not sin, and Satan, though he can not but
sin. And so it is with men. Mr. Reneau can not act
otherwise than violently, illiberally and uncandidly toward
his opponents; yet he is a free agent notwithstanding.
Predestination asserts neither that God makes men serve
Him against their consent, nor that they disobey Him un¬
willingly. His chosen people He makes willing in the
day of His power, and so works in them to will and to do
saints' perseverance.
41
His good pleasure, that they find it to he their meat and their
drink to do His will; the rest He leaves to themselves,
and, in consequence,- they sin against Him freely, and, in
following their own inclinations, they work out their own
destruction greedily. " But you say God does not infuse
into the sinner any active principle of disobedience ; how,
then, can he fulfil that which God has appointed, and yet
not be a mere machine ?" And yet so it is ; and my Ar-
minian objector is as much responsible for it as I am.
Did not Joseph's brethren act freely in their violence to
him ? Yet God sent him to Egypt. Did not Pharaoh
act freely in refusing to let the Israelites go ? Yet God
hardened his heart, that he might not let them go. Was
not the curse, which Shimei uttered against David, the
offspring of the bitter feelings of his heart ? Yet God
told him to curse David. Did not Absalom and his ad¬
visers act in an untrammeled manner, in adopting the
counsel of Hushai rather than that of Ahithophel ? Yet
" the Lord had appointed to defeat the good counsel of
Ahithophel, to the intent that the Lord might bring evil
upon Absalom." (2 Sam., xvii. 14.) Did not the Jews
act freely in crucifying Christ ? Yet He was delivered to
them by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.
Objection 4. " Does not Predestination make God a
respecter of persons ?" He is a respecter of persons, who
favors some because of their rank, position, or circum¬
stances—who accepts the persons of the rich and the ex¬
alted, and rejects the poor and the humble, and vice versa.
Now, in the sight of God, all men, by nature, possess
the same moral character; and all those extraneous cir¬
cumstances, which give dignity and excellency in this
world's estimation, are as nothing, and less than nothing
in His sight. Not many great, not many mighty, are
48
predestination and
called by Him; on the contrary, God bath chosen the
poor of this world, and the weak of this world, declaring
that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for those who trust in riches and station to
enter into the kingdom of heaven. Looking upon all as
sinners against Him, He chooses some of every condition
—rich and poor, bond and free, male and female—not
because of their moral or other character, but in spite of
it. If any system exhibits God as a respecter of persons,
it is the Arminian ; which represents Him as electing men
because of their character—because of faith and good
works foreseen in them.
Objection 5. " But in saying that He, by an immu¬
table decree, fixed the eternal destiny of those who were
' before of old ordained to condemnation' (Jude, 4), do
you not represent God as unjust and cruel ?" That part
of Predestination which relates to the nou-elect is divided
by Calvinists into pretention and condemnation ; i.e., 1st,
God passes by some, and leaves them in their sins ; 2d,
God condemns and punishes them for their sins. Now,
in which of these resides injustice and cruelty ?
1st. Has not the Sovereign of heaven the right to with¬
hold his grace from whomsoever He pleases, when all are
alike undeserving of it ? Is it unjust in God to leave men
to themselves, especially, too, when it is their wish that
He should do so ? Is there any man, in a state of nature,
that desires a knowledge of God's ways ? And has He
not a right to do as He pleases with His own ? Establish
it as a truth that God has no right to leave an immortal
being to his own inclinations, and you lay Him under ob¬
ligations tojsave every child of Adam—nay, to unpeople
hell itself, and to restore the devil and his angels to that
estate from whence they fell.
saints' perseverance. 49
2d. Is it unjust and cruel in God to condemn and punish,
sinners for their transgressions ? Under what circumstan-
ces, then, can condemnation righteously be pronounced,
and punishment righteously inflicted ? Is the judge
unjust and cruel, who pronounces sentence, according to
law, upon the murderer, or other capital offender ? " But
do you not say that God, from all eternity, ordained, he-
fore they committed good or evil, that they should come
to this condemnation ?" Our statement is, that God, from
all eternity, determined to pass hy those whom He does
pass by, and to permit them to sin against Him, when He
knew that this pretention and permission would result
in their continuance in sin, and in their final condemna¬
tion and perdition. Now, is there any' thing in this un¬
just and cruel ? Is it unjust to pass them by ? You can
not say so, for you know that He does pass them by.
God does not give to all men repentance, to the acknowl¬
edgment of the truth. You are unconscious of it; but it
is God's act that you complain of here, under the name
of His decrees. According to the Calvinistic system,
God's decrees are a rule to govern Him, and can have no
influence upon the creature, for good or for evil, unless
followed by God's act. Another may decree to take your
life ; but that will do you no harm, unless the determina¬
tion be followed up by the attempt. Will you say, there¬
fore, looking now to what He does, that it is unjust in
God to pass by any one, and withhold from him His con¬
verting and His sanctifying grace ? You dare not say so.
If, then, it is not unjust in God to pass by any one in
time, surely it is consistent with His justice to decree to
do so from eternity. " But does it not seem cruel in God
to make men merely to damn them ?" Doubtless, when
put in this shape, and expressed in this strong language,
5
50
PREDESTINATION AND
it seems to you a very " horrid" doctrine. We might
object to this statement of it as incorrect. Waiving this,
however, we will meet you in a different way. What
would my Arminian opposer say, if I should assert that
his system, too, teaches that God makes men merely to
damn them ? Let us see. You believe in God's fore¬
knowledge. (Even Mr. Reneau says he does, following Mr.
Watson rather than Dr. Clarke.) Known unto God, then,
were all His works, from eternity. He knew, therefore,
perfectly, long before he created them, every individual tbat
would live in sin, die in impenitency, and finally perish.
Now, reasoning, upon your own principles, was it not
cruel in God to create them, seeing He was under no ne¬
cessity to do so ? Why did He give them existence ?—
for their final happiness ? He knew as well, from eter¬
nity, as they do after they open their eyes in torment,
that they would never attain to happiness. What object,
then, did the Creator have in view, in giving being to
those who He knew would inevitably sin against Him
and go to perdition ? We should like much to see an intel¬
ligent and candid Arminian look at this question without
blinking, and answer it without evasion. Upon your own
principles, then, may I not ask: Does it not seem cruel in
God to make men (if not merely to damn them, at least)
that they might be damned? Upon your principles, God
created the finally impenitent neither for any purpose of
His own, nor for their lasting welfare—no benefit accrues
to Him nor to His system, and they spend on earth a Aw
precarious days, and full of troubles, and then enter into
a state of endless misery! " Cruelty," unmitigated by
any incidental or ulterior good, either to the Creator or
to the created 1 How " horrid" a doctrine, and how
saints' perseverance.
51
strange and unworthy a view of the infinitely wise and
merciful God!
It will thus be seen, that while Arminians raise such a
hue-and-cry against Calvinism, their own system is liable
to precisely the same objections, with others that are
greater superadded ! It would lead us too far from the
course marked out in this professed answer to Arminian-
ism, and cause us to trespass unreasonably upon the
reader's patience (already, we fear, too much tried), to
attempt an answer to this objection, as coming from other
than an Arminian. "We refer the reader, however, to an
able treatise on this subject, by President Edwards, en¬
titled " God's Ultimate End in the Creation."
Objection 6. " Does not Predestination render unnec¬
essary the use of means ? No ; for it teaches that God
ordains the means as well as the end. Thus, He ordains
that His people shall enter into eternal life ; and that they
might be prepared for this, that they shall be holy, and
without blame, before Him in love; and, that this state
might be attained, that they shall have faith, which works
by love, and purifies the heart, and overcomes the world;
and that they might have faith, that they shall hear the
Gospel, and, therefore, that it shall be preached. Thus
Paul stated to the ship's company that it had been re¬
vealed to him that every soul on board should be saved;
but yet, when the sailors essayed to lower the boat, Paul
said to the centurion and the soldiers, " Except these abide
in the ship, ye can not be saved." (Acts, xxvii. 21-3 L)
Did the centurion and the soldiers demur at this, as in¬
consistent with the unqualified statement of the angel ?
No !■ believing that God had ordained the means as well
as the end, they cut the rope, and thus detained the
sailors on board.
52
PREDESTINATION AND
Other minor objections are alleged against Predestina¬
tion ; but they can all be resolved into those mentioned
above, and answered upon the same principles.
Having stated the doctrine, and answered the objec¬
tions to it, let us see what are some of its practical in¬
fluences:
1st. It tends to produce humility. When we feel that
we shape our own destiny—that our own power or wis¬
dom has procured for us our advantages or successes, we
are tempted to entertain exalted conceptions of our own
importance; but wheD we believe that God rules above,
and rules below, and works all things after the counsels
of His own will; that He not only called us into being,
but selected, according to His sovereign pleasure, the time
and place and circumstances of our existence—circum¬
stances, too, that exert a controlling influence upon our
destiny ; that He chooses out our changes for us, and di¬
rects our steps; that He accomplishes His own purposes
in our lives, working in us and by us, for the manifesta¬
tion of His own glory ; we feel that, in the presence of
God, we are nothing, and less than nothing, and vanity.
2d. It tends to make those engaged in the service of
God labor with more diligence. While nothing is more
paralyzing than the apprehension that, with all our exer¬
tions, we shall fail of the attainment of our object; so
nothing is more stimulating than the assurance that suc¬
cess will crown our well-directed efforts. Now, if Pre¬
destination be true, we know that God has purposes con¬
cerning us, and that all those purposes will be infallibly
secured. And whenever, in a right spirit and in a proper
way, we attempt any thing that is in accordance with His
revealed will, we are assured that our labor will not be in
vain in the Lord. Are we laboring for God's glory, by
saints' perseverance. 53
seeking to obey Him in heart and in life ? We know
that He wills the sanctification of His people, and, there¬
fore, we run not as uncertainly, we fight not as those that
heat the air. Are we laboring as God's ministers, for the
salvation of sinners, and for the edification of His people ?
We have the strongest assurance, in God's purpose and
God's promises, that our sincere exertions will not be
unavailing. Though all our unaided efforts will be in¬
effectual, to destroy the enmity in the heart of a single
sinner, yet we know that the Lord has a purpose to ac¬
complish, in the preaching of the Gospel, and that He
has declared His word shall not return unto Him void,
hut shall accomplish the thing whereuuto He sent it.
Having, therefore, the conviction that He has called us
into the ministry, though set down in the midst of the
valley that is full of bones—many and very dry—we can,
by the Divine command, prophesy unhesitatingly, and
look with confidence, to see " bone come to his bone," and
perhaps an exceeding great army standing up upon their
feet, having in their nostrils the breath of spiritual life.
(Ez., xxxvii. 10.)
3d. It tends to strengthen and support the Christian,
under all his calamities and sufferings. To the believer
of the doctrine, nothing happens by chance; but all
things, good or bad, prosperous or adverse, occur by
God's direct command, or by His express permission.
He feels persuaded that His providence ruleth over all,
and that His hand is to be seen in every thing that hap¬
pens to him. Does he enjoy prosperity ? He thanks God
for His goodness. Does he suffer under affliction or calam¬
ity ? His language is, " It is the Lord ; let Him do what
seemeth Him good." Job saw the hand of God, not only
in those calamities that came directly from Him, through
5*
54
PREDESTINATION AND
the agency of the powers of nature, but in those, also, that
befell him through the agency of violent men; and he
submitted to both, as being in accordance with the Divine
will. (Job, i. 8, 21.) Messengers came to him in haste,
and informed him that the Sabeans had taken away his
oxen, and his asses, and slain his servants—that fire from
heaven had consumed his sheep and his servants—that
the Chaldeans had carried away the camels and slain the
servants, and that a great wind had overturned the house
in which his sons and daughters were collected, and slain
them all. And Job rent his mantle, and said, "Naked
came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I re¬
turn thither. The Lord gave (oxen and asses, and sheep,
and camels and servants, and children), and the Lord
hath taken away (through the agency, in part, of predatory
and wicked bands of Sabeans and Chaldeans), blessed be
the name of the Lord." The same resignation to the
Divine will was exhibited by the company of primitive
Christians, when they tried, unsuccessfully, to dissuade
Paul from placing himself in the power of the wicked
Jews, at Jerusalem, who, he was forewarned, would lay
violent hands upon him. When Paul had been informed,
by the prophet Agabus, that the Jews would bind him hand
and foot, and deliver him to the Gentiles, the brethren tried
to persuade him not to go to Jerusalem ; but, seeing that
their importunity only served to distress him, they ceased,
saying, " The will of the Lord be done." (Acts, xxi. 14.)
To these we may add that it tends to excite gratitude
to God in the heart of the believer, who can say, " By the
grace of God I am what I am," and gives to him a solid
foundation for Christian assurance, when, having the
scriptural reason for the hope that is within him, he can
adopt exultingly the language of the Apostle, " I am per-
saints' perseverance.
55
suaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor princi¬
palities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor height, nor depth, nor ahy other creature, shall be
able to separate me from the love of God, which is in
Christ Jesus, my Lord." (Rom., viii. 38, 39.)
SECTION III.
We come now to the consideration of the arguments
contained in our author's first sermon. We design not to
attempt a correction of all the misapprehensions and mis¬
representations with which this " sermon" abounds—to do
so would take up too much space, and would hardly be
worth the trouble. Whatever of argument, however, we
find in it, we shall state fairly, and in as strong terms as
possible, and answer it without evasion. After two para¬
graphs, by way of introduction, in his characteristic style,
our author commences the discussion with, "We proceed
to consider,
" First. The difference between Calvinian (?) and Ar-
minian Predestination." This is the "first." We have
searched diligently through the production, but have not
as yet been able to discover the second. But let that pass.
He then quotes from the Presbyterian confession of Faith,
a definition of Predestination, as he says, but really of
Election, and from the works of Arminius the Arminian
definition of the same, strangely confounding words and
ideas. Much the largest part of the production, however,
is taken up with criticisms and " arguments," on the sub¬
ject of foreknowledge. Reserving, for the present, a re¬
view of his remarks on the doctrine of Election, we ad¬
dress ourselves first to his refutation and correction, in ref¬
erence to God's foreknowledge.
56
PREDESTINATION AND
" This subject of foreknowledge," he says, " has been a
very perplexing one." Yes ; we perceive it has been—to
him ! And if that absurd and ridiculous notion of fore¬
knowledge, which he ascribes to Calvinists, gave him so
much perplexity, what would have been his condition if
he had, by any means, encountered that which Calvinism
does teach ?
Calvinists maintain, says he, that it is impossible for
God to know any thing excepting what He had decreed,
p. 3. To prove this, he quotes from Dr. Hopkins and
Calvin. The former we shall hot defend against his stric¬
tures. Whether the sentiments quoted from him conform
to our system or not, is not material—it is enough to
know that he is not recognized as a Calvinist, and that we
are not responsible for him. The extract from Calvin,
however, our author says, expresses the- same sentiments,
and is as follows: " God therefore foreknows all things
that will come to pass, because He has decreed that they
shall come to pass." Throughout his remarks, he con¬
founds, in the same way, knowledge and /ore-knowledge.
Now, we venture the assertion that there never was a Cal¬
vinist so ignorant, and so absurd, as to deny the infinity of
God's knowledge. Even Dr. Hopkins, as heterodox as he
is on some other points, maintains unequivocally that,
from eternity, God knew all things possible. And we
challenge our author, or any one else, to produce a single
Calvinistic writer that denies God's omniscience. As long
ago as the time of Augustine, if not before, as the books
of systematic divinity will show, the knowledge of God
has been divided, by those who believe in his decrees,
technically, into scientia simplicis intelligentice, knowledge
of simple intelligence, or of all possible things ; and scien¬
tia visionis, knowledge of vision, or of all those things
SAINTS' perseverance.
57
which shall come to pass. " The first is founded upon the
omnipotence of God: He knew all things which His
power could perform. The second is founded upon His
will or decree, by which things pass from a state of possi¬
bility to a state of futurition." God knew of innumerable
worlds, which His power might bring into existence ; but
He foreknew that this world would certainly exist, because
He had determined to create it. God knew that the his¬
tory of this world might have been infinitely varied ; but
He foreknew that it would be just as it is, because He de¬
creed that His creating, His upholding, and His governing
power should be exercised, just as they have been and are.
Now, what is there in this that denies the infinite knowl¬
edge of God ? And we defy our author to show that this
is not a correct statement of the Calvinistic sentiment.
' In reference to God's knowledge, there is no difference
of opinion between Calvinists and Arminians—both believe
it to be infinite. Nor do they differ as to the extent of
His foreknowledge; both believe that He knew from
eternity all that would take place in futurity. The precise
difference between them consists in this : Calvinists main¬
tain (and it is a fundamental principle, upon which the
system of Calvinism, in all its parts, rests) that " the will
of the Supreme Being is the cause of every thing that now
exists, or that is to exist at any future timeand they
hold, therefore, that God foreknew that certain things
would happen in the future, because He had willed that
they should. They define God's knowledge to be a clear
and intuitive perception of all those things that may be ;
and His foreknowledge a clear and infallible prescience of
all things that He hath willed to be. The Arminians, on
the contrary, deny that the will of God is the cause of
those things that exist (at least in the moral world), and
58
PREDESTINATION AND
maintain that His foreknowledge is a prescience of events,
some of which did not enter into His decree, and which
He had no agency in producing. The former make
future things dependent upon God's will; the latter make
God's will (as we shall see hereafter) dependent upon
future things. The former maintain that God foreknew
future things,.because He had decreed that they should
exist; the latter, that He has decreed nothing about (at
least to some of) them, and, consequently (we may add),
they happen independently of His will.
Now, God's decree is synonymous with God's will. Sub¬
stitute, therefore, in the extract taken from Calvin, the
word willed for the word decreed, and the Calvinistic idea
of foreknowledge will stand thus: " God therefore fore¬
knows all things that will come to pass, because He has
willed that they shall come to pass." Or it may be stated
in two proposittons, thus: 1st. Nothing can come to pass
in time, excepting what God wills shall come to pass; 2d.
God foreknows that certain things will come to pass, be¬
cause He wills they shall come to pass. It will then be
perceived that it was incumbent upon our author to con¬
trovert this, not by asserting that Calvinists deny the in¬
finite knowledge of God (an assertion that is contradicted
by all the Calvinistic writers), but by showing the incor¬
rectness of the fundamental principle, viz.: \hat all things
depend, for their existence, upon the Divine will. We
have searched about, in the confused mass of observations
on foreknowledge, filling seven pages of his pamphlet, and
the following are all that we can find in the shape of argu¬
ments, bearing upon this point:
1. "If God's foreknowledge is dependent on His de¬
crees, the eternity of His foreknowledge is necessarily de¬
stroyed," * * * " If His foreknowledge depend upon
SAINTS' perseverance.
59
the decree, it would be absurd to suppose He could have
that foreknowledge before the decree existed," p. 10. Dr.
Hopkins had stated that foreknowledge must be considered
as in the order of nature, consequent upon the determina¬
tion and purpose of God, and our author argues against
him as if he had said consequent in the order of time !
In consequence of the poverty of language, whenever we
speak of the Infinite mind, we are compelled to use terms
drawn from the analogy of our own finite minds, which,
by those so disposed, can easily be perverted. Now, when
it is said that God's foreknowledge is, in the order of na¬
ture, consequent upon His will, we mean not that it is
consequent in the order of time—for God's foreknowledge
and God's will existed from eternity—but that the one de¬
pends for its existence upon the other. God's knowledge
(or His omniscience) is a distinct and independent attri¬
bute, and is infinite; but God's foreknowledge is limited
to the apprehension of objects not infinite in number, and
is dependent upon His will. The argument, then, may be
stated in a nut-shell, thus: God's foreknowledge takes
cognizance only of future things ; but all future things are
dependent upon God's will—therefore God's foreknowl¬
edge, also, is dependent upon His will, and is consequent
upon it in the order of nature.
Again, to make it, if possible, plainer still: suppose He
had determined, from eternity, not to bring a universe into
existence—not to create any intelligences, but to continue
Himself, the sole existing being—in that case, He could
have possessed no foreknowledge, for /ore-knowledge dif¬
fers from knowledge, in the fact that it perceives events
before they occur, but upon the supposition no events were
to occur,-and none, therefore, could be foreknown. Upon
the supposition made, while He would have possessed in-
60
PREDESTINATION AND
finite knowledge, He would have been entirely destitute of
foreknowledge. Why, then, has He possessed foreknowl¬
edge from eternity ? Because from eternity He willed or
decreed that He would create the universe, and that cer¬
tain events should occur in that universe which could be
the objects of foreknowledge.
Now, if it be true that, because God's foreknowledge is
consequent, in the order of nature, upon His will, it could
not have existed from eternity, the same is true in refer¬
ence to those things that are consequent, in the order of.
nature, upon his wisdom and benevolence. Take, for in¬
stance, the plan of salvation—God's purpose of grace
toward the creatures He would make. His wisdom de¬
vised the plan, and His love prompted Him to send His
Son to execute it; and we are distinctly told that this
purpose and grace were given us in Christ Jesus, before
the world was. Now, if it were not for God's wisdom and
benevolenee, the plan of salvation would never have been
devised. What, then, is the conclusion ?—that God did
not entertain this purpose from eternity ? So our author
would say, if he is consistent.
2. Again, to prove that God's foreknowledge does not
depend upon His decree, he draws an argument from the
analogy of human knowledge. " We," says he, " fore¬
know some things, as, for instance, we know we must die;
and if we should see a man shingling a house by revers¬
ing the order—by commencing at the top of the roof—we
would foreknow that, when it rains, that house wTill leak,
and this, too, without having decreed any thing on the
subject," p. 4. This is an involuntary acknowledgment
that God, in his opinion, is altogether such an one as we
are. To make the analogy complete, however, instead of
degrading the Supreme Being to the level of the spectator,
SAINTS1 PERSEVERANCE.
61
lie must elevate the latter to the position occupied by
the Creator. Let it be supposed, then, that this specta¬
tor was a self-existent being, possessing all the attributes
of God, and stationed at a period anterior to the creation
of the universe ; for him to foreknow that that house
would leak, it would be necessary for him to determine to
create the world, and to uphold it to the time of the ex¬
istence of the builder; to give him being at the proper
time and place, and to preserve his life; to furnish the
materials out of which to construct his house; and to
cause the vapors to ascend, and form the clouds that
should discharge themselves upon that foolishly construct¬
ed house. Let this be supposed, and a child can see that
the foreknowledge of that being—call him man or God—
would be dependent upon his determination or will.
After what has been said above, no answer is necessary
to the puerilities, that the Calvinistic view of foreknowl¬
edge makes it synonymous with memory ! p. 5, and that
it is equivalent to asserting that God made His decrees in
ignorance ! p. 8. Besides these, his production contains
no other arguments against Calvinistic foreknowledge.
In conclusion, we will venture the remark that, if he had
studied the subject before attempting to write on it,
neither himself nor his readers would have been so much
perplexed.
The doctrine of Election, under the comprehensive
name of Predestination, receives our author's first and last
assault. " Calvinists hold," says he, " that God predes¬
tinates His elect, without any foresight of faith or good
works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other
thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving Him
thereunto (See Pres. Con. of Faith, chap. iii. art. 5"),
p. 1. The whole article, of which this is an extract, ex-
6
62
PREDESTINATION AND
presses more clearly the Calvinistic view of the subject:
" Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God,
before the foundation of the world was. laid, according to
His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel
and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto
everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love,
without any foresight of faith and good works, or persever¬
ance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature,
as conditions or causes moving Him thereunto, and all to
the praise of His glorious grace." Now, our author af¬
fects to understand Calvinists, by this, to say, that personal
holiness is not necessary as a qualification for .admission
to heaven—that God receives men into the kingdom of
glory without reference to their character ; i. e., though
they may be unbelievers and evil doers ! " It is palpable
that Calvinists hold that God's elect are ordained to ever¬
lasting life, without any regard to their Christian charac¬
ter, seeing that such character is composed of faith and
good works," p. 14. " Elected without any reference to
Christian character, a change of character would not pro¬
duce the least change in their relation to God," p. 15.
(We quote from the second sermon, because the idea is
more concisely stated; the reader will see the same, how¬
ever, more diffusely expressed, on pp. 2, 10.) And he
goes on to argue against this: 1st. That " God predes¬
tinates to conformity to the image of His Son," p. 10;
and 2d, That " on the last day, men will be judged ac¬
cording to their works," p. 11. He argues at length on
these points, doubtless, in his opinion, very conclusively ;
but the truth is, they have no relevancy to the case in
hand. His opponents held them to be true no less
firmly than he does. The true question at issue he seems
not to have conceived at all. In a recent publication, he
saints' perseverance.
63
says, he " holds it criminal to misrepresent an author."
The only conclusion left us, therefore, is, that he did
not understand that upon which he was writing. And
yet the uninitiated would suppose, from the confident
manner in which he expresses himself, that he had the
subject at his fingers' ends. Ignorance, while it should
always be modest and diffident, is not unfrequently self-
conceited and presumptuous.
Arminians and Calvinists both believe that men will be
judged according to their deeds, and that Christians are
purified as a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Both
believe that, without holiness, no man shall see the Lord;
and both believe in a doctrine of election. The precise
difference between them is this: Arminians hold that God
elects some because He foresees that they will believe in
Christ and obey His will; Calvinists, that God, seeing all
men, while in a state, of nature, possessing the same moral
character, and without exception, unbelievers and rebels,
without reference to (i. e., in spite of) that character,
chooses some to holiness and eternal life, influenced solely
by His sovereign benevolence. The former believe that
He chooses them because they have faith and good works;
the latter, that He chooses them that they might have
faith, and might perform good works. The former make
the sinner take the initiative in his election, and, conse¬
quently (we may say) in his salvation, and then introduce
the Supreme Being as his coadjutor; the latter make God
the author and the finisher of the sinner's faith, and the
originator of every thing good in the creature. In a
word, Arminians maintain that faith and good works are
the cause of God's election; and Calvinists, that they are
the effects of it. In reference to the gift of the Holy
Spirit, Arminians believe that it is bestowed irrespective
64
PREDESTINATION AND
of election, and, upon all, in a measure sufficient to secure
their repentance and faith—that it can be improved or
misimproved, received or rejected, according to the will
of the creature, and that God chooses those who, He
sees, will properly improve its influences; Galvinists be¬
lieve that it is bestowed subsequently to election, and witb
the design to make its decree effectual, and that, in its
influence upon the elect, it is invincible.
The true question at issue, therefore, is, whether elec¬
tion is the cause or the effect of faitb and good works.
Galvinists believe the former, and maintain that it is sov¬
ereign, and is the cause of every thing morally good in
the creature. This, then, is what our author should have
attacked, if he had wished to refute Calvinistic election.
Every thing he has said, that has any bearing upon the
point at issue, is sufficiently answered by the simple state¬
ment, above, of the Calvinistic doctrine; but lest he may
say that we pass them over because we can not answer
them, we will give them (begging our readers' pardon for
doing that which is so unnecessary), accompanied by a
formal reply:
1. He asks, " If God knew, at the time He passed the
decree, all about their personal character and boliness
of heart, * * * why did He not have reference to
it ? "Was there so little difference between vice and
virtue, in God's account, that His government regarded
it not ?" p. 2. Ho; but God saw, in the character of men,
in a state of nature, all " vice," and no " virtue." His
Bible teaches the total depravity of all men. It asserts
that they that are in the flesh can not please God—that
tbe carnal heart is enmity to God, not subject to His law,
and unable to be ; and, consequently, that none but those
influenced by His grace will ever repent, believe, and
saints' perseverance.
65
obey. He could not, therefore, elect them because of
faith and good works foreseen; for He foresaw that none
would believe and serve Him, if left to themselves. If
elected at all, therefore, they are elected not in conse¬
quence of, but in spite of, their character : not because they
are obedient, but that they might be obedient. And this
is the Apostle Peter's opinion. "Elect according to the
foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification
of the Spirit, unto obedience(1 Pet., i. 2.)
2. Another argument, which seems to be leveled at
Predestination as a whole, we put in this place, for the
want of a better, as we wish to reply to all of his argu¬
ments, whether he has properly arranged them or not,
He says, " The man who believes the Calvinian notion of
Predestination, never feels the force or truth of such pas¬
sages of holy Scripture as teach the universality of the
atonement. Tell him that Christ tasted death for every
man, he feels in difficulty about the reprobate," p. 11.
To this we answer that this embarrassment is altogether
imaginary. Calvinists rejoice in the privilege conferred
upon them, to preach the gospel to every creature.
Whether they believe in a general or a limited atonement
—whether they believe that Christ died for all men, with¬
out exception, or only for His elect (and we are sorry to
say that there is a difference of sentiment on this point),
they feel no hesitation in calling upon all men, and com¬
manding them, in the name of God, to repent and believe
the Gospel, and in pointing all penitent sinners to a cru¬
cified Saviour. If they believe that the Bible places a
limit to the intention of the atonement, they believe, also,
that it represents its merits to be infinite, and sufficient to
save a thousand times the number of the descendants of
Adam, if they appHed to them. They feel no hesitation,
6*
66
PREDESTINATION AND
♦
therefore, nay, they rejoice to declare, to every sin-bur¬
dened soul, Christ is able to save to the uttermost all
that come unto God by Him.
Having thus answered all of our author's arguments
that have any bearing upon the doctrine of election, let
us see if the war can not be carried successfully into
Africa:
1. The position that the Holy Spirit is bestowed upon
all, in a measure sufficient to secure their repentance and
faith, does not seem do be sustained by fact. The large
majority of mankind live in heathen lands, where not one
ray of spiritual light reaches their minds. They have no
knowledge of the true God, and of the law which He has
published in His word, for the government of His crea¬
tures, and, consequently, know not when they have sinned
against Him by its infraction. True, they have the light
of nature, and that law written upon their hearts, by the
dictates of which their consciences either accuse or else
excuse them ; but the former is so darkened by superstition,
and the latter so confounded with heathenish maxims, as
to be insufficient to guide them in the path of duty, or to
point them to the path of safety. Now, in what way can
the Spirit, if sent to the benighted heathen, operate upon
their hearts ? Of what can it convince them ?—of sin ?
But by the law is the knowledge of sin ; and they have
no law excepting that written upon their hearts, which
has been obliterated and displaced by the law of custom
and superstition. If they should by any means be con¬
vinced by the Spirit that they are sinners, how can they
obtain forgiveness of sin ? By belief in Christ. But how
can they believe in Him of whom they have not heard ?
By any other way ? But Christ is the only way—there
is none other name under heaven, given among men,
saints' perseverance.
61
whereby tbey can be saved. It is evident, tben, tbat if
any of tbe adult heathen, who have never heard the Gos¬
pel, are saved, they are saved without faith in Christ, and
by a wonderful exercise of the power of the Spirit of God
in their behalf. If saved without faith in Christ, then we
have some who were elected without a foresight of faith,
at least, whatever may be true in regard to good works ;
and if God, by His sovereign power, can save some
heathen without a foresight of faith, why can He not
(reasoning upon Arminian principles) save all ? And if
none of the adult heathen are redeemed, while some in
Gospel lands obtain salvation, what becomes of the doc¬
trine that God treats all men alike ? If in answer to this,
it be said He treats all men alike, in the very fact that He
gives all His Holy Spirit, we reply, that in giving His
Spirit to the heathen, when He knows that their condition
can not he bettered, but their responsibilities must be in¬
creased, and their guilt enhanced by it, without the Gos¬
pel, He curses rather than blesses them.
2. If men are selected because of their faith and good
works foreseen, and. thus are made to differ from others,
they have room for boasting, and have a right to ascribe
their salvation, at least in its incipient stages, to.their own
merits. If the Holy Spirit be bestowed upon all, in a
measure sufficient for their salvation, and some improve
His influences, while others do not, it is because of some
excellencies of character inherent in the former, and not
in tbe latter ; and, consequently, in answer to the apostle's
question, "Who made thee to differ?" they can say, " We
made ourselves to differ." And if any are in this condi¬
tion, they, at least, can not join in the ascription of the re¬
deemed : "Not unto us, but unto thy great name, be all
the praise."
68
PREDESTINATION AND
3. If any are chosen because of faith and good works,
it follows that they are the authors of election, and not
God. They have chosen God, and not God them. But
the Saviour said to His disciples: " Ye have not chosen
me, but I have chosen yoy."
4. The Apostle Paul distinctly asserts that men are not
chosen because of their faith and good works, foreseen or
otherwise (Rom., ix. 11), "For the children being not yet
born, neither having done good or evil, that the purpose
of God, according to election, might stand, not of works,
but of him that calleth; it was said, the elder shall serve
the younger." Now, faith itself is as much a work as re¬
pentance, or love, or any other Christian exercise. Obe¬
dience to any command is a good work, and God not
only commands us to repent but to believe the Gospel.
What testimony, on this point, can be more explicit than
the following ? " For by grace are ye saved, through
faith, and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God and not
of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus, unto good works,
which God hath before ordained that we should walk in
them." (Eph., ii. 8, 9, 10.) " God hath saved us, and
called us with an holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to His own purpose and grace, which was
given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." (2 Tim.,
i. 9.) Arminians say that God has chosen His people be¬
cause of faith and good works; but the Apostle Paul says
that He hath chosen them not according to their works,
but according to His purpose and grace ; and Calvinists
say the same.
5. Another, as it appears to us, unreasonable feature of
the Arminian doctrine of election, is, that it may, after all,
prove unavailing and ineffectual. Our author says, p. 13,
SAINTS' perseverance.
69
" Bible predestination does not absolutely secure everlast¬
ing life." Their view may be illustrated by example,
thusGod foresees that a certain individual, at the age of
twenty-five, will believe and obey, and, therefore, He
passes a decree of election in his behalf, and, when the
time arrives, actually bestows upon him the blessings of
that decree ; but when he reaches the age of thirty he
apostatizes, becomes a blaspheming atheist, and dies in
impenitency. Now, from all eternity, God as well foresaw
the awful apostacy as He did the faith and obedience.
May we not ask, then, Does not this statement exhibit God
as insincere ? Is it not a mockery, and trifling, to adopt
formally into His family those who He knows will, five
years thereafter, backslide and go to hell ? Does it not
represent Him, too, as dependent upon the will of the
creature, changing every time that he does—now striving
to secure the salvation of the sinner, and then disappointed,
and giving, it up in despair—if this sincere attempt and
hopeless disappointment can be reconciled with the infalli¬
ble knowledge, from eternity, that it would result just as it
does ? And of what benefit is this election to the chosen
one ? It does not bring him into a state of holiness, for
it is a consequent and not a cause; it does not keep him
in a state of holiness, for, notwithstanding it, he may fall
from grace ; it does not secure to him eternal life, for, in
spite of it, he may die in a backslidden state, and go to
perdition. It is said that, if he die while in a state of grace,
he will be sure of heaven. But that is not a supposable
case; for God, who has fixed the number of his days,
knew from eternity that he would live beyond the period
of grace, and die after it should be all exhausted. May
we not say, then, that this is an election neither honoring
to God nor profitable to men ?
70
PREDESTINATION AND
At this point we close our review of our author's first
sermon. We have, as we think, answered all the argu¬
ments contained in it; and if any have escaped our notice,
it has not been because we have not diligently searched
them.
SECTION IV.
Our authors' second sermon is an assault upon the doc¬
trine of the Saints' Perseverance. As a production, it is
a little more creditable than the first, though it is distin¬
guished, in some degree, by the same characteristic chaos
and want of arrangement. The same ignorance of his an¬
tagonists' sentiments which is so glaring in the first ser¬
mon, is not doubtfully manifested in this. It would give
us much pleasure to go into a full discussion of the doc¬
trine assailed; but we waive it for the sake of brevity.
An extended discussion, however; after what has been said
on the subject of Predestination, is really not necessary,
since, if it be true, perseverance follows as a necessary
consequence. We shall confine ourselves strictly, theD, to
the arguments of our author.
The confession of faith from which he quotes, states the
doctrine thus : " Those whom God hath accepted in His
Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by His Spirit,
can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of
grace ; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end,
and be eternally saved. This perseverance of the saints
depends not upon their own free will, but upon the im¬
mutability of the decree of election." (Pres. Con. of
Faith, chap. 17.)
This asserts two things : 1. Christians do not totally
fall. 2d. Christians do not finally fall. The chief part
saints' perseverance.
71
of our author's attack is leveled at the first proposition.
Let us take them up separately :
1. Those whom God hath accepted in Christ, effectually
called and sanctified by His Spirit, can not totally fall
from grace. Against this, our author cites the case of
David, who, after having been a child of God, was guilty
of murder and adultery, and asks, in substance: Did
David continue in a gracious state ? Did he not totally
fall ? Did not God withdraw from him all gracious in¬
fluences ? " If not, then Christianity almost tolerates
adultery and murder," p. 15. " Then one of God's elect
can do as he pleases, and God will punish him for it in
this world, ITniversalism-like," p. 14. " Then God has
abandoned all government over the elect, has absolved
them from all responsibility for their conduct, and His
grace is designed merely to remove from them the danger
of being judged for their crimes," p. 16. Our author sup¬
plies from his imagination the gross circumstances con¬
nected with this case of David ; and enlarges upon it with
a seeming relish and a disgusting fullness of detail, that
do not prove it to be a subject uncongenial to his taste.
The consequences above, he advances with an air of tri¬
umph, as if he thought they can not be met; but it all
results from confounding with the issue things that are
entirely irrelevant. Let us see, whether we can not aid
him in making the proper discrimination. The question,
then, as he has presented it, illustrated by example, is :
Could David commit murder and adultery, and not totally
fall from grace ? It is important that we have a clear
idea of what is the true point at issue:
1. The question is not whether Christians ever commit
sin. That Calvinists grant—nay, maintain it against Mr.
Reneau and those who think with him. We deny the
72
PREDESTINATION AND
doctrine of Christian perfection, and insist that both Scrip¬
ture and experience teach that every Christian has an
evil heart of unbelief, that is prone to wander from the
living God. We not only grant, therefore, that David
committed sin, but maintain, furthermore, that there is no
man that liveth and sinneth not.
2. Nor is the question whether Christians ever back¬
slide. Mr. Reneau may deny that there is such a thing
as Christian backsliding, and, to be consistent, he should
do so; but Calvinists (and, we think, the generality of
Arminians) grant and maintain that Christians are some¬
times permitted to wander, for a time, far from God.
3. Nor is the question whether the transgressions of
those sanctified by the Spirit are less heinous in the sight
of God than the transgressions of impenitent sinners. On
the contrary, Calvinists hold them to be more aggravated,
and, consequently, more deserving of God's disapproba¬
tion. The law, as a rule of life, is as much binding upon
Christians as upon sinners, and the Gospel and the grace
of God do not relieve His people from the obligation to
obey it. God requires them to love Him with all their
heart, and their neighbors as themselves; and to show
their love to Him by their obedience to His command¬
ments.
4. The question between us is not whether, while com¬
mitting sin, all the graces of the Christian continue in
active exercise. A Christian can not experience love, and
joy, and hope, and peace, while indulging in known sin.
If his heart condemn him, God is greater than his heart,
and knoweth all things.
5. Nor, finally, is the question whether, while indulg¬
ing in sin, he has evidence that he is in a gracious state,
or affords that evidence to others. While in this condi-
saints' perseverance.
73
tion, lie makes his calling and election sure neither to
iiimself, nor to those who know him.
. What, then, is the question ? This: Did David, while
in sin, totally lose the grace that was given him in re¬
generation ? Our author maintains the affirmative, and
Calvinists the negative. Before taking up his objections,
we will present two considerations, which, to our mind,
are conclusive that the Calvinistic view is correct.
1. That David did not totally lose the grace given him
in regeneration, is evident from the fact that this state of
sin was of temporary duration, and that he was speedily
rescued from it by repentance and forgiveness. Many
others besides David have been guilty of murder and
adultery, who have continued hardened and impenitent
after detection and reproof; but David, as soon as re¬
proved, in God's name, by the prophet, repented. Why ?
Because there was a principle within him, that temptation
had, for the time, overwhelmed, but which asserted its
accustomed influence as soon as the evil tide was checked.
The powerful monarch, destitute of grace, when rebuked
as he was, would more likely have punished the faithful
prophet than trembled before him.
2. That a renewed man does not totally lose the grace
bestowed, is evident from the declaration of Scripture
(1 John, iii. 9) : "Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin (or apostatize) ; for his seed remaineth in Mm;
and he can not sin (i. e., continue in it), because he is born
of God? The apostle is speaking of the habit of sin¬
ning. The children of God, says he, are distinguished
from the servants of the devil, in the fact that the one,
like their master, continue in sin, and the other, like their
gracious heavenly Father, work righteousness, and are
habitually holy ; and if they, by the force of temptation,
7
14
PREDESTINATION AND
are enticed into sin, they do not continue in it, because
the seed of grace remaineth in them, and tbey can not
continue habitually in sin, because they are born of God.
That this is the true meaning to be attached to the word
sin, as the apostle uses it here, is evident from another
remark (1 John, i. 8), " If we say that we have no sin we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." That the
constant habit of sin is what he refers to in the first quo¬
tation, is evident, otherwise he is made to contradict him¬
self. If the word in both connections means the same
thing, then there never was any one who was born of
God; for, if it be true that all commit sin, and those
horn of God do not commit sin, then it follows that none
are born of God. Again, the evidence contained in
David's prayer, which he uttered while writhing under
remorse at the time, is also conclusive: " Take not thy
Holy Spirit from me." Not give again, but take not away ;
implying that His influences were, in some degree, still
felt. Finally, Peter's sin was .just as aggravated as
David's, and his fall was just as signal; but was God's
grace totally removed from him ? What does the Saviour
say ? " Satan hath desired to have you, that he might
sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy
faith fail not." If there was efficacy in the intercession
of Christ, Peter's faith did not fail—all of God's grace
was not removed from him. Consequently, when the
Saviour turned and looked upon Peter, he went out and
wept bitterly. Those same meek and forgiving eyes were
turned to many of the hardened wretches that thronged
the judgment hall. Why did their mild gaze inspire
Peter only with godly sorrow ? Because the seed of
God's grace was in him alone.
But, says our author, "If David did not totally fall
saints' perseverance.
15
from grace, then Christianity almost tolerates adultery and
murder." But Calvinists say God was displeased with,
and punished him for his crimes. " But how ?—by send¬
ing him to hell ?" No. " The amount of it is, then, that
God's elect can do as they please, and He will punish them
for it in this world, Universalism-like." " God absolves
His elect from all responsibility for their conduct, and His
grace is designed simply to remove from them the danger
of being judged for their crimes ; and God has abandoned
all government over His elect." But not so fast. Let us
reason a little, and see if we can not answer you out of
your own mouth. Let us ask you a few questions about
this case of David, your favorite example. Before his con¬
nection with Uriah's wife, David was a regenerated man,
was he not ? You have already, in your pamphlet, an¬
swered this in the affirmative. He committed the crimes
of murder and adultery ; did God punish him for them ?
If yes—how ? by sending him to hell ? If no—then, ac¬
cording to your principles, He punished him for them in
this world, Universalism-like. Do you say God forgave
him because of his subsequent repentance ? We say the
same. Do you say God's long suffering was manifested
to him in not cutting him down while in a state of sin ?
We say the same. What, then, is the difference between
us ? We both agree that David had been a child of God ;
that he committed crimes of a dark dye; that God did
not immediately send him to hell; and that subsequently
he repented, was forgiven and restored. The precise ques¬
tion between us is, whether, in the commission of these
crimes, he totally fell, i. e., lost entirely the grace of God ?
This you affirm, and we deny. Now, you perceive, it will
not do for you to use an argument, with or without an air
of triumph, which will apply with as much force against
76
PREDESTINATION AND
yourself as against us. We both of us say that David, if
punished at all, was punished only in this world, and we
both of us disclaim Universalism. "But grace," you say,
"is favor bestowed without compensation," (p. 13). "How
then can God consistently continue this favor to David,
while his conduct made him so undeserving it ?" In
the same way that he bestowed it upon others, and upon
David in the first instance, whose conduct was undeserving
it. David did not merit it, we grant; and if he had, it
would not have been grace, but debt. It was grace, be¬
cause it was undeserved. " But," you say, " in the very
act of continuing His grace to David, while guilty of these
crimes, did God not abandon all government over him,
and give him full license to sin against Him with impu¬
nity ?" No; unless it can be shown that the grace of
God has a hardening influence, and that its tendency is to
embolden men in transgression. Now, we grant that for¬
bearance toward the sinner does frequently tend to harden.
The Bible states that: " Because sentence against an evil
work is not executed speedily, the hearts of the sons of
men are fully set in them to do evil." If, therefore, you
substitute in your question the word forbearance for the
word grace, it would have some pertinence. But that
question you can not propound to us ; since you, no less
than we, acknowledge that God exhibited forbearance to¬
ward David. The tendency of God's grace is not to
harden, but to soften the heart, not to encourage in sin, but
to bring to repentance, and, consequently, we find it pro¬
ducing that effect speedily in the case of David. " But
was not David's offense most flagrant ? How, then, could
God omit to inflict eternal punishment upon him (or at
least subject him to the danger of it) without, at the .same
time, abandoning all government over the elect ?" Upon
saints' perseverance.
11
the same principles, my dear sir, upon which he was able,
without this consequence, to forgive you and me (as I
trust He has) when our sins had been so flagrant and ag¬
gravated against Him, previous to our repentance. We
have found the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ suffi¬
cient for us, and the same great atonement was sufficient
for David. God's plan is such, that He is just while He
justifies the ungodly. His justice is not impugned be¬
cause He forgave us, nor is it to be impugned in the case
of David. We find when we sin that we have an advo¬
cate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and
David believed and acted upon the same blessed assur¬
ance. The objection rests upon the supposition that the
honor of God requires that He should condemn to hell
the sinner, immediately upon the commission, at least of
(what we would call) great crimes; but it is necessary for
us to remind the minister of the Gospel, whose views we
are controverting, that, in consequence of the sacrifice on
the cross, God deals with us not according to our sins, nor
rewards us according to our transgressions—that one
of the glorious features of the Gospel of Christ, is, that it
represents God as " the Lord God, merciful and gracious,
long suffering and slow to anger." God does not cut men
down as soon as they transgress His law, and both we and
our antagonist have reason, from our hearts, to thank Him
that He has devised a more gracious way to maintain the
honor of His law. His own honor and the authority of
His law are maintained, while He gives transgressors time
and space for repentance.
Our author compares Calvinists to Universalists, because
they say that the elect are punished only in this world;
but the Holy Spirit asserts the same (Ps. Ixxxix. 29, 30,
31, 32, 33): "His (the spiritual David's) seed also will I
7*
18
PREDESTINATION AND
make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of
heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in
my judgments, then will I visit their transgression with
the rod and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my
loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer
my faithfulness to fail."
Our author's view of the Christian's sin is peculiar, dif¬
fering even from the generality of Arminians : " The idea,"
he says, " that a man can be a child of God and commit
sin, is preposterous," p. 23. Consequently, whenever a
Christian commits sin he falls fronugrace, and God, for
the time being, abandons him entirely. Now, as all men,
through the weakness of the flesh, and through manifold
temptations, are constantly liable to sin, and as all Chris¬
tians, perhaps, do sin daily, it follows that every Christian
totally falls from grace, and apostatizes many times eveiy
day ! And it follows that there is no such thing as back¬
sliding among Christians; they are either elevated to
the condition of perfect sanctification, or fallen into the
state, as far as they know, of hopeless apostacy. Our au¬
thor may not be aware of it, but this opinion of his places
him iu the ranks of the Hopkinsians—the very people
that he came so near killing by mistake !
2. Those whom God hath accepted in Christ, effectually
called and sanctified by His Spirit, can not finally fall
from grace. Calvinists argue this from the perfections
of God ; from the immutability of His decrees ; from the
covenant of redemption between the Divine Persons of
the Trinity; from the covenant of grace which God has
made with His people ; from the atonement of Christ, by
which He paid the full price for the redemption of His
people ; from Christ's intercession ; from the inhabitation
of the Spirit, and from the distinct and explicit declara-
SAINTS' PERSEVERANCE.
79
tions of the Scriptures. Only two of these our author
refers to, viz.: 1. The covenant of grace; and 2d. The
atonement of Christ; but in such terms as not to render-
it necessary for us (confining ourselves strictly, as we pro¬
fess to do, to his arguments) to notice them at length.
1. He would seem to maintain that God never made
any covenants with men—that there was no covenant of
works before the fall, and no covenant of grace since.
He says: " Calvinists teach that the elect have been
placed under a covenant of grace, where they receive a
benefit which relieves them from obedience to any law (!)
But the poor reprobate is left under the covenant of
works, the requirements of which, since the fall, are of
such a character, that neither they, nor the elect, are able
to comply," p. 16. He gives this, not as an inference
wjiich he draws from our teaching, but as the very teach¬
ing itself! We have already said, on a previous page,
that Calvinists maintain that it is the duty of all, elect or
non-elect, to observe the moral law as a rule of life, i. e.,
to love God supremely, and their neighbors as themselves;
and we had thought that every smatterer in theology knew
that all who hold a covenant of works, believe that it was
abrogated as soon as it was violated, i. e., when Adam
sinned. While all, since the fall, are commanded to ob¬
serve the moral law as a rule of life, all are told that by
the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified ; and that
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth. The commandment to all is not, Do this
and live ; but, Repent and believe the Gospel. Now, the
covenant of grace which God has made with His people,
and which constitutes the present argument, stands thus :
" And I will make an everlasting covenant with them,
that I will not turn away from them, to do them good ;
80
PREDESTINATION AND
but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not
depart from me." (Jer., xxxii. 49.)
2. From the hints our author throws out in reference
to the atonement, it would seem that he is not only in part
a Ilopkinsian, as we showed above, but in part a Socinian
also. He seems to deny that Christ's sufferings were
vicarious. " Calvinists hold," says he, " that the sins of
the elect are not transferred to Christ, but tbey are so
imputed to Him, that He suffered the penalty without
being guilty of the crimes committed by His people ; and
they hold that Christ's righteousness is not really trans¬
ferred to the elect, but that it is so imputed to them that
they will stand justified in the day of judgment, their
crimes to the contrary notwithstanding (!) We must say
we think this a distinction without a difference," p. 17.
He says this is a "silly notion of transferred punishment,
without the transfer of the crimes for which it was in¬
flicted." This would seem to imply that, in his opinion,
Christ was not our substitute; that our guilt was not
so charged to His account, as that He was made answer¬
able for it. Yet the Scriptures state: That " He was
made sin for usthat our " iniquities were laid upon
Himthat " He bore our sins in His body upon the
treethat " we are made the righteousness of God in
Him and that " by His stripes we are healed." Our
author has left this point so obscure that we know not
whether we are required to answer an Arminian or a So¬
cinian argument. Calvinists maintain that Christ is the
surety for His people; and, having, in the atonement,
paid all their debt, He has released them from the obliga¬
tion to pay it themselves. If Christ made satisfaction for
the sins of His people, they are for ever exempted from
the necessity of suffering the punishment due to their sins.
saints' perseverance.
81
" In consequence of the atonement of Christ, then, will the
elect be taken to heaven, their crimes to the contrary not¬
withstanding ?" No ; they will be purified from these,
and thus prepared for heaven; for Christ is elevated a
Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel, and
remission of sins.
To prove that Christians can finally fall, our author, in
the next place, quotes a number of passages from the
Scriptures. Let us see if these will avail him any more
than his other arguments.
And first, the passage which he has selected for his
text: " We, then, as workers together with Him, beseech
you alsc that ye receive not the grace of God in vain."
(2 Cor., vi. 1.) Now, even an English reader, by notic¬
ing the context, can see this exhortation is addressed to
the ministers in the Corinthian church. Dr. McKnight
translates correctly from the original, thus: " Now, fel¬
low-laborers, we also beseech you not to receive the grace
of God in vain." "The grace of God, in this passage,
signifies not only the office of the ministry, but the spirit¬
ual gifts bestowed upon the ministers of Corinth, to fit
them for their office." (1 Cor., iii. 10.) But even if it
he granted that the exhortation is more general, the grace
of God even then would not mean regeneration and sanc-
tification, but " the Gospel offers of reconciliation." (See
v. 18-21.)
The next three passages quoted, are taken from para¬
bles and metaphors. Now, there is no doctrine, however
unscriptural, which can not be plausibly supported by ar¬
guments drawn from the phraseology of parables and
metaphors, when they are taken out of their connection.
A parable should be used merely as the illustration of the
particular point with which it is connected. Its dress and
82
PREDESTINATION AND
embellishments are designed only to make it a complete
parable, and for no other purpose. A controversialist is
" bard pressed," when he has to sustain his system of
theology by a resort to parables taken out of their con¬
nection. Does our author say we take this ground be¬
cause they testify against us ? We shall see if he will
not be disposed to take the same ground for his protection
before we are done.
His first is (Matt., v. 13), " Ye are the salt of the earth,"
etc. The phrase which, in his opinion, proves falling from
grace, is : " If the salt have lost its savor" etc. Now, if
this clause proves his doctrine, the next proves too much
for him, since it asserts, according to his method'of inter¬
pretation, that those who sin can never be recovered:
" Wherewith shall it be salted ?" And to prove that
those who have received the grace of regeneration may
perish in hell, he cites : " It is thenceforth good for noth¬
ing but to be cast out," etc. Out of what ? Why not,
with as much reason, out of the church as out of heaven ?
The literal meaning of the passage is this : It is designed
that the professed followers of Christ should exert a salu¬
tary influence upon the world; but if, in doctrine or in
life, they exert a contrary influence, they are to be expelled
from the communion of the faithful, and treated as other
ungodly men.
His second is (Matt., xii. 43, etc.), " When the unclean
spirit is gone out of a man," etc. Dr. Adam Clarke (good
authority, we suppose, with Mr. Reneau) acknowledges that
the design of the parable was " to point out the real state
of the Jewish people, and their approaching desolation."
But suppose it refers to individuals : it is then designed to
describe the case of those who are.convinced of the truth,
partly reformed, but not truly converted. The unclean
saints' perseverance.
83
spirit had gone out of the man, but his heart had not be¬
come the habitation of the Spirit—it was empty. When
its former occupant returned, he found it "empty, swept
from convictions and serious impressions, and garnished or
ready furnished for the reception and entertainment of
unclean spirits, by a preparation to comply with their
suggestions." It has no reference at all to the truly con¬
verted.
His third is (John, xv. 1-11), " I am the true vine ; and
my father is the husbandman," etc. Over this he exults
as much as over any other, and thinks he has made it so
plain that "further comment is needless;" but so little ef¬
fect has his remarks upon us, by way of conviction, that
we would choose this as a passage to prove perseverance.
Let us see : " Every branch in me that beareth not fruit
He taketh away ; and every branch that beareth fruit He
purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit" (v. 2).
Here we are told, 1. That there are two kinds of branches
in Christ—those that bear no fruit, i. e., those nominally,
by profession, united to Him; and those that bear fruit,
i. e., those spiritually united to Him ; and we are told, 2.
What is done to each of these two classes of professors.
The former are taken away ; the latter are 'purged, that
they may bring forth more fruit. Genuine Christians,
then (fruitful branches), are in the hands of the Father
(the husbandman), and he prunes them, or removes from
them all those things which hinder their fruitfulness, with
the design that they may continue increasing in fruitful¬
ness to the end. If this is not perseverance, we know not
what is. Our author, however, denies that mere nominal
professors are referred to at all: for such, says he, can not
be said to be in Christ. All that are in Him have been
united to Him by faith. But the Apostle Paul thought
84
PREDESTINATION AND
differently. He says that all the members of the church
in Thessalonica (1 Thes., i. 1), and all the members of the
churches in Judea, were in Christ (Gal., i. 22), meaning,
of course, in a judgment of charity, and by profession.
But, says our author, Christ says to the disciples (v. 3),
" Now ye are clean," and subsequently " teaches tbat they
may become unfruitful branches, and he cast into the fire."
The truth of this is not as evident to us as it seems to be
to Mr. Reneau. In the first quotation, the emphatic word
is now. In a previous chapter (xiii. 10, 11), he had said
to them, " And ye are clean, hut not all. For He knew
who should betray Him, therefore said He, ye are not all
clean." After the departure of Judas, the exception was
no longer made, and He testified " Now ye are clean."
After this testimony, He does not, even in hypothesis, sug¬
gest the possibility that His disciples could fall away.
" What, does He not say, if ye abide not in me ye are
cast forth and burned 2" No ; He says if a man abide
not in me, etc., applicable not to the disciples, but a gen¬
eral remark, applicable to those who are in Him only by
profession. We take the liberty, therefore, to suggest to
our author that, in order that he may sustain his position
by this passage, " further comment is needful."
The passage (1 Cor., x. 1-12), " Moreover, brethren, I
would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our
fathers were under the cloud," etc., we are willing to sub¬
mit to the reader with the briefest possible comment. Our
author assumes that all the Israelites that came out of
Egypt were Christians, because they all ate the same spir¬
itual meat, and drank the same spiritual drink ! Now
we beg our reader's pardon for explaining a thing so
obvious. The meat referred to was manna, which was a
type of the spiritual bread from heaven (John, vi. 5-8),
saints' perseverance.
85
and the water was that which gushed forth from the rock,
which was a type of Christ. After the interpretation
which makes all the Israelites Christians, he prepares us
for any thing, however extravagant; we are not surprised,
therefore, when we learn from him that the apostle meant
by the word fell, not only that the three and twenty thou¬
sand died, but fell from grace in one day! pp. 20, 24.
" Further comment is needless !"
His next quotation is (2 Pet., ii. 20-22), "For if, after
they have escaped the pollutions," etc. He argues that
these were genuine Christians: 1st. "Because they knew
the way of righteousness." To this we answer that it is
applicable to all who know the theory of the Gospel, or,
as the Apostle Paul expresses it, who have " received (in
theory) a knowledge of the truth." 2d. " They had es¬
caped the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge
of Christ." This can, with the strictest propriety, be said
of nominal professors, who have not been savingly renewed
in the spirit and temper of their minds. Through the in¬
fluence of the truth, they may, for a time, reform, and thus
escape the pollutions of the world, and yet very naturally
become again entangled therein ; for it happens, to those
whose natures are not thoroughly changed, according to
the proverb : " the dog is turned to his own vomit again,
and the sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the
mire." 3d. " They walked by the holy commandment
delivered unto them." Peter does not say so. He says
they Tcnew (i. e., understood) the commandment, but
turned from (i. e., refused to walk by) it.
The next quotation (1 Chron., xxviii. 9) we refer to the
reader without comment.
His last proof-text is (Ez., xviii. 24), " When the right-
ous turneth away," etc. Now the question is, does the
8
86
PREDESTINATION AND
prophet, speak of one who is truly righteous—who is
clothed with the righteousness which is of God, through
faith in Christ ? The Bible must not be so interpreted as
to make it contradict itself. Can a truly righteous man
permanently turn away from his righteousness t John
answers in the negative (1 John, ii. 19), " They went out
from us, but they were not of us: for if they had been of
us, they would no doubt have continued with us ; but they
went out, that it might be made manifest that they were
not all of us." The person spoken of by the prophet is
one who passes for a righteous man, and thinks himself
one, but is not really so. The general proposition, that
when a man continues to the end, doing the abomina¬
tions that the wicked man doeth, he shall die, is denied by
no one, and least of all, by Calvinists. But God's people
will not do so, for we are told that they are kept by the
power of God, through faith, unto salvation.
Our author's last argument is drawn from examples
given in the Scriptures. Adam, and David, and Judas,
Hymeneus, and Alexander, were Christians, and fell; there¬
fore, says he, others also may fall. The first two are ac¬
knowledged to have been recovered again, and may, there¬
fore, be left out of the account, since they did not finally
fall. Before he can cite Judas as a case of final apostacy,
it is incumbent upon him to prove that he ever was a
genuine Christian ; and it is sufficient for our argument
to show that he has failed to do this. He says, " 1st,
Judas was given to Christ. To be given to Christ is a
distinguishing characteristic of the elect." " Those that
thou gavest to me I have kept, and none of them is lost,
but the sou of perdition, that the Scripture might be ful¬
filled." (John, xvii. 12.) Now, the context shows that
Judas is not mentioned here as an exception, but by way
SAINTS' perseverance.
87
of opposition or distinction ; as the woman of Sarepta is
aistinguished .from the widows of Israel, and Naaman, the
Syrian, from the lepers in Israel. (Luke, iv. 25-27.) In
v. 6, the Saviour says, " I have manifested thy name unto
the men which thou gavest me out of the world, thine
they were, and thou gavest them me, and they have kept
thy wordy Now, if, in v. 12, Judas is mentioned as an
exception, the Saviour contradicts himself: for if, in v. 6,
he testified that those given to him had, without exception,
kept God's word, the true rendering of the passage is,
none of them is lost; but the son of perdition is lost.
Our Saviour's prayer affirms that those given Him by the
Father He kept; but Judas was not kept—that none of
those given to Him was lost; but Judas was lost—that
those given to Him kept God's word ; but Judas did not
keep God's word: therefore, so far from showing that
Judas was given to Christ, in the sense referred to, it im¬
plies very strongly the contrary.
" 2d. Judas was regenerated." To prove this, he cites
Matt., xix. 28, " Verily I say unto you, that ye which have
followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of Man
shall come in the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit
upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Now, the thing to be proved here (even reading the passage
as our author does), but which is assumed, is, that Judas
followed Christ in faith, and love, and obedience. The
passage, if it testifies any thing at all on this point, like
the others cited above, testifies that Judas was not regen¬
erated. All that followed Christ were to sit upon thrones;
but Judas was not to sit upon a throne : the inference,
therefore, is very strong, that Judas never did follow
Christ in faith, and love, and obedience. Besides, it is
thought that the proper reading of the passage is, Verily
88
PREDESTINATION AND
I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the
regeneration; i. e., when the Son of Man shall come," etc.
" 3d. Judas was the familiar friend of Christ, and the
Saviour trusted in him." (Ps. xli. 9.) If by this is
meant that he was the bosom friend of Christ, and that He
confided in him, it can not be true: for we are told (John,
vi. 64), "Jesus knew from the beginning who should be¬
tray Him." The specific testimony of Christ goes rather
to show that Judas never was a Christian, and that He
never confided in him. " Jesus answered them, Have not
I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil ? He spake
of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon," etc. (John, vi. 70, 71).
And the character which the evangelist John ascribes to
him does not accord with that of a Christian. "This he
(Judas) said, not because he cared for the poor, but be¬
cause he was a thief" etc. (John, xii. 6). Besides, it is
said that he was "the son of perdition," and that he "went
to his own place." It must first be proved that Judas
ever was a Christian, before he can be cited as one who
finally fell.
Hymeneus and Alexander, then, are the only examples
left to prove final apostacy. What evidence have we that
these were truly regenerated men ? Our author says they
had faith and a good conscience (1 Tim., i. 18-20). But
Simon, the sorcerer, " believed," while " his heart" was
" not right in the sight of God," and he was " in the gall
of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity" (Acts, viii. 13-
23) ; and Paul possessed a good conscience before he was re¬
generated, (xxiii. 1). The faith referred to here was not the
arace, but the doctrine of faith (see 1 Tim., iii. 9, and iv. 1,
and v. 8), and men destitute of the grace of God may
have a good conscience as it relates to their general con¬
duct among men. The doctrine of faith, made shipwreck
saints' perseverance.
89
of by Hymeneus, was the doctrine of the resurrection (2
Tim., ii. 17, 18), and Alexander the coppersmith did the
apostle much evil. But, granting- that faith and a good
conscience are to be taken in the highest sense, the evi¬
dence that these ever possessed them is not to be found in
the phrase, having put away, since we can put away that
which we have never had. The Jews (Acts, xiii. 46) put
from them the word of God, where the sense is, they re¬
jected or refused to receive. And the word is the same
(in the original) in both passages.
We have thus performed the task we have undertaken,
with what success the reader will judge. If we have suc¬
ceeded in teaching our author, and others like him, a
profitable lesson, and if what we have written shall tend
to confirm the wavering, or to establish our brethren in
the faith once delivered to the saints, we shall not consider
that our time and labor have been spent in vain.
the end.
FOR SOCIAL AND REVIVAL MEETINGS.
TWIf 'S A P U T1 TfTWST'TO
dtX CAS £3. G-OL \fj cXX) Jill JJ Jtfl IJ[ JL (X2. 0
A COLLECTION" OF POPULAR HYMNS
FOB
SELECTED AND ARRANGED BY E. T. WINKLER,
Pastor of the First Baptist Church, Charleston.
32mo. 286 pages. Price 35 cents.
" A very pretty name for an excellent hymn-hook. Although not a large
collection (containing only four hundred and sixteen hymns), we recognize a
very great number of those melodies which are embalmed in the hearts of
God's people by a thousand sacred associations. Those old, familiar hymns,
which were precious to our fathers, and which their children ought never
' willingly let die,' we are glad to see occupying a prominent place in this
book. We should like to see it used in the prayer-meetings and lecture-
rooms of all our Southern churches. In the headings are inserted the names
of tunes best suited to the respective hymns."—True Union.
ADDRESS
SMITH & WHILDEN, Depository Agents,
SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY.
FOR BAPTIST CHURCHES.
BAPTIST PSALMODY.
A SELECTION OF HYMNS FOR THE WORSHIP OF GOD.
By Rev. Basil Manly, D.D., and Rev. B. Manly, Jr.
772 PAGES.
Pew Edition. 18 mo.
Sheep, 75 cents; Roan, $1 00; Turkey, full gilt, $2 50; Turkey,
full gilt, with clasp, $3 00; Yelvet, with clasp, $5 00 to $5 50.
Pocket Edition. 32 mo.
Sheep, 50 cents; Roan, 75 cents; Tuck, gilt edges, $1 25; Tur¬
key, full gilt, $1 50; Turkoy, Ml gilt, with clasp, $2 00; Yelvet
several styles, from $3 50 to $4 00.
" An extensive and excellent collection of hymns, well suited to meet the
wants of our Southern churches. Many of the old familiar Songs of Zion,
which are either omitted or mutilated in the modern hymn-hooks, appear in
their entire fullness in this. We like these ancient lyrics, critically imperfect
as they sometimes are; they appeal to the ear with the melody of early and
sweet associations, and exert upon the heart the energy of that elevated feel¬
ing which they first served to express. The hymn which closes the collection
—'O sing to me of Heaven!'—will never fail to excite the most devoutly
tender emotions."—Southern Baptist.
About 40,000 of the BAPTIST PSALMODY have been Published,
and the demand is constantly increasing.
SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, CHARLESTON, S, C.
BOWEN'S CENTRAL AFRIGA.
"A Christian Missionary Explorer is the Hero op the
world."—National Intelligencer.
"Every American Citizen should Read it."—Miss. Bap.
ADVENTURES AND MISSIONARY LABORS IN SEVERAL
COUNTRIES IN THE INTERIOR OF AFRICA, from 1849
to 1856. By Rev. T. J. Bowen. Price $1. Sent free of postage.
my The Author's profits appropriated to the " Central African
Mission." Those, therefore, who buy the work, will do themselves
a favor, and promote the interest of a very important mission.
From, the Charleston Courier, August 28.
" We learn that the very remarkable and interesting volume of Afrioan
adventures and explorations, by that Christian Hero, Rev. T. J. Bowen, is
steadily winning its way to attention and acceptance, and we find by our
exchanges that it is eliciting general notice. In visiting the Depository of the
Southern Baptist Publication Society, at 229 King-street, from which this work
is issued, we find packages constantly in requisition and preparation to meet
trade orders. We know no better volume for all who are interested in the
state, condition, and prospects of the continent of the colored tribes, than
' Bowen's Africa'—and it is specially interesting as preparing all readers for
larger and more elaborate reports of explorations that have not yet reached
us."
Harper's Magazine for September, in its hook notices, says of this volume:
"With great modesty of statement Mr. Bowen, an energetic and intelligent
missionary of the Baptist Board, here contributes his quota to our rapidly in¬
creasing stock of African knowledge. He describes, for the first time, several
important places in the interior, and presents ample details with regard to
the religion, languages, and social customs of the natives. His hook fur¬
nishes a trustworthy authority, and is of undoubted value to the Ethnological
student."
The New York Observer of August 20th, says:
" The adventures and missionary labors in several countries in the interior
of Africa, from 1849 to 1856, by T. J. Bowen, have already been published in
several successive editions, showing the interest they have awakened. They
abound in statistics of great value, in information respecting the climate,
soil, resources, and capacities of the country, its population and their manners
and customs, the slave-trade, the miseries of the people, their need of the
gospel and the influence of civilization, and all these things are so graphically
portrayed, as to win the reader's fixed attention while he obtains important
knowledge of the interior of this almost unknown continent. Some of Mr.
Bowen's statements are so remarkable as to be received with profound aston¬
ishment; and so were Dr. Livingston's, and so are the reports of all the
travelers who have explored any part of Central Africa."
"A Christian missionary explorer is the hero of the world."—National In¬
telligencer.
" This book is of rare interest. It is thrilling as a work of travels, and
possesses double value in the estimation of the philanthropist who would see
Ethiopia stretch out her hands, and a whole continent regenerated."—Louis
ville Journal.
Address, SMITH & WHILDEN,
Depository Agents, Charleston, S. C.
BOOKS FOB SUNDAY-SCHOOLS.
CHRISTIAN PROGRESS. By John Angel James. A repub¬
lication from the English Edition. 1 vol., 18mo. 180 pp.
Second Edition. Price 30 cents.
SIMPLE RHYMES IN FAMILIAR CONVERSATIONS FOR
CHILDREN. By Rev. C. D. Mallary, D.D. 1 voL, 16mo.
Price 25 cents.
This is a very entertaining and instructive book for young people. A new
edition is now being issued, and tbe call for this book evidently indicates that
it will be favorably received for years to come.
SOUTHERN SCENES AND SCENERY. By a Southern Lady.
12mo, Cloth. 140 pp. Price 35 cents.
MEMOIR OF REV. B. M. SANDERS; or, Living and Dying to
the Lord. By Rev. C. D. Mallary, D.D. Just published.
With a Portrait. Price 30 cents.
HOW FAR MAY A CHRISTIAN INDULGE IN POPULAR
AMUSEMENTS. By Rev. F. Wilson, of Baltimore. 1 vol.,
18 mo, paper covers. 70 pp. Price 10 cents.
ESSAYS ON MISSIONS. The World's Revolution: a Prize
Essay. By R. T. Middleditch, of Redbank, N. J. The Spirit
of Christ. By Rev. E. T. Winkler, of Charleston, S. C. 80 pp.
Price 61 cents.
This little volume is remarkable for its practical sagacity and point.
NATURE AND MEANS OF SANCTIFIOATION: a Tract. By
Rev. C. D. Mallary, D.D. 47 pp. Price 61 cents.
We regard this tract as a valuable contribution to Southern Baptist literature.
RELIGION OF CHINA. By Rev. B. W. Whilden, returned
Missionary to China. 1 vol., 18mo, paper covers. 30 pp. Price
5 cents.
BUSINESS AND DEVOTION. As exemplified in the Life of the
late James 0. Crane, Deacon of the First Baptist Church, Rich¬
mond, Va. By Rev. J. B. Jeter, D.D. Price 5 cents.
THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST CLEANSETH FROM ALL
SIN. By the late Rev. Thomas Meredith, of North Carolina.
Price 5 cents.
PRAYER: a Tract. 24 pp. Price 3 cents.
This tract is written by a lady, and shows a clear, comprehensive, and ex¬
perimental acquaintance with the views proper to be presented on this subject.
A D D R K S S
SMITH & WHILDEN, Depository Agents,
SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY.
VALUABLE BOOKS
published by the
SOUTHERN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY,
No. 229 KING-STREET, CHARLESTON, S. C.
SPiV A very liberal Discount will be made upon the Works issued by
the Society to Boolcsellers, Colporteurs, Ministers, and others, at
Wholesale, for cash, or satisfactory note, or reference, at 6 months.
in addition to the works published by the society.
A GENERAL STOCK OF
RELIGIOUS, THEOLOGICAL, LITERARY,
and
HISTORICAL BOOKS,
Is kept for Wholesale and Retail Trade, by SMITH & WHILDENT,
Depository Agents, 229 King-street, Charleston, S. C.
JgP" The Latest and most Valuable Works published by Gould
& Lincoln; Sheldon, Blakeman & Co.; Harper & Brothers; Robert
Carter & Brothers; D. Appleton & Co.; American Baptjpt Publica¬
tion Society; American Sunday-School Union; J. B. Lippincott &
Co.; Graves, Marks & Co.; and other reliable Publishers, constantly
on hand, and furnished on very liberal terms to Booksellers, Col¬
porteurs, Schools, and others.
SUNDAY-SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, MINISTERS, FAMILIES, COLLEGES,
AND OTHERS, FURNISHED WITH SUITABLE LIBRARIES
AT LOW PRICES.