6//i/7r 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 y^^ULl^lJ ^U^t^<?L' 
 
 Shelf. 
 
 BX 942A .F62 AA 18A9 
 Foster, Randolph S. 1820- 
 
 1903. 
 Objections to Calvinism as 
 
 -i t- -i c — — 
 
OBJECTIONS 
 
 CALVINISM AS IT IS, 
 
 A SERIES OP LETTERS 
 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 UetJ. N. £. nice, m. 5D., 
 
 net), ta. 0. iToster. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 REPLIES AND REJOINDERS 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 HITCHCOCK AND WALDEN, 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 CARLTON AND LANAHAN. 
 
 -4^ [^^1 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1849, by 
 
 R. S. FOSTER, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Ohio. 
 
INTKODUCTION. 
 
 The subject of Predestination has, for many ages, en- 
 gaged the attention of theologians and philosophers. That 
 the world is governed by fixed and permanent laws, is 
 evident, even to the casual observer. But by whom those 
 laws are established, and how far they extend, have been 
 matters of controversj^ In the Christian world, all admit 
 that the Avill of God is the great source of law. In the 
 arrangements of the vast systems of worlds, as well as in 
 the formation of the earth, with all its varied tribes, we 
 recofjnize the hand of Him who doeth "his will in the 
 heavens above and in the earth beneath." All acknowl- 
 edge the existence of a Di\'ine decree; but the questions 
 arise, Do all things thus come to pass ? Are human actions 
 the result of laws as fixed and unalterable as those which 
 govern the movements of the planets? Is the destiny of 
 every human being unchangeably determined before his 
 birth, without reference to foreseen conduct? Or has the 
 mind a power of choice ? can it move freely within certain 
 specified limits? and will the nature of its movements and 
 choice influence its eternal happiness? These are questions 
 which, in some form, have exercised the highest powers of 
 the human intellect. 
 
 The Atheistical school of philosophers, ancient as well 
 as modern, taught the doctrine of necessity. With them, 
 matter is eternal ; and no designing mind superintending its 
 movements, there must be a necessity in nature. This has 
 been differently expressed in diff'erent ages. Sometimes it 
 appears as the atomic theory of Democritus and Leucippus, 
 and, again, as the Pantheism of Spinoza. But, whatever 
 form it may assume, it teaches that all actions come to pass 
 
 3 
 
4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 by necessity, and denies the responsibility of all beings. Ii 
 annihilates the freedom of the human will, and degrades 
 intelligence to mechanism. 
 
 Another class of philosophers admits the existence of a 
 Diety, but denies his special, superintending providence 
 Such imagine the great JFirst Cause to be, according to the 
 Hindoo mythology, in a state of beatific repose, or to be 
 employed in movements so transcendently important, that 
 the affairs of earth are neglected, or that he is himself 
 subject to fate. 
 
 The third great class is composed of such as not only 
 admit the existence of God, but who worship him as the 
 supreme Governor, and as invested with all moral as well as 
 natural perfections. They reject the doctrine of fate and 
 all necessity, other than that which springs from the Divine 
 decree. But they differ as to the extent of that decree. 
 This difference has given rise to the formation of sects and 
 parties in all ages, and to controversies of the most exciting 
 character. Milton, in his Paradise Lost, fancies the fallen 
 angels engaged in discussions of this nature. They 
 
 " Reasoned high 
 Of providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate; 
 Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute. 
 And found no end, in wandering mazes lost." 
 
 Such, too, has been the character of many human con- 
 troversies. One party maintains that God decrees what- 
 ever comes to pass, and that the number of those who are 
 to be saved and of those who are to be lost, is definitely 
 and unalterably determined from eternity; while others 
 teach that some actions flow from man's free will, and that 
 God gives man the power to choose between life and 
 death— decreeing salvation to those who obey his Gospel, 
 and denouncing death upon the disobedient; or, in other 
 words, that characters, and not persons, are elected. The 
 latter sentiment, so far as a heathen, ignorant of gracious 
 
INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 4ifluences, could perceive, is expressed by Plato, when, in 
 his treatise against the Atheists, he says that God " devises 
 this in reference to the whole, namely, what kind of a situ- 
 ation everv thing which becomes of a certain quality must 
 receive and inhabit ; but the causes of becoming of such a 
 quality, he hath left to our own wills." 
 
 The Jewish sects differed upon these, as well as upon 
 other points of doctrine. The Essenes taught predestina- 
 tion in its most severe form. The Sadducees held the 
 freedom of the will in nearly the same manner as the Pela- 
 gians have since taught; while the Pharisees endeavored 
 to combine the two systems. Prideaux says, "They as- 
 cribed to God and fate all that is done, and yet left to man 
 the freedom of his will. But how they made these two 
 apparent incompatibles consist together, is nowhere suffi- 
 ciently explained ; perchance they meant no more than that 
 every man freely chooseth what he is unalterably predes- 
 tinated to. But if he be predestinated to that choice, how 
 freely soever he may seem to choose, certainly he hath no 
 free will, because he is, according to this scheme, unaltera- 
 bly necessitated to all that he doth, and cannot possibly 
 choose otherwise." 
 
 The Mohammedans were, generally, rigid predestinarians. 
 With them, every event in nature was fixed by an absolute 
 decree. The soldier could neither be killed nor wounded 
 until his time had come. Hence, they acquired a reckless- 
 aess of all physical danger, as well as of moral feeling. 
 jBut, even with them, the mind rebelled against fatalism, 
 and the sect of the Motazalites, and portions of other sects, 
 held the freedom of the human will. 
 
 In the early ages of Christianity, the doctrine of predes- 
 tination, as extending to every act and fixing the destiny of 
 every individual, without reference to foreseen faith or works, 
 was unknown. The early fathers teach no such creed. 
 They occasionally use the terms foreordain, predestinate, 
 
6 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 eject, etc., but they invariably use these expressions in iri*5 
 Scriptural signification as employed by St. Paul, and not in 
 tne predestinarian, or what has since been termed the Cal- 
 vinistic sense. This continued to be the case for the first 
 four centuries of the Christian era; but, at the commence- 
 ment of the fifth century, the Pelagian controversy arose. 
 As usual in controversies, each party ran into an extreme. 
 Pelaffius v/as ri^-ht in teachinor that God willed all men to 
 be saved, and in denying the doctrine of infant damnation, 
 which had crept into the Church ; but he erred greatly 
 in teaching man's ability, without grace, to commence a 
 rehgious life, or to keep the commandments of God. Au- 
 gustine, perceiving his errors, held correctly, that man's 
 salvation is of grace, and that, apart from grace, he has no 
 power to commence or continue a religious career. But he 
 erred in teaching the unconditional election to life of a 
 part of the race, and the damnation of the rest, including 
 some infants. Augustine -was sustained, and his works re- 
 main to this day standards in the Catholic Church. 
 
 It must, liowever, be remarked, that Augustine is nou 
 at all times consistent in his statements. Hence, Calvin 
 alledges that he had attributed to foreknowledge that 
 which pertains only to decrees. His writings thus gave 
 rise to discussions almost interminable. During the prog- 
 ress of the century in which he lived, a number, who were 
 termed Predestinarians, advocated the doctrine of uncondi- 
 tional election and reprobation, to the utter denial of free 
 will. Again: in the ninth century, Godeschalcus, a Saion 
 monk, having taught that God had predestinated some to 
 eternal death, a violent controversy arose, heightened by 
 the enmity which existed between him and Rabanus, who 
 was his abbot. The doctrines of Godeschalcus were con- 
 demned by three councils, and he was cruelly cast into 
 prison. But, afterward, his sentiments were approved by 
 three councils, and at his death the controversy ceased. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 The Dominicans, who were for many centuries among the 
 strongest pillars of the Catholic Chm-ch, and to whom the 
 machinery of the Inquisition was committed, were strict 
 predestinarians. So, also, were the Augustinians and the 
 Jansenists. On the other hand, the Jesuits, who became 
 the most indefatigable enemies of the Reformation, while 
 they professed to believe with Augustine, yet were the 
 advocates of free will. With all its professed unity, the 
 Ptoman Church has been as much divided upon these ques- 
 tions as the Protestant. At present the Jesuitic theology 
 is prevalent. They deny that they are either Calvinistic or 
 Arminian. But, while they profess to accord with St. Au- 
 gustine, they have, no doubt, departed far from his views. 
 At the time of the Reformation, the great reformers drew 
 much from St. Augustine. Luther was an Augustinian 
 friar; and he found the great doctrine of justification by 
 faith so well established by that father against all opposers, 
 that he received for a time his views on predestination also. 
 On free will he had a sharp contest with Erasmus, but 
 afterward kept almost silent on these perplexing questions, 
 and, in the latter part of his life, strongly recommended 
 Melancthon's works, which taught a different doctrine. 
 ^The Lutheran Church, receiving their impress from him, 
 hold only a predestination based upon foreknowledge; 
 in this, strictly agreeing with the Amiinian view. ) Melanc- 
 thon, in the commencement of his career, was a ligid Pre- 
 destinarian. In 1525, writing of the decrees, he says: 
 "Lastly, Divine predestination takes away human liberty; 
 for all things come to pass according to Divine predestina- 
 tion — not only external works, but also internal thoughts, 
 in all creatures." He, however, in a few years changed his 
 opinion, and struck out such passages from his works. To 
 Cranmer he obserred that there had been, among the 
 reformers, " Stoical disputations respecting fjite, offensive in 
 their nature, and noxious in their tendency." In writing to 
 
8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Peucer he compares Calvin to Zeno, saying, *' Lselius writes 
 to me, that the controversy respecting the Stoical fate is 
 agitated with such uncommon fervor at Geneva, that one 
 individual is cast into prison because he happened to differ 
 from Zeno." And near his death, referring to the doctrines 
 of predestination, he says they are "monstrous opinions, 
 which are contumelious against God, and pernicious to 
 morals." 
 
 Calvin became, among the reformers, the great champion 
 of the decrees, and hence the system bears his name. So 
 much importance did he attach to these peculiar views, that 
 he scrupled not to apply the most opprobrious epithets to 
 those who refused to receive them. In one of his sermons 
 he says, "The enemies of God's predestination are stupid 
 and ignorant, and the devil hath plucked out their eyes." 
 Af»"ain : " Such men fight against the Holy Ghost, like mad 
 beasts, and endeavor to abolish the holy Scripture. There 
 is more honesty in the Papists than in these men ; for the 
 doctrine of the Papists is a great deal better, more holy, 
 and more agreeable to the sacred Scriptures, than the doc- 
 trine of those vile and wicked men, who cast down God's 
 holy election — these dogs that bark at it, and swine that 
 root it up." And in another sermon he says, "The devil 
 liath no fitter instruments than those who fight against 
 predestination." 
 
 Sentiments such as these, taught to the youth preparing 
 for the ministry, could not fail to have an influence in pro- 
 moting a persecuting spirit. These ministers were scattered 
 among the reformed Churches over Europe, and soon began 
 to exhibit their disposition. Liberty of opinion was tolera- 
 ted for a time; but, early in the succeeding century, the 
 famous Synod of Dort was assembled, in which the opinions 
 of the Remonstrants, or Arminians, were condemned as 
 heresy. Pious and influential ministers were banished from 
 the land, many were thrown into prison, while some of 
 
INTRODUCTION-. 9 
 
 their patrons were put to death, Macaulay well charac- 
 terizes the proceedings of this synod, as manifesting "gross 
 injustice, insolence, and cruelty." 
 
 A reaction followed. Arminianism and a modified Cal- 
 vinism, known afterward as Baxterianism, gained ground 
 upon the Continent, and rapidly pervaded the Anglican 
 Church. In the days of Wesley, a strong effort was made 
 to suppress Arminian views. Calvinism being made a test 
 of office in the college in which they were engaged, Mr. 
 Benson was removed, and Mr. Fletcher resigned. A dis- 
 tinguished clergyman, Mr. Shirley, issued a circular, re- 
 questing a meeting of ministers, to go in a body to Mr. 
 Wesley's ensuing conference, and demand that he and his 
 preachers should retract their sentiments. But, though the 
 spirit of the Synod of Dort was aroused, the civil power 
 to punish could not be employed. Mr. W. continued to 
 preach, and Mr. Fletcher, in his defense, issued those mas- 
 terly Checks, which displayed at once his superior genius, 
 and the strength of the cause which he had espoused. 
 
 In America, in early days, the religious sentiment was, 
 generally, Calvinistic. Such Churches were supported by 
 law, in the New England states, until a late period. The 
 colleges and seminaries were, also, principally under their 
 control. Hence, the introduction of Methodism gave rise 
 to numerous controversies. In the midst, however, of 
 repeated conflicts, Arminianism has increased, until now 
 a majority of members in the Union belong to Churches 
 which reject the Calvinistic faith. Of the Churches, too, 
 which are called Calvinistic, at least one-half have embraced 
 what is termed " New School " theology. Whatever may 
 be the merits or demerits of that system, the " Old School *' 
 assert that it is a departure, not only to Arminianism, but 
 to Pelagianism. 
 
 For some years past there had been a growing union 
 among Christians; controversies were less frequent; and 
 
10 INTRODUCTION'. 
 
 the Presbyterian and Methodist Chui'ches were living m 
 peace and haraiony. Recently, however, repeated attacks, 
 of the most virulent character, have been made upon the 
 doctrines and usages of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 For a time this was patiently borne; but as forbearance 
 only seemed to increase the frequency and severity of the 
 attacks, a notice of the principles involved became necessary. 
 The letters contained in the present volume were written 
 by Rev. R. S. Foster, A. M., a member of the Ohio annual 
 conference, who has charge of Wesley Chapel in this city. 
 A number of them appeared in the columns of the Western 
 Christian Advocate; and, at the earnest solicitations of 
 many readers, he was induced to present them in a more 
 permanent form. Their style is clear and forcible, and the 
 process of argumentation strictly logical. As the reader 
 will perceive, he has limited himself to two principal points. 
 First, to show what are the doctrines of Calvinism ; and, 
 secondly, to state the prominent objections to them. This 
 work has been well executed, by gi^^ng the standard au- 
 thors in their own language, and thus preventing any candid 
 o.pponent from making the charge of misrepresentation. 
 The book will thus be very valuable to such as have not 
 access to extensive libraries, or who have not time to examine 
 for themselves the various writers here quoted. The objec- 
 tions are distinctly and explicitly stated, and the intelligent 
 reader will, we think, be fully convinced that they are well 
 sustained. We commend the volume as one of great meiit, 
 to such as are perplexed upon the subject of predestination. 
 We doubt not that many, after perusing these pages, will 
 fully acquiesce with Calvin, in terming, as he did, the de- 
 cree of predestination, a "horrible decree." 
 
 M. Simpson. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 INTRODUCTION; . Page 3 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Origin and Design of the Work, ... .13 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 God's Eternal Decrees, .... , . &1 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Election and Reprobation, . . . . • 6SJ 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 The Atonement .110 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 Effectual Calling, IGO 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 Final Perseverance, ....... 174 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 The Heathen World, 200 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 The Will, 214 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Rkplies and Rejoinders, , . . 247 
 
OBJECTIONS 
 CALVINISM AS IT IS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE WORK. 
 
 Stay, reader, for a moment. The author would speak 
 with you. Some explanations may be of service, befor*5 
 you commence the perusal of the following pages. They 
 shall be brief and few. 
 
 This book is the creature of circumstance. It had never ; 
 existed, but for reasons over which the author himself ^ 
 had no control. He wrote because it seemed necessary 
 to write — not because he had any ambition for authorship. 
 He made a book, not with " intention of forethought," but 
 almost before he was aware of it, and without any prepense 
 whatever. The Church, of which he is a humble and ob- 
 scure minister, had been long and grievously assailed by 
 one of the principal organs of a sister denomination — her 
 doctrines and usages held up to public odium, as perverted 
 by the pen of misrepresentation — her influence for piety 
 questioned, and whatever was peculiar to her organization 
 ridiculed and calumniated. And this ungenerous course 
 was commenced and pursued by an accredited champion, at 
 a time when peace and Christian union had long existed — 
 against remonstrances on our part, and published depre- 
 cations of the consequences which were certain to ensue. 
 We endured for a time. But this only seemed to whet the 
 envenomed appetite of an adversary who seemed intent 
 
 13 
 
14 ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE WORK. | CHAP. I. 
 
 to aevoui us. The greater our reluctance, the greater hie 
 ferocity. It now seemed, that to remain longer silent would 
 not only be a reproach to ourselves — a matter which, alonf 
 considered, gave us little conceiii — but must, also, weaken 
 the force, if not penl the interests, of truth itself. It waf. 
 under such circumstances that the substance of what is 
 contained in this volume Avas given to the public, througl 
 one of the journals of our Church, in a series of letters, 
 addressed to the reverend gentleman who seemed so anxious 
 to discuss our respective differences. This is our apology, 
 if any is necessary, for sending to the public a volume 
 which, it may be, some unacquainted with the facts might 
 conclude was uncalled for. Truth and religion required it. 
 The time had come when the real issues needed to be 
 stated, and truth vindicated. 
 
 The object of the author has not been to discuss fully 
 the doctrines peculiar to Calvinism — not to present the 
 counter views of Arminians — nothing of the kind: it loas 
 simply to present a statement of Calvinism, and objectionG 
 thereto-^not to examine its defense — not to build up an 
 opposite system — not to contrast it with other' schemes — 
 simply to state it, and deduce its consequences — believing 
 that these Consequences are sufficient to overthrow and 
 destroy it. Had it been our plan to examine the arguments 
 by which Calvinists are wont to defend themselves, we 
 could have desired no easier a task than their refutation. 
 But this has been so ably and so often done, that we find 
 no occasion to repeat it. The scheme falls under the weight 
 of its consequences — it matters not what its defense is. Its 
 consequences prove that it is utterly false; and no argu- 
 ment can, therefore, prove it true. 
 
 The statement herein made of Calvinism, you will find in 
 the progress of your examination, is in no single instance 
 the prejudiced and ex parte statement of the author himself, 
 but always the statement of the Confession of Faith, and 
 
CHAP. I.] ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE WORK. 15 
 
 the renowned and distinguished advocates of the system, in 
 their own language, fully and fairly quoted. No author 
 has been at the pains to quote so largely and variously. 
 Having derived our statements from their own standards. 
 Vie deduce the consequences. You will judge whether the 
 consequences are legitimate or not; and whether, if legiti- 
 mate, they are fatal to the system. This is all you have to 
 do. If Calvinism is what its friends here represent it to 
 be, and its consequences what I show them to be, you must 
 decide in your own mind upon the merits of the system. 
 
 It may be that this volume will find its way into the 
 hands of some who have long cherished, and still do cherish, 
 respect for the system it is intended to expose. To such 
 may I say a word. Read this book, if you shall be induced 
 to read it at all, candidly and without feelings of resent- 
 ment or prejudice. Be assured that, however plainly the 
 author may have spoken, toward you he entertains none 
 but sentiments of kindness; his object is not to wound and 
 afflict, but purely to defend the truth. Let not the charge 
 of misrepresentation blind you. You are men — ^judge for 
 yourselves. You will find that the author has made no 
 representations at all — that these are all and wholly taken 
 from your own standards. He is only responsible for the 
 construction he has given to them, and the consequences he 
 has drawn. You will judge of these. I admit that you 
 have been taught different views, and you have heard these 
 consequences denied; but, will this satisfy you? Do you 
 not see that, though disclaimed and denied, they still stand 
 against you, unanswered — unanswerable? The premises 
 are yours — the conclusions you cannot escape. Kead as a 
 Christian only desirous for the truth, and dare nobly to 
 follow the truth wherever she points the way. 
 
 Toward the Presbyterian Church, I have cherished sen- 
 timents of the profoundest attachment from ray early 
 boyhood. These sentiments have grown up with me to 
 
16 ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE WORK. [CUAP. I. 
 
 manhood — they remain to this hour. In her communion 
 are many personal friends and relatives, and among her 
 ministers are some dear to me as my own brothers. In 
 despite of her errors, I here record my firm persuasion that 
 she has many surpassing excellences — many which my own 
 Church may well and wisely emulate. But that her creed 
 is essentially erroneous, and that in important points, I have 
 always believed, and now believe more firmly than ever 
 before, having examined the subject more thoroughly. My 
 reasons for this belief are hereafter given. Because of this 
 attachment, and lest it might wound personal friends, but 
 much more, lest it might wound some friend of the Savior, 
 I have regretted constantly the necessity of discussing the 
 subject ; but, still believing that truth is better than error — 
 more pleasing to God and more beneficial to the world, 
 however painful the process of quarrying it — I have spoken 
 plainly, and, I trust, in the fear of God, on its behalf. 
 
 If, on examination, you shall find Calvinism liable to the 
 charges herein preferred against it, and if your reason, and 
 conscience, and religion, and nature itself revolt at it, then 
 it becomes you to inquire whether, through the pretense of 
 not believing it yourself, of its not being taught by your 
 ministers generally, of its being greatly modified — whether, 
 because of any or all of these reasons, you can safely 
 continue, with your influence, to bolster the system, and 
 propagate its existence and influence among men. May the 
 great Head of the Church bless you with right views and 
 feelings, and bring you to a wise and judicious conclusion! 
 
 The plan of this book, it is believed, is entirely new, at 
 least so far as the writer is informed; and so supplies a 
 desideratum on the controverted questions introduced. The 
 subject is brought more directly before the reader by copi- 
 ous quotations, and the objections presented in a more 
 condensed and direct form, than in any other of the numer- 
 ous and superior works written on it. The reader is thus 
 
CHAP. I.] ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE WORK. 17 
 
 enabled to see what Calvinism is — without being confused 
 and distracted by prejudiced statements — as held and 
 taught by its own expounders, and, at the same time, what 
 are the difficulties alledged by its opposers, as sufficient to 
 discredit it, and, whether friendly or hostile to it, will be 
 aided to come to a candid conclusion on the merits of the 
 question. 
 
 It will be found that the difficulties brought against the 
 system in these pages, are mainly derived from the logical 
 consequences resulting from it, and the undoubted antag- 
 onism of such consequences to the word of God, the nature 
 of man, and the universal persuasion and consciousness of 
 mankind. This course was preferred by the author, because 
 it was less trodden, and, upon the whole, as he believes, 
 more convincing and conclusive. It could have been shown, 
 as it has been triumphantly many times — confining the 
 argument to the Scripture limits — that Calvinism is not 
 taught therein, and that an opposite system is; but this 
 was made incidental to our main object — which was to 
 show that consequences so revolting inevitably result from 
 it, as to prove him guilty of blasphemy who charges it 
 upon the word of God ; or, rather, as to make it impossible V 
 for any to believe or pretend any thing so dreadful. It is ^ 
 assumed that what is logically false cannot be Scripturally T 
 true; and, therefore, that by involving Calvinism in logical ' 
 dilemmas, it is overthrown, and proved to be unscript-ural, 
 as the Scriptures cannot teach what is logically false and 
 contradictory. Whatever may be the seeming, the text 
 cannot teach what is logically untrue; or teaching it, il 
 teaches what is false, and cannot be the word of God. 
 Whoever, therefore, derives a system from the Bible which 
 is false, and demonstrably so to human reason by the pro- 
 cesses of conclusive logic, either derives from the Bible 
 what it does not authorize, or he proves it false : in other 
 words, he is mistaken, or the Bible is not true. We attempt, 
 
 2 
 
18 ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE WORK. [cHAP J. 
 
 m the following pages, to show that Calvinists do this ; and 
 if our reasoning is conclusive, it will not be difficult for our 
 readers to decide which horn of the dilemma to choose. 
 
 It may be proper to state here, that, to avoid repetition, 
 we have been compelled to leave off many strong objec- 
 tions, bearing against each of the several points discussed; 
 and even after much care, there may seem to be some 
 sameness. The reason of this is manifest. I have singled 
 out eight distinct points of the Calvinistic creed, as objec- 
 tionable. Now, these points are related, and, to a great 
 extent, are susceptible of the same proof, and liable to the 
 same objections. Hence, in treating of them separately, I 
 have necessarily, in some measure, used the same or similar 
 objections against each. If the same objection disproves 
 all the points separately, it is legitimate and proper to 
 employ it against each : the interest of truth requires that 
 it should be repeated whenever it bears against error. We 
 have, however, varied the argument as much as possible, 
 and have not repeated the same point except where it was 
 absolutely necessary. 
 
 To enable you to determine the force of our argument, as 
 a Avhole, against the system we oppose, I make this addi- 
 tional suggestion : if one single point of the eight specified 
 is disproved, Calvinism is irreparably injured — if one point 
 is removed, the system is destroyed — it is proved false, not 
 only in that particular point, but, also, in all correlative 
 points — its dependencies fall with it. If, then, I have shown 
 difficulties bearing upon any one point, such as to convince 
 you that it cannot be true, the system is irretrievably 
 involved. But, I ask you, has not, not only one, but every 
 point named, been successfully assailed? Is it not so? 
 Can you see an escape, not for all, but for a single one*'* 
 But, again : I have introduced a score of objections, or ap- 
 proximating this, upon each point. Now, one objection is 
 sufficient. If nineteen out of twenty are worthless, and a 
 
CHAP. I.] ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF THE WORK. 10 
 
 single one is good, the objection stands — the system falls. 
 A proposition cannot be true against one valid objection, 
 any more than it can against fifty. If one resist successful 
 assault, the proposition is ruined. But, I ask you in all can- 
 dor, can a single one be assailed ? I have no need of many 
 of them; but can any one take them from my support? 
 You will readily perceive that I have introduced a great ex- 
 cess of proof. But this shows you how hopeless the system 
 against which such weight of objection bears — how much 
 it will have to do, before it is saved. It must rescue every 
 point against every separate objection. And I assert that 
 it cannot rescue a single point fiom a single objection. 
 Let my readers, as they proceed, attempt for themselves to 
 find an escape from the consequences urged, and abide the 
 honest result, whatever it may be. If Calvinism is true, 
 embrace it. If not, discard it. But, be not misled by the 
 pretense that, notwithstanding its difiiculties, it is found in 
 the word of God. This is a subterfuge to escape the 
 necessity of examining logical consequences — a lesson, which, 
 you w^ill perceive in the appendix, my friend of" the defense 
 has learned. Your own judgment convinces you, that if 
 the system is logically liable, it cannot be taught in the 
 word of God. 
 
 The references made to authors in quotations, has, in every 
 instance, with few exceptions, been taken by the writer him- 
 self directly from them ; and to those who cannot examine 
 for themselves, he insures their correctness. Those charged 
 to Piscator and Twisse are taken from Mr. Wesley ; but their 
 con-ectness is not questioned. I have sought, in every 
 instance, to quote enough to give the full meaning of the 
 author, and have never put a construction, knowingly, not 
 intended by him. The consequences deduced, I admit, have 
 been disclaimed ; but my readers must judge whether this 
 can be done or not. I give you the premises — you must 
 decide upon the correctness of the deductions. 
 
"20 ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF TILE WORK. [cHAP. I, 
 
 [t is not presumed by the author, either that he has 
 succeeded in finding all, or the strongest objections, bearing 
 against the system he attempts to refute. Doubtless there 
 are many other and stronger ones, which a better mind 
 could have discovered, and which, with more time and 
 leisure, the author himself might have found ; but Avhat is 
 given will, we think, be sufficient, and we have no fear but 
 what the candid reader will agree with us, when he shall 
 have thoroughly perused the work. The book was pre- 
 pared amid the numerous and weighty labors of a large 
 pastoral charge, and that when ordinary duties were greatly 
 exceeded by a season of unparalleled afl^liction — during the 
 prevalence of the cholera — at a time when, from day to day 
 and week to week, the author was ministering to many of 
 those who were dying with that most dreaded scourge, and 
 when his own life, as the life of all, seemed uncertain from 
 hour to hour. This, with the fact that it never was intended 
 for publication in volume form, will serve to palliate its de- 
 fects and extenuate its faults. 
 
 The reader is now prepared to set forward with us in the 
 discussion of the following pages. If he shall be enter- 
 tained for a few brief hours, and profited in any degree in 
 his noble pursuit of truth, we shall be more than compen- 
 sated for all the toil we have bestowed in the preparation. 
 And may God, the great Father of us all, bring both writer 
 and reader to that world of happiness and glory, where 
 ti-uth shall be no more invested with shade, but appear in 
 its own brightness, and all shall see eye to eye, and know 
 even as we are known! 
 
CHAP. II.J god's eternal DECREES, 21 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 god's ETERNAL DECREES. 
 
 If the reader has not considered the previous chapter, 
 he will do himself a service to turn back and give it a 
 perusal, before he proceeds to read what follows. 
 
 When one man proposes to discuss the opinions of another 
 man, or company of men, it is of first importance that he 
 understand the opinions w^hich he thus proposes to discuss, 
 and, understanding them himself, that he clearly and dis- 
 tinctly state them to his readers. In every discussion, the 
 first thing to be settled is the precise point in dispute ; and 
 if this be omitted, the controversy must needs degenerate 
 into a mere idle logomachy — an unprofitable strife of words. 
 
 And it is not always suflficient that the opinions of 
 an opponent be clearly stated — when practicable, they 
 should be stated in precisely his own language, that the 
 chances of misrepresentation may be as few as possible, 
 and that the reader may see the grounds upon which the 
 particular construction is based. This is due an opponent — 
 it is due the reader — it is due the cause of truth. 
 
 In accordance with these views, I shall proceed at once 
 to state the point, in Calvinian theology, to which I am 
 about to object. And, to giv# the system, and its advo- 
 cates, the benefit of a candid and unprejudiced statement, 
 I shall first quote the sections of the Confession of Faith 
 which regard it, and then the interpretations given thereto 
 by the most eminent and accredited of its defenders. If 
 the reference to authors shall be large, it will be that we 
 may gain the very best possible light upon the point in 
 question. The subject to be treated of in this chapter is 
 "God's Eternal Decrees;" and upon this subject the Con- 
 fession of Faith, chapter iii, sections i and ii, holds the 
 following language : 
 
22 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II 
 
 " God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy 
 counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain 
 whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is 
 God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will 
 of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second 
 causes taken awa}^, but rather estabhshed. 
 
 "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to 
 pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed 
 any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which 
 would come to pass upon such conditions." 
 
 This is the article of faith. In corroboration and exe- 
 gesis of it, I read from the Larger Catechism: 
 
 " What are the decrees of God ? 
 
 " God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the 
 counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for 
 his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes 
 to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men." 
 
 In the exposition of the Confession of Faith, by Rev. 
 R. Shaw, "revised and pubhshed by the Presbyterian 
 Board of Publication," I read, treating of the article of 
 faith, "That God must have decreed all future things, 
 is a conclusion which necessarily flows from his fore- 
 knowledge, independence, and immutability. The fore- 
 knowledge • of God will, necessarily, infer a decree ; for 
 God could not foreknow tJi^at things would be, unless he 
 had decreed they should be." (Exposition of the Con- 
 fession, p. 58.) 
 
 "If God would be an independent being, all creatures 
 must have an entire dependence upon him; but ihis de- 
 pendence proves, undeniably, that all their acts must be 
 regulated by his sovereign will." (lb.) 
 
 "If God be of one mind, which none can change, he 
 must have unalterably fixed every thing in his purpose, 
 which he effects in his providence." (lb., p. 59.) 
 
 "The decree of God relates to all future things, without 
 
CHAP. II.J god's eternal DECREES. 23 
 
 exceptions. Whatsoever is done in time, was foreoi'dained 
 before the beginning of time^ (lb., p. 59.) 
 
 " The decrees of God are absolute and unconditional : ! 
 he has not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as 
 future, and the execution of his decree is not suspended 
 upon any condition which may or may not be performed." 
 (lb., p. 60.) 
 
 "Nothing can happen but what is subject to his knowl- 
 edge, and decreed by his will.'' (Calvin's Institutes, book i, 
 chap, xiv, sec. iii.) 
 
 "If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not 
 also dispose and fix them by his determination, there would 
 be room to agitate the question, whether his providence or 
 foresight rendered them at all necessary. But, since he 
 foresees future events only in consequence of his decree 
 that they shall happen, it is useless to contend about fore- 
 knowledge, while it is evident that all things come to pass, 
 rather by ordination and decree." (Calvin's Institutes, 
 book iii, chap, xiii, sec. vi.) 
 
 " But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, 
 but because it is his will? It is not probable, however, that 
 man procured his own destruction by the mere permission, 
 and without the appointment of God, as though God had 
 determined what he would choose to be the condition of the 
 principal of his creatures. 
 
 "I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess plainly, witli 
 Augustine, that the will of God is the necessity of things, 
 and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass." 
 (Calvin's Institutes, vol ii, p. 1*71.) 
 
 " All things, both beings and events, exist in exact accord- 
 ance with the purpose, pleasure, and what is commonly 
 called the decree of God." (D wight's Theology.) 
 
 "The decrees of God relate to all future things, without 
 exception. Whatsoever is done in time, was foreordained 
 before time." (Dr. J. Dick's Theology.) 
 
24 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 "Decrees of God are his settled purpose, whereby hti 
 foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. The opinion that 
 whatever occurs in the world at large, or the lot of private 
 individuals, is the result of previous and unalterable ar- 
 rangement by that supreme Power which presides over 
 nature, has always been held by many of the vulgar, and 
 has been believed by speculative men. The ancient Stoics, 
 Zeno and Chrysippus, whom the Jewish Essenes seem to 
 have followed, asserted the existence of a Deity, that, 
 acting wisely, but necessarily, contrived the general system 
 of the world ; from which, by a series of causes, whatever 
 is now done in it, unavoidably results. Mohammed intro- 
 duced into his Koran the doctrine of absolute predestina- 
 tion of the course of human affairs. He represents life 
 and death, prosperity and adversity, and every event that 
 befalls a man in this world, as the result of a previous 
 determination of the one God, who rules over all. Augus- 
 tine, and the whole of the earliest reformers, but especially 
 Calvin, favored this doctrine.'" (Buck.) 
 
 "The characteristical feature of the Calvinistic system is 
 that entire dependence of the creature upon the Creator, 
 which it uniformly asserts, by considering the will of the 
 supreme Being as the cause of every thing that now exists 
 or that is to exist at any future time." (Hill's Divinity.) 
 
 "The supreme Being selects those single objects and 
 those combinations of objects which he chooses to bring 
 into existence; and every circumstance in the manner of 
 the existence of that which is to be> thus depending en- 
 tirely on his will, is known to him, because he decreed it 
 should be." (Hill.) 
 
 "Every action and motion of every creature is governed 
 by the hidden counsel of God, so that nothing can come 
 to pass, but was ordained of him. 
 
 "All things come to pass by his ordination and decree." 
 (Calvin.) 
 
oiiAi*. II. j god's eternal decrees. 2£» 
 
 "But, since he forsees future events only in consequence 
 of his decree that they shall happen, it is useless to contend 
 about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come 
 to pass rather by ordination and decree." (Calvin's Insti- 
 tutes, vol. i, p. 170.) 
 
 "Reason and revelation are in perfect unison in assuring 
 us, that God is the supreme, independent, first cause, of 
 whom all secondary and inferior causes are no more than 
 the effects." (Toplady on Predestination, p. 17.) 
 
 In this, and the following quotations from Toplady, we 
 have also the sentiments of Zanchius, as Toplady but trans- 
 lates Zanchiusp 
 
 "It may seem absurd to human wisdom, that God should 
 harden, blind, and dehver up some men to a reprobate 
 sense — that he should first deliver them over to evil, and 
 then condemn them for that evil ; but the believing, spiritual 
 man sees no absurdity in all this, knowing that God would 
 be never a whit less good, ei:en though he should destroy all 
 men." (Toplady on Predestination, p. 53.) 
 
 "Though he [God] may be said to be author of all the 
 actions done by the wicked, yet he is not the author of 
 them, in a moral, compound sense, as they are sinlul, but 
 physically simply, and sensu divisQ, as they are mere 
 actions, abstractly from all consideration of the goodness 
 or badness of them." (lb., p. 54.) 
 
 "Hence, we see that God does not immediately and ^^^r 
 se infuse iniquity into the wicked, but powerfully excites 
 them to action, and withholds those gracious influences 
 of his Spirit, without which every action is necessarily 
 evil." (lb., p. 55.) 
 
 "Every action, as such, is undoubtedly good, it being an 
 actual exertion of those operative powers given us by God 
 for that very end. God may, therefore, be the author of 
 all actions, and yet not be the author of evil." (Ib.,^. 66.) 
 
 "Whatever things God wills or does, are not willed and 
 3 
 
26 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 (lone by hira, because they were, in their own nature, 
 and previously to his willing them, just and right, or be- 
 cause, from their intrinsic fitness, he ought to will and do 
 them; but they are, therefore, just, right, and proj)er, 
 because he is holiness itself, wills and does them." (lb., 
 p. 63.) 
 
 "We make God the arbiter and governor of all things, 
 who, in his own wisdom, has, from the remotest eternity, 
 decreed what he would do, and now, by his own poioer^ 
 executes what he has decreed. Whence we assert, that 
 not only the heavens, and the earth, and inanimate crea- 
 tures, but also the deliberations and volitiwis of men, are 
 so governed by his providence as to be directed to the end 
 appointed by it." (Calvin's Institutes, vol. i, p. 191.) 
 
 " It should be considered as indubitably certain, that all 
 the revolutions visible in the world proceed from the secret 
 exertion of the Divine power. What God decrees must 
 necessarily come to pass." (lb., vol i, p. 194.) 
 
 "I admit more than this: even that thieves, homicides, 
 and other malefactors, are instruments of Divine providence, 
 whom the Lord uses for the execution of the judgments 
 which he has appointed." (lb., p. 200.) 
 
 "They consider it absurd [they whose views Calvin 
 opposes] that a man should be blinded by the will and 
 command of God, and afterward be punished for his 
 blindness. They, therefore, evade the difficulty, that it 
 happens only by the permission, and not by the will of 
 God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declara- 
 tions, rejects this subterfuge. That men, however, can 
 effect nothing, but by the secret will of God, and can 
 deliberate on nothing, but what he has previously decreed, 
 a ad determined by his secret direction, is proved by ex- 
 ])iess and innumerable testimonies." (lb., p. 211.) 
 
 " "rtie whole may be summed up thus : that, as the will 
 of God is said to be the cause of all things, his providence 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 27 
 
 is establislied as the governor in all the counsels and works 
 of men; so that it not only exerts its power in the elect, 
 who are influenced by the Holy Spirit, but also compels the 
 co?npliance of the reprobates.'^ (lb., p. 215.) 
 
 *' God's sovereign decree is the first link, his unalterable 
 decree tha second, and his all active providence the third, 
 in the great chain of causes. What his will determined, 
 that his decree established, and his providence, either me- 
 diately or immediately, eflPects. His will was the adorable 
 spring of all, his decree marked out the channel, and his 
 providence directs the stream. If so, it may be objected, 
 that whatever is, is right. Consequences cannot be helped." 
 (Toplady on Predestination, p. 19.) 
 
 "But does not this doctrine tend to the establishment of 
 fatahty? Supposing it even did, were it not better to be 
 a Christian fatalist, than to avow a set of loose Arminian 
 principles, which, if pushed to their full extent, will 
 inevitably terminate in the rankest Atheism ? For without 
 predestination there can be no providence; and without a 
 providence, no God. After all, what do you mean by fate ? 
 If you mean a regular succession of detennined events, 
 from the beginning to the end of time — an uninterrupted 
 chain, without a single chasm — all depending on the eternal 
 will and continued influence of the great first cause — if this 
 is fate, it must be owned that it and the Scripture predes- 
 tination are, at most, veiy thinly divided, or, rather, entirely 
 coalesce." (lb., p. 22.) 
 
 "God's foreknow^ledge, taken abstractedly, is not the 
 sole cause of beings and events; but his will and /ore- 
 knowledge toff ether.'' (lb., p. 27.) 
 
 "Whatever comes to pass, comes to pass by virtue of the 
 absolute, omnipotent will of God, which is the primary and 
 supreme cause of all things." (lb., p. 32.) 
 
 " The will of God is so the cause of all things as to be 
 itself without cause; for nothing can be the cause of tnat 
 
28 god's eternal decrees. [ciiAr, ji. 
 
 which is the cause of every thing. So that the Divine 
 will is the ne ^o^ws ultra of all our inquiries. When we 
 ascend to that, we can go no further. Hence, we find 
 every ixiiitter resolved, ultimately, into the mere sovereign 
 pleasure of God, as the spring and occasion of whatsoever 
 is done in heaven and earth. And no wonder that the 
 will of God should be the mainspring that sets all 
 inferior wheels in motion, and should likeAvise be the rule 
 by which he goes in all his dealings with his creatures, 
 since nothing out of God, exterior to himself, can possibly 
 induce him to will or nill one thing rather than another." 
 (lb., p. 34.) 
 
 "God is a being whose will acknowledges no cause; 
 neither is it for us to prescribe rules to his sovereign 
 pleasure, or call him to account for what he does. He 
 has neither superior nor equal; and his will is the rule 
 of all things. He did not will such and such things, 
 because they were, in themselves, right, and he was bound 
 to v/ill them ; but, therefore, equitable and right, because 
 he wills them." (lb., p. 35.) 
 
 "Whatever man does he does necessarily, though not 
 w^ith any sensible compulsion ; and that we can only do 
 what God, from eternity, willed and foreknew we should." 
 (lb., p. 41.) 
 
 "That man fell in consequence of the Divine decree, we 
 prove thus. . . . Surely, if God had not willed the 
 fall, he could, and no doubt would, have prevented it. But 
 he did not prevent it : er(/o, he willed it. And if he willed 
 it, he certainly decreed it; for the decree is nothing else 
 but the seal and ratification of his will. He does nothing 
 hut what he decreed, and he decreed nothing which he did 
 not will ; and both will and decree are absolutely eternal, 
 though the execution of them both be in time." (lb., p. 84.) 
 
 "Now, it is self-evident, that if he [God] knows sll things 
 beforehand, he either doth approve of tliem, or he doth 
 
CHAP. II. J god's eternal decuees. 29 
 
 not approve of tliem; that is, he either is willing they 
 should be, or he is not willing they should be. But to will 
 that they should be, is to decree them. 
 
 ''The Arminians ridicule the distinctions between the 
 secret and revealed will of, or, more properly expressed, 
 between the decree and law of God; because we say he 
 may decree one thing and command another. However, if 
 they Avill call this a contradiction of wills, we know that 
 there is such a thing ; so that it is the greatest absurdity to 
 dispute about it. We know that God willed that Pharoah's 
 heart should be hardened, and yet that the hardness of his 
 heart was sin." (Edwards, vol. v, p. 25.) 
 
 "All the actions of men, even those which the Scripture 
 holds forth to our abhorrence, are represented as being com- 
 prehended in the great plan of Divine providence. I du 
 not mean merely that all the actions of men are foreseen 
 by God — of this the predictions in Scripture offer evidence 
 which even the Arminians admit to be incontrovertible— 
 but I mean that the actions of men are foreseen by God, 
 not as events independent of his will, but as originating in 
 his determination, and fidfilling his purpose." (Hill, vol. 
 v, p. '71. 
 
 Any number, almost, of similar quotations might be 
 added to the list, but it is unnecessary : all the standard 
 Calvinistic authors since the days of Augustine, some with 
 greater and others with less caution, express themselves 
 upon this point in about the same manner. We cannot SHy 
 60 much for their uniformity when it comes to the details 
 of explanation and defense — ^here, indeed, truth constrains 
 us to say, we find what appears to our mind great confusion, 
 perplexity, and contradiction, arising out of the difficulties 
 of the doctrine; and if we should be unfortunate in noi, 
 precisely apprehending it, I hope it will not be ascribed to 
 willful blindness, seeing that its friends differ so much in 
 regard to it. 
 
30 GOD S ETERNAL DECREES. [cHAP. II 
 
 If I understand the meaning of the above quotations at 
 all —and the language is so plain and unambiguous that it 
 would certainly be difficult to misunderstand, particularly 
 when taken in connection with other parts of the Calvinistic 
 system — it may thus be summed up : 
 
 1. Whatsoever comes to pass in time was decreed uncon- 
 ditionally and unalterably before time. 
 
 2. Whatsoever comes to pass in time, comes to pass 
 because it was decreed before time. 
 
 3. Nothing can be, but what was decreed ; and what was 
 decreed cannot fail to be ; and it cannot fail to be, because 
 decreed. 
 
 Having defined what we understand to be the doctrine 
 of decrees, as held by Presbyterians — a definition derived 
 from their own Confession of Faith, and numerous Calvin- 
 istic authors of great respectability and authority — I shall 
 now proceed to alledge objections thereto. 
 
 And, first, I object: it renders the conclusion inevitable 
 that God is the author of sin. I employ the term author 
 in the sense of originator or cause. 
 
 Do not, I pray you, turn away from this point. I know 
 it has been often urged. I know you have as steadily 
 denied it. I know, indeed, that you have expressly incor* 
 porated your protest in the article of faith itself: "God, 
 from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of 
 his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever 
 comes to pass; [and now your disclaimer,] yet so as thereby 
 neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to 
 the will of the creature." But this disclaimer by no means 
 relieves my embarrassment — it greatly increases it, by 
 placing you in the attitude, to my mind, of believing a 
 palpable contradiction, namely, that God did cause all 
 things, sin included, yet in such a way that he did not cause 
 sin. It is as though you should say, Lycurgus made all 
 the laws of Sparta, yet in such a way, that there weru 
 
CHAP. 11.] god's eternal decrees. 3J 
 
 many laws of Sparta which Lycurgus did not make. But 
 supposing that the absurdity does not strike your mind with 
 the same force it does mine — or of course you could not 
 embrace it — I shall more particularly present the reasons: 
 and perhaps you can assist me in my conclusions. 
 
 I reason thus, and the process is exceedingly brief and 
 simple: *'God decreed whatsoever comes to pass;" but sin 
 comes Id pass; therefore, God decreed sin. **What God 
 decrees, must necessarily come to pass;" but he decreed 
 sin ; therefore, sin necessarily comes to pass. " God's 
 decree is the necessity of things;" but sin is something: 
 therefore, God's decree is the necessity, or necessitating 
 cause of sin. God's decree, being from eternity, preceaes 
 all things ; and whatever is in time results from God's de- 
 cree, as its cause ; but sin is in time ; therefore, sin results 
 from God's decree, as its cause. 
 
 Let me particularize now. The doctrine is, that God 
 decreed, from eternity, whatsoever comes to pass in time — 
 and that according to his own good pleasure — every partic- 
 ular thing, event, and act. I must insist, according to this, 
 that he decreed the sin of every sinful man — nay, each 
 particular sin of each particular man, and all the sins of all 
 men, long before the human race was created ; for if there 
 be any sin which was not decreed, then something has 
 come to pass in time which was not decreed from eternity : 
 but then your system is in eiTor, when it says whatsoever 
 comes to pass in time was decreed from eternity. 
 
 Do men murder, rob, blaspheme, commit adultery, incest, 
 idolatry ? It was so decreed before they were bom : they 
 CDuM no more avoid it than they could resist the fiat of 
 Omnipotence, or subvert the purposes of the Almighty. 
 Indeed, the decree to create them was connected with a 
 decree, that when, and as certainly as, created, they should 
 commit these sins, and their creation was in order to their 
 sins. 
 
32 god's eternal decrees. [chap. ii. 
 
 Snail I be told, that, though all things come to pass b'* 
 decree, yet that the decree is not the cause of their occur- 
 rence — not the efficient reason why they occur? Then 1 
 desire to know precisely what Oalvinists mean by the terms, 
 decree, predestinate, foreordain — whether any thing can, 
 or could possibly come to pass without being decreed — 
 whether, after being decreed, any thing can fail to come to 
 pass — whether decree proceeds upon foreknowledge that 
 certain things will come to pass, and are, therefore, decreed 
 simply as certain because foreknown — whether, in a word, 
 there is any connection between God's decree and the thing 
 decreed, and what that connection is. I understand, from 
 the most respectable Calvinistic authorities, already quoted, 
 that the decree of God, and the event decreed, stand related 
 as cause and effect — that the event necessarily answers the 
 decree — that the whole universe, indeed, including all 
 beings, events, and acts, arises out of the decree or prede- 
 termination of God. This being the case, it will be per- 
 ceived, inevitably, by the simplest process of reasoning, that 
 sin results, g,s an effect, from the Divine decree, as its cause. 
 
 Shall I be told, that, though God, by his decree,' is the 
 cause of sinful acts, yet he causes not the sin of the act? 
 This seems to be the view of the expositor of the Confes- 
 sion. He says, "The decree of God is either effective or 
 permissive." He does not tell us in what sense he employs 
 the term permissive — a point I should like to have ex- 
 plained — ^but he proceeds to tell what his permissive decree 
 respects. "His effective decree respects all the good thai 
 comes to pass — his permissive decree all ihe evil that h 
 in sinful actions." Now observe: "We must distinguish 
 between actions purely as such, and the sinfulness of the 
 actions. The decree of God is effective (causal) with 
 respect to the action itself, abstractly considered ; it is 
 permissive with respect to the sinfulness of the act as a 
 moral evil." The same sentiment I find in various other 
 
CHAT. II.J god's eternal DECREES. 33 
 
 autliors; and, indeed, I find it a common and favorite mode 
 of explanation. It is thus stated by Hermin Witsius, a 
 learned German, in an elaborate defense of his favorite 
 tenets : " As these things are universally true, they may be 
 applied to ihose free actions of rational creatures in which 
 there is a moral evil inherent, namely, that creatures may le 
 determined to their actions hy the efficacious infiuence of God, 
 so far as they are actions according to their physical entity.'" 
 (The various quotations from Witsius are, with few excep- 
 tions, from book i, chap, viil, sec.-xii, to the end.) What 
 am I to understand by all this? There is a disci imination 
 between the sinful act and the sin of the act. This is 
 correct : an act and its sinfulness are certainly distinct. Sin 
 resides in the intention, not in the act. A man ruins his 
 friend, or murders his father : the question of his guilt turns 
 upon his intention. Well, then, is this the meaning of our 
 Calvinistic brethren, that, though God's decree is the effi- 
 cient cause of the sinful act, as an act, it is not the cause 
 of its sin? for the sin is in the sinner's intention in com- 
 mitting it. But, then, a question arises right here, Was not 
 the sinner's intention decreed, also, as well as the act? If 
 you answer no, then here is something which comes to pass 
 in time which was not decreed before time. If you answer 
 yes, and the sin was in the intention, then God, who was 
 the author of the intention, was the author of the sin ; for 
 the sin and the intention are the same. 
 
 Again : did not God decree that certain acts, if committed 
 ^nth certain intentions, should be sinful? but did he not, 
 also, decree that those very acts and intentions should exist? 
 If so, is he not the author of the sin, both with respect 
 • to the act and intention? If not, is not here something 
 coming to pass in time which was not decreed before time ? 
 There may be some way of escape from this difficulty: I 
 cannot myself perceive it, and must wait patiently U'Y 
 further light. 
 
34 god's eternal decrees. [chap. 11, 
 
 And again : is not intention an essential part of a mora! 
 act? Can there be a moral act without intention, as an 
 element of it ? if not, then God did not decree moral acts, 
 or he decreed the intention, with all else that constitutes 
 them moral acts. If he did not decree all moral acts, then 
 here is a class of acts which he did not decree ; and so 
 your doctrine is in error, when it asserts that he decreed all 
 things. But if he did decree all moral acts, then he decreed 
 all sins, without exceplion, and as sins, essentially with all 
 that constitutes their sin — the sin itself. 
 
 Still again : am I told that God is not the author of sin, 
 because he cannot sin — he is under no law, and, therefore, 
 he cannot transgress? Is this the idea? I believe some 
 learned Calvinists take this course to escape the difficulty. 
 If this means any thing, it must mean to discriminate be- 
 tween God's proper, personal acts, and those acts which he 
 causes other beings to put forth. In regard to the first, it 
 is not pretended that God breaks the law personally, by 
 himself personally transgressing it; but this is meant, God 
 is the author of sin in this sense : 1 . He makes a law, the 
 transgression of which is sin. 2. He places creatures under 
 the law. 3. He impels them to those acts of transgression 
 which are sinful. Thus he causes sin, by causing his crea- 
 tures to transgress the law under which they were placed. 
 The act of transgression, in this case, is God's own proper, 
 ihough not personal, act; and if there be any sin, he is not 
 only the author of the sin, but the sinner himself. This is 
 so palpable I hesitate to dwell upon it, lest it might seem 
 an imputation upon the good sense of my readers. 
 
 Will you be so kind, then, dear sir, as to tell me how you 
 escape the conclusion to which I am thus impelled — that 
 God is, in the true and proper sense, the author of sin ? 
 
 All Calvinistic authors, A\dth whose writinsfs I am con- 
 versant, perceive and admit the liability of their scheme to 
 this objection, and do their utmost to escape it ; and, I will 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 35 
 
 add, they certainly display great genius and skill, in con- 
 tending with the difficulty, and do as much to make error 
 seem like the truth as the most gifted intellects can do. 
 
 The argument may be summed up thus: Whatsoever 
 comes to pass in time, was unconditionally and unalterably 
 decreed before time. But sin comes to pass in time ; 
 therefore, sin was unconditionally — and of course purely of 
 the pleasure of God, and for its own sake — and unalterably 
 decreed before time. God's decrees are the cause of all 
 things that come to pass in time ; but sin comes to pass in 
 time ; therefore, God's decrees are the cause of sin. 
 
 What results from a decree as a necessary sequence, 
 results from the author of the decree ; but sin results from 
 the decree of God as a necessary sequence ; therefore, sin 
 results from himself. 
 
 According to this dogma, no man ever did or ever can 
 do any thing, but what it was ordained he should do from 
 eternity; to avoid which is as impossible as to overthrow 
 the decree of God, and which, if possible, would be rebel- 
 lion against God, punishable with death. When I sin, I 
 am instrumentally doing what God chose should be done 
 before I was born ; the thing I do was his choice, and he 
 made me for no other purpose but to accomplish it — decreed 
 It for me, and me for it. 
 
 From the foregoing argument I can conceive of no escape, 
 unless it be by one of the following method : 
 
 1. A denial of the premise, "God decrees whatsoever 
 comes to pass." Will Dr. Rice deny? 
 
 2. A denial that God's decree necessarily procures the 
 thing decreed. Will Dr. Rice deny ? 
 
 3. A denial that God is author of that which is solely 
 procured by his decree. Will Dr. Rice deny ? 
 
 For it is undeniable ; no skill can escape the conclusion. 
 If whatever comes to pass was decreed beforehand, and if 
 this preceding decree was the sole necessitating cause of 
 
36 god's eternal decrees. Fchap. 
 
 II. 
 
 things so decreed, then the author of the decree is tlie 
 author of all things included therein; and as all thinp's 
 that occur in time are included in the decree, and caused 
 by it, so sin, which occurs in time, was included in, and 
 caused by, the decree. It is by a process of reasoning of 
 the foregoing description, that we are impelled to the con- 
 clusion, that the Calvinistic system renders God the author 
 of sin. If we have misunderstood the system, will the 
 Doctor point out in what particular? If our reasoning 
 is illogical or unfair, will he show us in what respect? 
 
 I am only conscious of a desire to ascertain the truth, 
 and Avould not, if I could, resort to unfairness, to criminate 
 the system I oppose. And if I were capable of so un- 
 christian a disposition, I certainly could not do it success- 
 fully, observed as I am. May the great Head of the 
 Church himself give us light, and load us into the unity 
 of the faith, and the truth, as it is in Jesus ! 
 
 2. I object to the doctrine of decrees, as held by Cal- 
 vinists, in the second place, because it is inconsistent with, 
 and destructive to the free agency of man. 
 
 The opposers of Messrs. Wesley and Fletcher violently 
 assailed them on this subject. Mr. South ey informs us, in 
 his Life of Wesley, that the Calvinists called the doctrine 
 of free will "a cursed doctrine" — "the most God-dis- 
 honoring and soul-destroying doctrine" — "one of the 
 prominent features of the beast" — "the enemy of God" — 
 "the offspring of the wicked one" — "the insolent brat cf 
 hell." 
 
 But if they had nowhere admitted it, but in all cases 
 strongly denied it, as I suppose you do, still the difficulty 
 would remain ; for it grows out of your doctrines inevitably, 
 and is in no sense affected by your admissions or denials. 
 It is to no purpose that you tell me, " God, from eternity, 
 unconditionally and unalterably decreed Avhatsoever comea 
 to pass, yet so as tliereby violence is not offered to tho 
 
CUAF. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 37 
 
 will of the creature," becciuse this again strikes my mind 
 only in the light of a contradiction. It is as though you 
 told nie God determined what each distinct volition should 
 necessarily be, yet in such a sense that any volition might 
 have been different from what it is — it is necessarily what 
 it is — it is not necessaj'ily what it is. 
 
 But, not to consume your time with what may be con- 
 sidered my own representations of your views upon this 
 point, let me refer to authorities, high in your esteem, and 
 of unquestionable information. 
 
 "Neither does God only excite and predetermine the 
 will of men to vicious actions, so far as they are aetions, 
 hut he likewise so excites it, that it is not j^ossible but, thus 
 acted upon, it shall act.'' (Witsius.) 
 
 ** Moreover, as a second cause cannot act, unless acted 
 upon, and previously moved to act, by the predetermining 
 mfluence of the first, so, in like manner, that influence of 
 the first cause is so efficacious, as that, supposing it, the 
 second cause cannot but act." (Witsius.) 
 
 It would certainly be very inexcusable to misunderstand 
 these quotations, so clearly and definitely expressed as they 
 are; and scarcely less inexcusable not to admire the sturdy 
 candor of their learned author in so plainly delivering him- 
 self upon such a point. 
 
 Second causes, among which he reckons the human will, 
 cannot act, unless, and only as acted upon — when acted 
 upon they must act. This was saying much ; but, to let 
 us know that he was fully apprised of the consequences, 
 he goes still further. Not only does God excite the will 
 of men to vicious actions, but, thus excited, it is not possi- 
 ble it shall fail to act— it is under inexorable necessity. 
 
 In the Old and New Divinity Compared, I read, "For 
 if God does not possess such absolute control over his 
 creatures, that he can govern them according to his pleas- 
 ure, how could he have decreed any thing unconditionally 
 
38 god's eternal decrees. [chap. ii. 
 
 concerning them, since it might happen, that, in the exercise 
 of their free agency, they would act contrary to the Divine 
 purpose ?" 
 
 If this paragraph means any thing, it plainly means that 
 unconditional decrees and free agency are irreconcilable; 
 and as all things are unconditionally decreed, according to 
 the system, there can, of course, be no free agency. 
 
 In the trial of Dr. Beecher, Dr. Beecher accuses Dr. 
 Wilson as follows : '' Dr. Wilson has made a distinct avowal 
 that free agency and moral obligation to obey law, do not 
 ifbclude any ahility of any kind.''^ To which Dr. Wilson 
 replied directly in so many words, "With respect to fallen 
 man I do!" "Now," says Dr. Wilson, "let us look at the 
 doctrine of the Confession with this principle in view, that 
 the state of the man determines the will. The will is always 
 at liberty : choice is an effect always, and not a cause ! It is 
 always produced freely. There is no such thing as bound 
 will. Hence, all do what is good or evil voluntarily, ic 
 view of a motive, and according to the state of mind in 
 which they are. Take man in a state of innocence. God 
 made him upright; in his own image; his choice is free, 
 and he chooses what is right ; but not from any 'power in 
 the will. The will, as I have said, has no power to operate 
 on any thing but the body. His uprightness was in the 
 right state of the affections, and the luminous state of the 
 understanding — in the correct state of the memorj^, and in 
 his entire moral rectitude in the divine image. His will 
 was free to do good while no temptation was presented to it. 
 He had no motive but his accountableness to God, and his 
 love to God. His will operated according to the state of 
 the man. But now look at him in another state — the state 
 of temptation. Motives are now presented to him by the 
 arch tempter, but not to his will at all ; they are presented 
 to his understanding and appetites — to his taste for beauty. 
 ^J'hc fruit is pleasant to the eye; and what was the effect? 
 
cnAv. II.] god's eternal decrees. 89 
 
 The will was not trapped in any other way than this : the 
 temptation addressed to these powers was so strong, that 
 it overcame the dictates of judgment, and the man chose 
 wrong. Volition moves the body: the mind moves the 
 will; and the mind is moved by that without, which is 
 adapted to its constitution." Now who moved that with- 
 out, and made the constitution? 
 
 The foregoing is the language of Dr. Wilson, who, for 
 forty years, occupied the First Presbyterian Church in 
 this city, and during his long life a prominent man in 
 the Church of the west: certainly, for ability and oppor- 
 tunity, inferior to none of his school, and therefore as 
 reliable an exponent as any other. But now observe his 
 honest and candid admission, on an occasion when, of all 
 others, he would be most accurate, and on a point where 
 he would be most critically prepared: "Free agency and 
 moral obligation to obey law, [with respect to fallen man,] 
 do not include any ability of any IcindP^ According to 
 this, free agency, as held by Calvinists, does not include 
 ability of any kind. A man is a free agent, though he 
 have no power at all ! He is also responsible to obey law, 
 though he have no ability of any kind to do so ! 
 
 But he more fully unfolds his view, as above, and no 
 one can read the quotation, it seems to me, without sympa- 
 thizing with the sincere and able author, in the manifest 
 confusion and self-contradictions in which he involves him- 
 self. "The will is always at liberty;" yet its choice is 
 always caused by a foreign agent! "When the mind 
 chooses it always chooses freely;" yet it has no kind of 
 ability whatever, but is ruled by the motives in every case ! 
 "There is no such thing as bound will;" but it is always 
 an effect, and not a cause ! Observe, further, his philoso- 
 phy of the will. Dr. Wilson carries back beyond or behind 
 the fall. Of man, in innocence, he says, "His will was 
 free to do good while no temptation was 2'>'i'€Sinted to it;^* 
 
40 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 but what is implied in this? When temptation came, 
 the will was not free to do good, but bound to do evii, 
 or to yield! This, indeed, he does not leave us to infer, 
 but expressly s'tates that the temptation presented to the 
 first pair was such that it overcame, by its strength, the 
 mmd — " the mind moves the will, and was itself moved by 
 that without;" and thus man fell under the force of a 
 temptation, which he had no power to resist. He fell, 
 therefore, when, under the circumstances, he had no power 
 to stand ! And yet he Avas free in doing what he had no 
 power to avoid ! 
 
 1-. The expositor of the Confession, in his notes on the 
 article respecting the will, holds this language: "Accord- 
 ing to Calvinists, the liberty of a moral agent consists in 
 the power of acting according to his choice; and those 
 actions are free Avhich are performed without external 
 compulsion — physical compulsion — in consequence of the 
 determination of his own mind. The necessity of man's 
 willing and acting, according to his apprehension and dis- 
 position, is, in their opinion, fully consistent with the high- 
 est libei'ty which can belong to a rational nature. 
 As nothing can ever come to pass without a cause, the 
 acts of the will are never without necessity — understanding, 
 by necessity, an infallible connection with something fore- 
 going." This I understand to be the doctrine of all Cal- 
 vinists respecting the will of man, as well before as since 
 the fall ; it is often expressed in stronger language. 
 
 Now, this view of the will utterly discards this idea of 
 liberty — power to choose either of two alternatives. Here 
 is the real point of difference between us and them : with 
 them liberty is necessity to choose one way according to 
 the motive, but not power to make an opposite choice: 
 with us it is a power to choose either of the various alter- 
 natives presented to the mind. Now, upon their doctrine 
 of the will, 1 base an argument that its decisions are 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 41 
 
 necessitated, and not free; a^, hence, that it is absurd 
 for a Calvinist to contend for freedom. Take a man in 
 a state of innocence — for we desire to give the advocates 
 of tlie system the most favorable opportunity to defend 
 themselves — the question is. Was man capacitated with 
 freedom to stand or fall, in the circumstances ? And, ac- 
 cording to the Calvinian system, the answer must be, he 
 was not • for he was so constituted that he must yield to 
 the prevailing disposition or strongest motive. He could 
 not avoid this — it was his nature. He had no control of 
 these motives, and when they came upon him he as neces- 
 sarily was moved by them, as the needle is moved to the 
 pole ; it matters not that he chose to move with the influ- 
 ence ; for the want of liberty and the fact of necessity were 
 found in the circumstance, that he had no control of his 
 choice : he made his choice necessarily. 
 
 j^ow, I ask Dr. Rice, what does control the choice ? He 
 must answer, whatever goes to constitute the prevailing 
 motive. But then I ask, who controls and governs these 
 motives ? And he must answer, that all things are arranged 
 and governed by God himself : God controls the motives : 
 the motives control the man. He sins, necessitated by the 
 motive. And, now, where do we find the first cause ? Kot 
 in the choice ; for it was an effect : not in the motives ; for 
 they were under the government and control of God. Here, 
 then, we trace the operations of man's will back to God : 
 not as permitted, but procured. If the Calvinists can trace 
 it beyond God, they may free their system from making 
 God the first cause of sin ! 
 
 Thomas Aquinas, quoted with approval by Witsius, says, 
 *' It is essential to the first principle, that it can act without 
 the assistance and influence of a prior agent; so that, if 
 the human will could produce any action, of which God 
 was not author, the human will would have the nature of a 
 nrst principle. . . . Nor does God only concur with tlie 
 
 4 
 
42 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 jictions of second causes, when they act, but, also, mfluences 
 the causes themselves to act." 
 
 " Calvinists contend that, as nothing can ever come to 
 pass without a cause, the acts of the will are never contin- 
 gent, or without necessity — understanding, by necessity, a 
 necessity of consequence, or an infallible connection Avitli 
 something foregoing." (Expositor of the Confession.) 
 
 This is plain language. The will never acts but as neces- 
 sitated by a foregoing cause, infalhbly producing the act. 
 That foregoing cause was decreed by the divine Being, to 
 produce that precise volition ; and it produced it with all 
 the certainty of a necessary effect. That is, the will is free 
 to act in agreement with the irresistible bias of a necessi- 
 tating cause. 
 
 This is the same scheme, if I understand them, taught by 
 Mr. Edwards, and his numerous admirers, in their fruitless 
 effort to reconcile freedom and necessity. " The plain and 
 obvious meaning of the words, freedom and libert}^" says 
 Edwards, "is power, opportunity, or advantage, that any 
 one has to do as he pleases." But he also teaches us thai 
 the vohlion is necessary — his will or particular choice, 
 whatever it may be, is necessarily determined by motive, 
 and the motive is fixed b}^ decree ; so that, though a man 
 do as he pleases, he is not free, because he cannot please 
 to do otherwise, and by necessity, as stern as the most 
 absolute compulsion, chooses as he does. "This doctrine 
 is identical with fatalism, in its worst form. All that fatal- 
 ism ever has maintained, or now maintains, is, that men, by 
 a power which they cannot control or resist, are placed in 
 circumstances in which they cannot but pursue the course 
 of conduct which they actually are pursuing. This doctrme 
 never has assumed that in the necessitarian sense men 
 cannot do as they please. All that it maintains is, that 
 they cannot but please to do as they do." 
 
 "It is altogether futile, then, to talk about free agency 
 
riiAP. 11 j god's eternal decrees. 43 
 
 under such a constitution ; the very spring of motion to the 
 whole intellectual machinery, is under the influence of a 
 secret, invincible power; and it must move as that power 
 directs, for it is the hand of Omnipotence that urges it on. 
 lie can act as he wills, it is true ; but the whole responsi- 
 bility consists in the volition, and this is the result of God's 
 propelling power. He wills as he is made to will. He 
 chooses as he must choose; for the immutable decree of 
 Jehovah is upon him. And can a man, upon the known 
 principles of responsibility, be accountable for such a voli- 
 tion? It is argued, I know, that man is responsible because 
 he feels that he acts freely, and that he might have done 
 otherwise. To this I reply, that this is a good argument, 
 on our principle, to prove that men are free; but on the 
 Calvinistic ground, it only proves that God hath deceived 
 us. He has made us feel that we might do otherwise, but 
 he knows Ave cannot — he has determined we shall not ; so 
 that, in fact, this argument makes the system more objec- 
 tionable. While it does not change the fact in the case, it 
 attributes deception to the Almighty. It is logically true, 
 therefore, from this doctrine, that man is not a free agent, 
 and therefore not responsible." "A man chooses what 
 appears to be good," says Mr. Dick, "and he chooses it 
 necessarily, in this sense, that he could not do otherwise. 
 The object of every volition is to please himself; and to 
 suppose a man to have any other object, that is, to will any 
 thing that does not please him in itself, or in its circum- 
 stances, is absurd : it is to suppose him to will and not to 
 W\\\, at the same time. He is perfectly voluntary in his 
 choice; hut his ivillingness is the consequence of the view 
 which his mind takes of the object 2^'>'esented to it, or of his 
 vrevailiny dis2Josition. 
 
 "Those actions are free which are the effect of volition. 
 In whatever manner the state of mind which gave rise to 
 the volition has been produced, the liberty of the agent is 
 
44 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 neither greater nor less. It is the will alone which is to be 
 considered, and not the means by which it has been deter- 
 mined. If God foreordained certain actions, and placed 
 men in such circumstances that the actions would certainly 
 take place, agreeably to the laws of the mind, men are, 
 nevertheless, moral agents, because they act voluntarily, 
 and are responsible for the actions which consent has made 
 their own. Liberty does not consist in the power of acting 
 01 not acting, but in acting from choice. The choice is 
 determined by something in the mind itself, or by something 
 external influencing the mind; but whatever is the cause, 
 the choice makes the action free, and the agent accountable. 
 If this definition of liberty be admitted, you will perceive 
 that it is possible to reconcile the freedom of the will with 
 absolute decrees ; but we have not got rid of every difficulty. 
 By this theory, human actions appear to he as necessary as 
 the motions of matter, according to the laios of gravitation 
 and attraction : and man seems to he a machine, conscious of 
 his movements, and consenting to them, hut impelled hy some- 
 thing different from himself.'^ 
 
 This is the deplorable conclusion to which Mr. Dick 
 himself comes. And his only effort to extricate himself is 
 this: "Upon such a subject no man should be ashamed to 
 acknowledge his ignorance." Several things are remarkable 
 in this paragraph. 1. Liberty and necessity are the same 
 thing. 2. Man is accountable for his actions, though he is 
 a machine, and is under a necessity, as that of matter to 
 obey gravitation. The honesty of the reasoner must be 
 admired, while his sophistry is a matter of marvel. 
 
 Of the same import is the following, which I quote from 
 an author admired more than any other, perhaps, at the 
 present time — Dr. Chalmers: "Every step of every indi- 
 vidual character receives as de'terminate a character from 
 the hand of God, as every mile of a planet's orbit, or every 
 gust of wind, or every wave of the sea, or every particle 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 4b 
 
 of flying dust, or every rivulet of flowing water. This 
 power of God knows no exceptions; it is absolute and 
 unlimited. And while it embraces the vast, it carries its 
 resistless influences to all the minute and unnoticed diver- 
 sities of existence. It reigns and operates through all the 
 secrecies of the inner man. It ffives birth to every imrjpose ; 
 it gives impulse to every desire ; it gives shape and color to 
 every conception ; it wields an entire ascendency over every 
 attribute of the mind : and the will, and the fancy, and the 
 understanding, with all the countless variety of their hidden 
 and fugitive operations, are submitted to it. It gives move- 
 ment and direction through every point of our pilgrim- 
 age. At no moment of time does it abandon us. It follows 
 us to the hour of death, and it carries us to our place, and 
 to our everlasting destiny in the regions beyond it!" 
 
 I confess I cannot conceive of a stronger assertion of 
 fatalism, with respect to man and things, than is contained 
 in the foregoing remarkable quotations. All mental and 
 physical processes, from the first Hnk to the end of the 
 chain, are connected together in the relation of cause and 
 effect. 
 
 No man can choose differently from what he does ; and 
 as he acts from his volitions, he cannot act differently from 
 what he does — it is all fixed by inexorable necessity. Is 
 such a being free? Is this the liberty of man? If this 
 be moderate Calvinism, what must it be in the ultra, high- 
 toned type ? 
 
 If any thing further should be esteemed necessary upon 
 this point, a few selections from Dr. Emmons, a distin- 
 guished divine of New England, and author of an elaborate 
 work on theology, may supply the demand. He says, 
 ** Since the Scriptures ascribe all the actions of men to God. 
 as well as to themselves, we may justly conclude that the 
 Divine o.gency is as much concerned in their had as their good 
 actions. Many are disposed to make a distinction here, and 
 
46 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 to ascribe only tlie good actions of men to the Divine 
 agency, while they ascribe their bad ones to the Divine 
 permission. But there appears no ground for this distinc- 
 tion in Scripture or reason. Men are no more capable of 
 acting independently of God, in one instance, than another. 
 If they need any kind or degree of Divine agency in doing 
 good, they need precisely the same kind and degree of 
 Divine agency in doing evil. 
 
 '* But there was no possible way in which he could 
 dispose them to act right or wrong, but only by producing 
 right or wrong volitions in their hearts. And if he pro- 
 duced their bad as well as good vohtions, then his agency 
 was concerned in precisely the same manner in their wrong 
 as in their right actions. His agency in making them act, 
 necessarily connects his agency and theirs together, and 
 lays a solid foundation for ascribing their actions either to 
 him or them, or to both. 
 
 " But, since mind cannot act any more than matter can 
 move, without a Divine agency, it is absurd to suppose that 
 men can be left to the freedom of their own will, to act or 
 not to act, independently of Divine influence. There must, 
 therefore, be the exercise of Divine agency in every human 
 action. 
 
 " By this invisible agency upon the minds, he governs all 
 their views, all their thoughts, all their determinations, and 
 all their volitions, just as he pleases, and just according to 
 his secret will, which they neither know beforehand, nor can 
 resist, evade, or frustrate." 
 
 Thus we prove upon the system both that it makes 
 God the author of sin, and destroys the free agency 
 of man. 
 
 These quotations show v/hat Calvinists themselves teach 
 upon the subject in dispute. They are not our deductions, 
 but their own propositions — not our misrepresentations of 
 their views, but their own carefully-studied and woll-consid- 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 4*1 
 
 ered declarations. They are precisely the inferences we 
 should have made from the premise work of their system ; 
 but they have saved us the trouble and responsibihty, by 
 candidly acknowledging themselves. 
 
 And now the argument stands thus : Man can only will 
 as he is moved by Divine agency; and when moved by 
 Divine agency he cannot but will; so, therefore, when 
 man wills it is not a free, but a necessitated act. What a 
 man wills he wills not freely, but he wills because another, 
 by invisible power, irresistibly compels him to will. It is 
 not his own act, but it is an act of which he is made the 
 passive subject, by another operating through him, and a 
 power entirely separate from himself. 
 
 He chooses as he does — as necessarily as matter yields 
 to the law of gravitation — and he is no more free in his 
 choice than the earth is in its revolutions. The choice he 
 makes is no more his free act, than the tendency of the 
 needle to the pole is its free act. It makes no difference 
 that choice is supposed in one case and not in the other, 
 because choice is an effect of a cause entirely out of the 
 man, and independent of him, and so, of course, cannot be 
 his act. 
 
 Doctor, I wish you would help me here. My difficult}^ 
 as you will perceive, is at this point, to know how a man is 
 free in willing, when at the same time his particular exer- 
 cise of will is an effect of which he is the coerced instru- 
 ment. Will you tell me how this is ? 
 
 3. I object to the doctrine, in the third place, because it 
 destroys the accountability of man. 
 
 This proposition is so nearly identical v^itli the former, if 
 not entirely so, that it only requires to be stated. Freedom 
 and liberty, I believe all admit, are essential to account- 
 ability ; and hence the well-grounded apprehension of our 
 Oalvinistic brethren, at the imputation, that their doctrine 
 is destructive to freedom of agency. 
 
48 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 " To conceive of beings deserving praise or blame," says 
 Dr. Fisk, " for volitions or actions, which occurred under 
 circumstances over which they had no control, and under 
 which no other volitions or actions were possible, and in 
 which these could not but happen, is an absolute impossi- 
 bility. To conceive them under obhgation to have given 
 existence, under such circumstances, to different conse- 
 quents, is equally impossible. It is to suppose an agent 
 under obligation to perform an absolute and intrinsic im- 
 possibihty. Let any individual conceive of beings placed 
 by divine Providence in circumstances in which but one 
 act, or series of acts of will, can arise, and these cannot 
 but arise — let him then attempt to conceive of these crea- 
 tures as under obligations, in the same circumstances over 
 which they have no control, to give existence to different 
 and opposite acts, and as deserving of punishment for not 
 doing so. He will find it impossible to pass such a judg- 
 ment — human intelligence is incapable of affirming such 
 contradictions." 
 
 Thus, by sapping the foundations of free agency, it, at 
 the same time, destroys human accountability, releases man 
 from all obligation, and renders God the only responsible 
 being in the universe. 
 
 I would not press illegitimate results upon your system, 
 to give you the trouble of examining, and the unpleasant 
 task of refuting and correcting them ; but these, which I 
 present, strike me as so plain and inevitable, and of such 
 force, that you must excuse me for urging them upon your 
 notice. This point — how am I to escape it ? 
 
 You tell me, that whatever I do, during my whole exist- 
 ence, comes to pass by a decree of God — which decree is 
 the necessitating cause of things. Now, a question here: 
 Am I accountable for doing what, by decree, I am com- 
 pelled to do ? or is the author of the decree accountable ? 
 that is, is the agent or instrument responsible ? It will not 
 
CHAP. ii.J god's eternal decrees. 49 
 
 do. Doctor, to tell me, that, though the decree must be 
 complied with, yet that I comply freely, inasmuch as I, of 
 choice, do the thing decreed ; because you have told me 
 before, that ray choice is, also, wrought in me, directly or 
 indirectly, by the same great Being whose decree binds 
 me — I am not the author of the choice, but the passive 
 instrument of it. Am I accountable when I do nothing 
 but what I am caused to do, by omnipotent agency exerted 
 upon me ? 
 
 Do I sin against God when I make the very choice 
 which he works in me? when I do the act which that 
 choice dictates ? And, when I could not have made another 
 choice, or performed another act, to save the universe, must 
 I be damned for ever, for doing a thing I could not help 
 but do? and must I thus be damned by the very being 
 who made me, and necessitated the act for which he thus 
 destroys me ? I desire a plain answer upon these points ? 
 You cannot fail to perceive where my difficulties lie, with 
 respect to your system; and you can easily show, either 
 hoAv they do not bear on the system, or how I may escape 
 the inference, or that the inference is not objectionable. 
 
 If Dr. Rice denies that God decreed the existence of 
 sin, then he abandons and denies his Confession, which 
 declares that " God, from all eternity, did, by the most 
 wise and holy counsel of his own free will, freely and un- 
 changeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." If he 
 denies that the decree is the efficient cause of the thing 
 decreed, he antagonizes various authors, quoted in the com- 
 mencement of this chapter, and particularly Calvin, who 
 says, with Augustine, " The decree of God is the necessity, 
 or necessitating cause, of things ;" and, in that case, we hope 
 the Doctor will explain to us what he means by decree — what 
 relation it has to the thing decreed. For the arguments sus- 
 taining this objection against the Calvinistic system, I refer 
 Dr. Rice to my preceding remarks, to which I desire him to 
 
 5 
 
60 god's eternal decrees. [chap. It. 
 
 give n, careful consideration, and then, to point out to me 
 wherein they fail to sustain the conclusion. He admits, 
 equally with mj^self, if the objection is made good, his 
 system is false ; for he alledges precisely the same objec- 
 tion against another system as an insuperable difficulty — as 
 an entirely sufficient reason for discarding it as utterly false. 
 Now, either he and I are at fault, in employing the objec- 
 tion against Universalism, or, if sustained against Dr. Rice*8 
 system, he is equally bound, with myself, to discard the 
 system so embarrassed ; and if not sustained, he will, by so 
 much as he loves truth and deprecates error, point out in 
 what respect it fails. 
 
 It will not answer to tell me these things have been often 
 explained, nor yet to deny, or refer to antagonistic pro- 
 fessions and disclaimers — the thing we demand, is to have 
 it pointed out how the system can escape the logical conse- 
 quences we have produced against it. If our logic is good, 
 the system is bad ; if the system is good, our logic is bad. 
 It is a plain point — will the Doctor make his election ? 
 
 Dr. Rice alledges, as an objection to Universalism, that 
 its advocates " are forced to deny the free agency of man, 
 and to maintain that all his actions are necessary." In 
 proof that this is the case, he quotes from Mr. Ballou, 
 "Man is dependent in all his volitions, and moved by 
 necessity." This he esteems a sufficient objection against 
 Universalism, and I agree with him. But I charge Calvin- 
 ism with including precisely the same doctrine, and refer, 
 for the proof of this charge, to the evidence already ad- 
 duced. Will Dr. Ptice extricate his system ? 
 
 This same objection he urges against phrenology, in his 
 work upon that subject. He says this system *' denies his 
 [man's] free, moral agency, and makes him alike mcapablo 
 Df virtue or vice." This objection is argued at length, and 
 insisted upon as an insuperable difficulty. He is right. 
 But T charge precisely the same difficulty upon his system — 
 
CHAP. II.] GOD S ETERNAL DECREES. 61 
 
 both that it " denies free, moral agency," and destro}'^ 
 the distinction between " vice and virtue." He says of 
 man, in the hght of this system, " He is under a physical 
 necessity to act in accordance with the promptings of his 
 cerebral organization, and is incapable of either virtue or 
 vice." Now I charge his system with placing man under a 
 necessity, as stern as that which phrenology teaches ; and, 
 consequently, as certainly destroying both his agency and 
 accountability. I have been astonished to find that free 
 agency is a favorite doctrine with Dr. Rice ; and I now ask 
 him to reconcile it with his system ; and if it cannot be 
 done, admit either that he believes a palpable contradiction, 
 or set aside his system or this doctrine. 
 
 4. By destroying the agency and accountability of man, 
 I charge the system further, with destroying the moral 
 character of human acts and volitions — with rendering 
 the terms, vice and virtue, good and bad, as conveying 
 the idea of moral quality — not predicable of man. If 
 the system be true, man is no more a moral being. Do 
 what he may, he is not \^cious — he is incapable to be 
 virtuous. He never sins — he cannot ; nor the opposite. 
 
 This is so plain to my own mind, that I do not see how 
 it can escape your observation. To argue it, would almost 
 be a reflection upon my readers. It would be to attempt 
 to produce conviction, by argument, of a truth, which I 
 firmly believe no human mind can deny, namely, that a 
 person cannot be worthy of praise or blame, for an act 
 over which he has not, and never had, any control what- 
 ever. Now, sir, I do not believe that any human intelli- 
 gence can affirm such a proposition. Morality supposes 
 agency — the system, by inevitable deduction, denies it; 
 and the two fall together. A greater absurdity can 
 scarcely be imagined, than to affirm a man to be virtuous 
 for an act, the choice and performance of which were 
 coerced upon him — the contrary of which he could not 
 
£2 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 have performed, any more than he could usurp the place 
 of the Almighty, and the thing itself he performed only 
 as a passive instrument, operated upon and compelled by 
 Omnipotence. Vice and virtue, which can only be pred- 
 icated of the free original cause, cannot be affirmed of 
 man; but all vice and all virtue, if there be any such 
 thing, according to the system, have God as their centre, 
 or that fate, which the system, as we shall show in due 
 f.ime, more than intimates, is above Jehovah. 
 
 I find, in casting my eye over Dr. Rice's discussion with 
 Mr. Pingree, several things bearing directly on the points 
 to which I have invited his attention. 
 
 His fifth article against Universalism is, " That it makes 
 God the author, or cause, of all the sin in the world." 
 He alledges this is a sufficient reason for discarding the 
 system. In this I perfectly agree with him. I also admit 
 that he sustains the objection with unanswerable arguments 
 against Universalism. But now I object precisely the same 
 thing to Dr. Rice's system. I think I have sustained the 
 objection with unanswerable arguments. Will the Doctor 
 show me wherein, if at all, my argument is at fault? And, 
 if not at fault, will he show why he allows the objection to 
 be of sufficient force to set aside one system, and not 
 another equally involved ? 
 
 The proof he adduces, that Universalism renders God 
 the author of sin, is thus stated : " Universalism maintains 
 that sin proceeds from physical causes, inherent in the 
 human constitution, as it came from the hand of God.** 
 This Dr. Rice denounces "a revolting and blasphemous 
 doctrine." But why so? Why revolting and blasphe- 
 mous? Simply, because it renders God the author of 
 fiin; in this sense, that sin proceeds from physical causes, 
 inherent in the human constitution, which constitution God 
 made. 
 
 Now, I ask Dr. Rice, does not he maintain that God as 
 
CBAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 63 
 
 ibsolutely created or caused sin as the system lie discards ? 
 That system attributes the authorship of sin to God, by 
 asserting that sin inheres in the nature of man; and God 
 created the nature, and so caused sin. 
 
 Dr. Rice maintains that God actually decreed the exist- 
 ence of sin, and that his decree was the cause of its exist- 
 ence; so much so, that it could not but be, being decreed, 
 and could not have been without being decreed. 
 
 Dr. Rice says, "One of the clearest truths in mental 
 philosophy is, that man is a free, moral agent, and, there- 
 fore, an accountable being. It is a truth to which tlie 
 consciousness of every individual bears testimony the most 
 unequivocal." With this sentiment I fully accord; but I 
 charge upon Dr. Rice that he has embraced a system 
 which denies this clearest and most important of truths, 
 to which human consiousness bears unequivocal testimony ; 
 and my reasons for so charging his system have been 
 heretofore presented, (pages 36-48.) Will he show me 
 how to escape the force of these reasons ? 
 
 I beg the Doctor to believe me -sincere, in asking for 
 light upon these points. I find him discarding two systems 
 of opinions, for the reasons that they make God the author 
 of sin, and that they are inconsistent with the free agency 
 and accountabihty of man. These he esteems sufficient 
 reason for rejecting; so do I. But now I find that he, 
 after all, embraces a system, which I firmly beheve is beset 
 with the same difficulties: my reasons for this belief are 
 already given. If I am right in my view of his system, he 
 Is guilty of inexcusable inconsistency; if I am wrono-, in 
 en-or, my reasonings are incorrect. And now I ask the 
 Doctor to set me right. 
 
 5. "I object further: if this doctrine be true, at the 
 final judgment the conscience and intelligence of the uni- 
 verse will and must be on the side of the condemned. 
 
 ''Suppose that, when the conduct of the wicked sliall 
 
54 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II, 
 
 be revealed in that day, another fact shall stand out with 
 equal conspicuousness, namely, that God himself hath 
 placed these beings where but one course of conduct was 
 possible to them, and that course they could not but 
 pursue ; and that, for having pursued this course — the only 
 one possible — they are now to be punished with everlasting 
 destruction, from the presence of God and the glory of 
 his power, must not the intelligence of the universe pro- 
 nounce such sentence unjust?" Heaven and hell would 
 equally revolt at it, and all rational beings conspire to 
 execrate the almighty monster capable of such a pro- 
 cedure. Convince the universe that such is the character, 
 and will ultimately be the conduct of God, and he can no 
 more be worshiped, but with hypocrisy, or even con- 
 templated, but with dread, detestation, and abhorrence. 
 I appeal to the consciousness of man — to the philosophy 
 of our nature — to all known processes of thought and 
 feeling — if such would not necessarily be the verdict of 
 humanity. They that enter into heaven, and they that de- 
 part to hell, from a judgment-seat where such a principle 
 determines destiny, must go bearing the same sentiment — 
 the same feeling of disgust and horror of the gigantic 
 tyranny ruling over them. Hell would be a refuge from 
 the presence of such a being — its woes a respite from the 
 deeper alarms of his hated and dreaded intercourse. 
 
 In the name of Christianity, I protest against a principle 
 involving such blasphemy. It is impossible that the ever- 
 blessed God should be remotely liable, by any thing he 
 has done — by any thing discoverable in his works — by any 
 revelations he has made, either of his character or plans, 
 to such an imputation. Thou glorious Ruler of the uni- 
 verse, what blasphemy of thy blessed name can equal this 
 for enormity — to charge that, for the glory of thy sover- 
 eignty, and to manifest thy power, thou art now damning 
 millions of helpless creatures in hell for ever, for no cause, 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 55 
 
 but doing precisely what thou didst compel them to do, 
 and what they could not possibly avoid ! 
 
 6. Nay, more : I charge the doctrine, not only with 
 putting a plea in the sinner's mouth, at the day of judg- 
 ment, but, also, with furnishing him with a plea, when he 
 is brought before earthly courts, to answer for his crimes. 
 These, indeed — earthly courts — if Calvinism is true, are 
 only lesser parts of the stupendous economy of tyranny. 
 What justice is there in any power on earth — what right, 
 to try, condemn, and punish men, for any of their acts, if 
 they could not, by any possibility, avoid them — if they 
 were impelled thereto by almighty fate? You do not 
 condemn the gun for shooting the man — the avalanche 
 for burying the city — the falling tree for crushing the 
 traveler; but, according to Calvinism, in Mr. Dick's own 
 language, man is as merely passive in the hands of over- 
 ruling power. Why punish him for murder, for arson, 
 or any grade of crime? He is the author of no choice — 
 the sovereign of no act; he is but the instrument of an 
 invisible agent — moving as moved upon, without power 
 of resistance. He is the original in no movement of his 
 life, from the cradle to the grave. Why, in the name of 
 humanity, punish him ? 
 
 '7. I object to the system further, as involving, by in- 
 evitable consequence, a most dreadful aspersion of the 
 character of God. It gives me no pleasure to prefer 
 such a charge as this against a system, many of whose 
 advocates I dearly love and greatly admire ; and, I will 
 Bay, much less does it give me pleasure to find so much 
 evidence that the charge is well founded. But I do so. 
 Doctor, that you may see how other minds view your 
 system, and that you may disabuse them, if in error. 
 
 (1.) The system holds, as I think has been clearly shown, 
 that God is the sole, original, voluntary author of sin — that 
 he chose its existence when as yet it did not exist, and 
 
66 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 decreed it when, but for his decree, it never could have 
 been — thus declaring that he preferred some sin to universal 
 holiness, if, indeed, his own decree was his choice — thus 
 insulting the purity and holiness of God — making him, not, 
 indeed, the most holy, but the only unholy being in the 
 universe — the cause and source of all impurity, as he is the 
 cause of all creatures. 
 
 (2.) It asperses the goodness and benevolence of God, 
 and invests him with all the attributes of sheer cruelty and 
 maliciousness; because it holds that he made the universe 
 as it is, and, for his own pleasure and glory, plunged it 
 himself into all the miseries, temporal and eternal, which it 
 endures, or is to endure. It will not do to tell me, that 
 these miseries are the just punishments of sins, for you told 
 me he caused the sins ; and if he caused them, and damns 
 the universe for them, it renders the cruelty more revolting. 
 
 (3.) It asperses the justice of God; for it tells me, that 
 God will destroy many of his creatures in hell for ever, 
 with unimaginable torments, for not performing absolute 
 impossibilities, and for doing acts which were utterly una- 
 voidable — acts which he himself caused. What would be 
 the difference between consisfninsf innumerable bcinc^s into 
 hell for ever, who had never put forth a wrong volition, or 
 pei-formed a wrong action, and making them, by Omnipotent 
 agency, first perpetrate these wrongs, and then, upon this 
 pretense, damn them, as supposed in the former case ? Can 
 this be just? 
 
 (4.) The system asperses the truthfulness and sincerity 
 of God — making him to pretend to be of one mind, when 
 he is precisely of an opposite — clothing him with all the 
 lothsorae proofs of trickery, and hypocrisy, and duphcity, 
 for the purpose of deceiving his hapless creatures as to his 
 own character, and the reasons of his conduct in respect to 
 tliem. It arrays his secret and his revealed will in unavoid- 
 ;».ble and open conflict — the one in unmitigated opposition 
 
CHAP. II. I GOD*S ETERNAL DECREES. 57 
 
 to the other. He commands one thing, and wills precisely 
 another — enjoins upon certain creatures to do those things, 
 which he not only knows 'they cannot do, but, also, what ho 
 does not will they should do — nay, what he wills they 
 should not do. It puts in his mouth the language, " I have 
 no pleasure in the death of him that dieth," when, in fact, 
 they die for his pleasure — makes him to plead and remon- 
 strate with them, as if he would dissuade them from their 
 sin and ruin, when, in fact, he is the very being who urges 
 them irresistibly on to sin and ruin. He commands one 
 thing and decrees precisely the contrary. He commands 
 the sinner to repent, but decrees he shall not. Well, now, 
 when he commands the sinner to repent, either he wills that 
 the sinner should obey and repent, or he does not — if he 
 does not, then he commands the sinner to do what he does 
 not will he should, or he commands him to violate his will ; 
 which command, if the sinner were to obey, he would damn 
 him for ever for violating his will, but, if he does not obey, 
 he will damn him for ever for violating his command. But, 
 agfain: if the command indicates the will of God, so, also, 
 does the decree, or it does not — if it does not, then God 
 has decreed, or purposed, or willed, that that should come 
 to pass, which he did not will should come to pass. But, 
 if his decree is his will, and his command is his will, and 
 these are opposite the one to the other, then God has two 
 opposing wills, or a will in opposition to itself. His will is 
 always done ; and why, then, does he punish one and damn 
 another, when both alike and equally accomphshed his 
 will ? What havoc such a theory makes with the character 
 and government of God ! 
 
 Is this so? "Is God at w^ar with himself, or is he 
 sporting and trifling with his creatures? A character so 
 suspicious, to say the least of it, ought not, without the 
 most unequivocal evidence, to be attributed to the adora- 
 ble Jehovah. In his word we are taught that *he is of one 
 
58 god's eternal decrees. [chap. II. 
 
 mind ' — that ' his ways are equal ;' and who can doubt it ? 
 We are told, it is true, to relieve the difficulty, that tliis 
 seemhig contradiction is one of -the mysteries of God's 
 incomprehensible nature. But it is not a seeming contra- 
 diction — it is a real one ; not an insolvable mystery, but a 
 palpable absurdity. God j^^ohibits the sinful act — God 
 jjrocures the sinful act — God wills the salvation of the repro- 
 bate, whom he has, from all eternity, irreversible/ ordained to 
 eternal death.''^ "What does this doctrine make of our 
 heavenly Father ? I shudder to follow it out into its legiti- 
 mate bearings. It seems to me, a belief of it is enough to 
 drive one to infidelity, to madness, and to death." What 
 can be said reproachful of God, of his hohness, of his 
 justice, of his veracity, of his goodness, which this system 
 does not warrant — which does not flow from it as an inevita- 
 ble consequence ? A resort to Atheism, to any thing, would 
 be a dehverance from such dire and deplorable conclusions. 
 I rejoice to know that its advocates do not embrace them; 
 but will they tell us how they do — how we may escape 
 them? Until I am thus relieved, I must hold the system 
 guilty, not only of absurdity, but of enormous blasphemy, 
 in fact, though not of purpose. 
 
 8. " God, from all eternity, freely and unchangeably fore- 
 ordained whatsoever comes to pass." Now look at this: 
 If true, then God foredetermined, purposed, and appointed, 
 when as yet there was nothing, and when nothing ever 
 could be without his decree, all the events, acts, volitions, 
 and things of every kind, that ever have been, from the 
 foundation of the world, or ever will be throughout eter- 
 nity — all things, great and small, true and false, consistent 
 and absurd, bad and good, pleasant and disgusting. No 
 contradiction, but what he decreed it. He appointed, in a 
 way that the event must answer the decree, and so because 
 decreed, that all the contradictory views extant in the world 
 should be entertained just as they are — that there should 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 59 
 
 be Atheists, Pantheists, Deists, infidels, Jews, Moham- 
 medans, Pagans, all grades of idolaters and errorists, all 
 varieties of Chi-istians, and sects of philosophy. And 
 these cannot but be, because they were decreed from eter- 
 nity. One man was to pray, another blaspheme, another 
 lie, another rob, another murder, another steal, another 
 commit arson, incest, adultery — one deceive, another be 
 deceived, and all because it was decreed from eternity. 
 All thoughts, all words, all desires, all purposes, all voli- 
 tions, all acts, from first to last, were decreed by God, and 
 in such a way that the event must answer the decree. 
 Now, all this is true, or else Calvinism is false ; for Calvin- 
 ism says, " God, from eternity, freely and unchangeably 
 decreed whatsoever comes to pass." Every thing was 
 included in God's plan, and brought about by his decree. 
 Doctor, do you believe this ? 
 
 9. I charge upon the system further, that, if gener- 
 ally believed, it is calculated to obliterate the sense of 
 obligation, as well as the theory and fact of it, and, hence, 
 to generate recklessness and universal indifference. By 
 removing the idea of the possibility of reformation, or, 
 mdeed, of any responsible control over the character and 
 actions, it effectually neutralizes every motive thereto, and 
 <iauses the man to throw himself rashly upon the bosom of 
 that stream of fate, which he believes to be irresistible in 
 its current and tendencies. Why shall a sinner seek to 
 reform, when he knows he cannot ? Why shall he regret 
 his course and conduct, when he knows they were inevita- 
 ble ? Why shall he raise any questions about the future, 
 when he knows that fate has fixed it irrevocably, irrespec- 
 tive of him? Why shall he intermeddle, in any respect, 
 with his state, character, or prospects, when they are no 
 more subject to him than are the revolutions of Saturn? 
 To believe the doctrine, a man must close his eyes, and 
 yield himself u^ passively, unresistingly, into the hands of 
 
60 god's eternal decrees. Lciiap. II, 
 
 fate, submitting to all that pertains to him as inevitable and 
 right, because procured by the Almighty. Every impulse 
 a man feels toward regret, or reformation, or effort in his 
 own behalf, is a practical denial of the doctrine. It does 
 not relieve the case a particle, to tell the man, that though 
 final destiny is fixed by decree, yet means are decreed, also, 
 as well as destiny — the same difficulty remains. If the 
 means are decreed — or, in other words, the sins to be an 
 occasion of his damnation, or the virtues to be a pretense 
 for his salvation — he knows that he has nothing to do but 
 passively submit. What else can he do ? Can he move 
 only as moved upon ? Can he fail to move when moved 
 upon? Doctor, can he do any thing, any thing under 
 heaven, but what God r^ kes him do? If so, what? If 
 not, why be careful ? 
 
 Will you appeal to facts in proof that such is not the 
 tendency of your system? I shall reply, that they are 
 incompetent to meet the case ; that, admitting them to be 
 diflferent from what it is alledged the system would make 
 them, this would only prove that it — the system — had not 
 always worked out its legitimate results ; that the bad and 
 disastrous influence had, in some instances, been counter- 
 acted by the presence of some wholesome element. But 
 the facts, it is believed, so far from contradicting the above 
 reasonings, do amply corroborate them — so far from antago- 
 nizing us, do most fully sustain us. Calvinism has produced, 
 and does now produce, the fruits charged against it ; it does 
 so, not only in some, but in many, if not in all instances, 
 where it is not neutralized by the presence of more power- 
 ful principles of belief, existing coetaneously in the mind. 
 It is innocent only when it is practically disbelieved. Here 
 is a Calvinistic fatalist in theory, but really, and at heart, a 
 man who is conscious of freedom and responsibility: the 
 man may be, notwithstanding his theoretical error, a 
 most exemplary and consistent Christian. The reason i.s 
 
CHAP. II.] god's eternal DECREES. 61 
 
 manifest — his practice results, not from his theoretical creed, 
 but from his actual consciousness — it is good in despite of 
 the former, and in accordance with the latter. But once 
 let him yield all to his belief of fatalism — let him silence 
 the voice of his reason and consciousness, and of God, and 
 give himself up to a firm belief of fate, and then you shall 
 see, as you have often seen, all the results ascribed to sucli 
 a faith. 
 
 10. I object further to the system, that it is wholly 
 without support, either from Scripture or reason. This, I 
 am apprised, is saying much, but no more than I con- 
 scientiously believe to be true ; and I can only be convinced 
 of error, by hearing, from Dr. Rice, such arguments as I 
 have not been able to discover in the writings of the various 
 authors quoted in this volume, and many others not quoted, 
 with which I have been accustomed to commune for years. 
 
 I have endeavored to speak plainly, and to make myself 
 understood upon these points; but I beg you to believe 
 that I have felt no unkindness, and have said nothing 
 with the thought of ofifending. Indeed, I assure you, I 
 have studied to use mildness ; and have, therefore, left 
 many things unsaid, which seemed almost necessary, to 
 show you the full extent of the difficulties which I find 
 pressing your system. I have purposely avoided naming 
 many other real objections — contenting myself, for the 
 present, with referring to those which are so palpable, as 
 to meet every mind at the threshold of an inquiry into youi 
 system, and so weighty, as to startle the cautious inquirei 
 at the boldness of doctrines involving such conclusions. 
 
62 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [ciIAP. III. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 
 
 We sliall now proceed to consider the doctrine of decrees 
 with relation to election and reprobation particularly. And, 
 as in the former case, we shall appeal to the Confession of 
 Faith, and to accredited Calvinistic authors. Our object 
 is to know precisely what our Presbyterian brethren do 
 believe. We appeal, therefore, to their own statements 
 and explanations. From the Confession of Faith, chapter 
 lii, I read : 
 
 "Section 3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation 
 of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto 
 everlasting life, and others foreordained unto everlastirig 
 death. 
 
 ''Section 4. These angels and men, thus predestinated 
 and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably de- 
 signed, and their number is so certain and definite, thaf. 
 it cannot be either increased or diminished. 
 
 " Section 5. 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 or good 
 works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other 
 thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him 
 thereto, and all to the praise of his glorious grace. 
 
 "Section 6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, 
 so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his 
 will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore 
 they, who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are re- 
 deemed by Christ — are effectually called unto faith in 
 (Christ by his Spirit working in due season — are justified, 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND RErROBATION. 63 
 
 adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith 
 unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed hy Christ, 
 effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, but the elect 
 only. 
 
 "Section Y. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, ac- 
 cording to the unsearchable counsel of his will, whereby 
 he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for 
 the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to 
 pass by and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their 
 sins, to the praise of his glorious justice." 
 
 Of effectual calling: 
 
 "Section 1. All those whom God hath predestinated 
 unto life, and these only, he is pleased, in his appointed 
 and accepted time, efi"ectually to call, by his word and 
 Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they 
 are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ, 
 enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to God, 
 taking their hearts of stone and giving them a heart of 
 flesh, renewing their wills, by his almighty power de- 
 termining them to that which is good, and effectually 
 drawing them to Jesus Christ, yet so as they come most 
 freely, being made willing by his grace. 
 
 "Section 2. This effectual call is of God's free and 
 special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen 
 in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being 
 quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby 
 enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace 
 oflered and conveyed in it. 
 
 "Section 3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regen- 
 erated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who 
 worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So, 
 also, are other elect persons who are incapable of being 
 outwardly called by the ministry of the word. 
 
 "Section 4. Others not elected, although they may be 
 called by the ministry of the word, and may have some 
 
64 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP III. 
 
 common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly 
 come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved, much less 
 can men, not professing the Christian rehgion, be saved in 
 any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to 
 frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the 
 law of that religion they do possess; and to assert and 
 maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be de- 
 tested." 
 
 Of the 'perseverance of the saints: 
 
 "Section 1. They whom God hath accepted in his be- 
 loved, 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. 
 
 "Section 2. This perseverance of the saints depends not 
 upon their own free will, hut upon the immutability of the 
 decree of election, flowing from the free and unchanging 
 love of God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merit 
 and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit 
 and of th§ seed of God within them, and the nature of 
 the covenant of grace ; from all which ariseth the certainty 
 and infallibility thereof." 
 
 I have quoted thus largely from the Confession of Faith, 
 that my readers may have the benefit of a full view of the 
 whole scheme of unconditional salvation as taught by Cal- 
 vinists — all that enters into and renders effectual the de- 
 cree of election and reprobation. I shall now proceed to 
 quote, as corroborative and explanatory of these articles of 
 faith, from various authors, who are supposed to under- 
 stand the system, and who have proved their friendship 
 for it by giving their lives to its support. But a quota- 
 tion or two from the Larger Catechism : 
 
 "What is efiectual calhng? 
 
 ''Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty powei 
 and grace, whereby, out of his free and especial love to hia 
 
OHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 65 
 
 elect, and from nothing in tliern moving him thereunto, he 
 doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus 
 Christ by his word and Spirit, savingly enlightening their 
 minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so 
 as they, although in themselves dead in sin, are hereby 
 made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to ac- 
 cept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein." 
 
 "Are the elect only effectually called? 
 
 "All tlie elect, and they oyily, are effectually called, 
 although others may be and often are outwardly called by 
 the ministry of the word, and have some common opera- 
 tions of the Spirit, who for their willful neglect and contempt 
 of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their 
 unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ." 
 
 "There is no doubt but the preparation of them both — 
 elect and reprobate — doth depend upon the secret counsel 
 of God; otherwise, Paul had said the reprobates give or 
 cast themselves into destruction ; but now he giveth to wit, 
 that before they are boi'n they are addicted to their lot.** 
 (Calvin.) 
 
 I quote further from the exposition : 
 
 " The decree of God, with respect to the everlasting state 
 of men and angels, is known by the name of predestination : 
 and this consists of two branches, generally distinguished 
 by the name of election and reprobation. 
 
 "Our Confession teaches that God made choice of and 
 predestinated a certain and definite number of individuals 
 to everlasting life — that he predestinated them to life before 
 tlie foundation of the world was laid — that, in so doing, he 
 acted according to his sovereign will, and was not influenced 
 by the foresight of their faith or good works, or persever- 
 ance in either of them ; and that this purpose is immutable, 
 it being impossible that any of the elect should perish. 
 (P. 65.) 
 
 "Christ died exclusively for the elect, and puic based 
 
66 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 redemption for them alone; in other words, Christ made 
 V atonement only for the elect, and in no sense did he die for 
 the rest of the race. Our Confession first asserts positively 
 that the elect are redeemed by Christ, and then negatively 
 that none others are redeemed by Christ but the elect only. 
 If this does not affirm the doctrine of particular redemption, 
 or of a limited atonement, we know not what language 
 could express that doctrine more explicitly. Some who 
 allow of personal and eternal election, deny any such thing 
 as reprobation. But the one unavoidably follows from the 
 other ; for the choice of some must unavoidably imply the 
 rejection of others. Election and rejection are correlative 
 terms ; and men impose upon themselves, and imagine they 
 conceive what it is impossible to conceive, when they admit 
 election, and deny reprobation." (P. 70.) 
 
 From the Larger Catechism : 
 
 "What hath God especially decreed concerning angels 
 and men? God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out 
 of his mere love for the praise of his glorious grace, to be 
 manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory, 
 and in Christ hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the 
 means thereof; and, also, according to his sovereign power, 
 and the imsearchable counsel of his own will, hath passed 
 by, and foreordained the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be 
 for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his 
 justice." 
 
 "Many, indeed, as if they wished to avert odium from 
 God, admit election in such a way as to deny that any one 
 is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because 
 election itself could not exist without being opposed to 
 reprobation. Whom God passes by, therefore, he repro- 
 bates ; and from no other cause than his determmation to 
 exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for 
 his chilflren." (Calvin's Institutes, vol. ii, p. 1 63.) 
 
 " Though it is sufficiently clear that God, in his secrei 
 
CUAF. III.J ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 61 
 
 counsel, freely chooses whom he will, and rejects others, 
 his gratuitous election is but half displayed till we come tc 
 particular individuals, to whom God not only offers salva- 
 tion, but assigns it in such a manner, that the certainty is 
 liable to no suspicion or doubt." (lb.) 
 
 ** Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by 
 which he has determined in himself what he would have 
 to become of every individual of mankind ; for they are not 
 all created with a similar destiny, but eternal life is foreor- 
 dained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every 
 man, therefore, being created for one or other of these ends, 
 we say he is predestinated either to life or death." (lb., 
 vol. ii, p. 145. 
 
 " The term predestination includes the decree of election 
 and reprobation. Some, indeed, confine it to election, but 
 there seems to be no sufficient reason for not extending it to 
 the one as well as the other, as in both the final condition 
 of man is preappointed or predestinated. When a choice 
 is made, we must conceive that of a number of persons 
 some are taken, others are left. Election is a relative term, 
 and necessarily involves the idea of rejection." (Dick's 
 Theology.) 
 
 " There seems to be no reason, therefore, for denying, that 
 what is called reprobation was a positive decree, as well as 
 election." (lb.) 
 
 "But, although the fall is presupposed to their reproba- 
 tion, it will appear that the former was not the reason of 
 the latter, if we recollect that those who were chosen to 
 salvation were exactly in the same situation. If there was 
 sin in the reprobate, there was sin, also, in the elect; and 
 we must, therefore, resolve their opposite allotments into 
 the will of God, who gives and withholds his favor accord- 
 ing to his pleasure." (lb.) 
 
 "A decree, respecting the condition of the human race, 
 includes the history of every individual, the time of his 
 
68 EVECTION AND REPROBATION. [CHAP. III. 
 
 appearing upon earth, the manner of his existence while he 
 is an inhabitant of earth, as it is diversified by the actions 
 which he performs, and the manner of his existence after 
 he leaves the earth ; that is, his future happiness or misery. 
 Whence it followeth, that this knowledge — foreknowledge 
 of the elect — dependeth upon the good pleasure of God, 
 because God foreknew nothing, out of himself, touching 
 those he would adopt, but only marked out whom he would 
 elect." (Calvin.) 
 
 " Now he doth refer the whole cause unto the election of 
 God, and the same free, and such as doth not depend upon 
 men ; that, in the salvation of the godly, nothing might be 
 sought for above the goodness of God, and in the destruc- 
 tion of the reprobate nothing above his just severity.^' (I^-) 
 
 "Moreover, although the corruption of nature, which is 
 dispersed over all mankind, before it come into action, is 
 available enough unto condemnation, whereby followeth 
 that Esau was worthily rejected, because naturally he was 
 the son of wrath; yet, lest any doubt should remain, as 
 though, through respect of any fault or sin, his condition was 
 the worse, it was necessary that as well sins as virtues should 
 be excluded/ Surely, true it is, that the next cause of 
 reprobation is, for that we are all accursed in Adam, yet, to 
 the end we might rest in the bare and simple will of God, 
 Paul did lead us aside from the consideration thereof for so 
 long until he had estabhshed this doctrine, namely, that 
 God hath a sufficient, just cause of election and reprobation 
 in his own loill or pleasure.'^ (lb.) 
 
 "And, therefore, that doctrine is false, and contrary to 
 the word of God, namely, that God doth choose, or reject, 
 as he foreseeth every man worthy or unworthy of his 
 grace." (lb.) 
 
 ** God hath elected some, and rejected other some, and 
 the cause is nowhere else to be sought for than in his pur- 
 pose." (lb.) 
 
CHAP. III. J ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 60 
 
 " To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, 
 he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the 
 same." (Confession of Faith.) 
 
 Either Christ applies and communicates redemption to all, 
 and then Universalism is true, or he did not purchase re- 
 demption for all, and so the reprobates never were redeemed- 
 
 Upon this point the expositor says : 
 
 " This section relates to the extent of Christ's death with 
 respect to its objects; and, in opposition to the Arminian 
 tenet, that Christ died for all, it affirms that the purchase 
 and application of redemption are exactly of the same ex- 
 tent. In the fifth section we were taught, that Christ 
 purchased redemption only for ' those whom the Father 
 hath given unto him ;' and here it is asserted, that * to all 
 those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth 
 certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same.* 
 What language, then, could affirm more explicitly, than 
 that here employed, that the atonement of Christ is specific 
 and limited; that it is neither universal nor indefinite, but 
 restricted to the elect ?^' 
 
 This view of the atonement is sustained with elaborate ar- 
 gumentation by Mr. Shaw, showing how well and thoroughly 
 he had considered the doctrine. As a specimen of his logic 
 in this case, and I regret to say I find such specimens 
 abounding throughout the system, and in the writings of 
 those eminent men w^ho have so strangely enlisted in its 
 advocacy: " Universal terms are sometimes used in Scrip- 
 ture in reference to the death of Christ; but reason and 
 common sense demand that general phrases be explained and 
 defined by those that are special P' 
 
 " God chose, of the whole body of mankind, whom he 
 viewed in his eternal decree as involved in guilt and misery, 
 certain persons, who are called the elect, whose names are 
 known to him, and whose number, being unchangeably fixed 
 by his decree, can neither be increased nor diminished ; so 
 
70 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAr. III. 
 
 that the whole extent of the remedy offered in the Gospel, 
 is conceived to have been determined beforehand by the 
 Divine decree. As all the children of Adam were in- 
 volved in the same guilt and misery, the persons thus 
 chosen had nothing in themselves to render them more 
 worthy of being elected than any others; and therefore 
 the decree of election is called, in the Calvinistic system, 
 absolute, by which word is meant, that it arises entirely 
 from the good pleasure of God, because all the circum- 
 stances, which distinguish the elect from others, are the 
 fruits of their election. For the persons thus chosen, 
 God, from the beginning, appointed the means of their 
 being delivered from corruption and guilt, and by these 
 means, effectually applied in due season, he conducts them 
 at kngth unto everlasting life. From the election of cer- 
 tain persons, it necessarily follows that all the rest of the 
 race of Adam are left in guilt and misery. The exercise 
 of Divine sovereignty, in regard to those who are not 
 elected, is called reprobation; and the condition of all 
 having been originally the same, reprobation is called ab- 
 solute in the same sense with election." (Hill's Divinity.) 
 
 "I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those 
 who he certainly foreknew would fall into destruction, and 
 that this was actually so, because he willed it." (Calvin's 
 Institutes.) 
 
 "Observe, all things being at God's disposal, and the 
 decision of salvation and death belonging to him, he 
 orders all things by his counsel and decree in such a man- 
 ner, that some men are born devoted, from the womb, to 
 certain death, that his name may be glorified in their 
 destruction." (lb., vol ii, p. 169.) 
 
 "It is an awful decree, I must confess; but no one can 
 deny that God foreknew the future, final fate of man be- 
 fore he created him, a/id that he did foreknow it, because 
 it was appointed by him, or decreed. Nor should it be 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 72 
 
 thouglit absurd to affirm that God not only foresaw tne 
 fall of the first man, and the ruin of his posterity in him, 
 but also arranged all by the determination of his own will. 
 For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow things future, 
 so it belongs to his power to rule and govern all things by 
 his hand." (lb., vol. ii, p. IVO.) 
 
 "But I mean that the actions of men are foreseen by 
 God, not as events independent of his will, but as origi- 
 nating in his determination, and as fulfilling his purpose." 
 (Hill's Divinity.) 
 
 "Foolish mortals enter into many contentions with God, 
 as though they could arraign him, to plead their accusa- 
 tions. In the first place, they inquire by what right the 
 Lord is angry with his creatures, who have not provoked 
 him by any previous offense ; for that to devote to destruc- 
 tion whom he pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant, 
 than the lawful sentence of a judge; that men have 
 reason, therefore, to expostulate with God, if they are 
 predestinated to eternal death, without any demerit of 
 their own, merely by his sovereign will. If such thoughts 
 ever enter the minds of pious men, they will be sufficiently 
 enabled to break their violence by this one consideration — 
 how exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into 
 the causes of the Divine will; which is, in fact, and is 
 justly/ entitled to be, the cause of every thing that exists. 
 For if it has any cause, then there must be something 
 antecedent, on which it depends, which it is impious to 
 suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of jus- 
 tice; so that what he wills must be considered just, for 
 this very reason — because he wills it. When it is inquired, 
 therefore, why the Lord did so, the answer must be, be- 
 cause he would." (Calvin's Institutes.) 
 
 "He directs his voice to them, but it is that they may 
 become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that they 
 may be made more blind ; he pubHshes his doctrine, but it 
 
72 ELECTION AND REruOBATION. [cHAr. III. 
 
 is that tliey may become more besotted; he apphes a 
 remedy, but it is that they may not be healed. . . . 
 Nor can it be disputed, that, to such persons as God 
 determines not to enlighten, he delivers his doctrine in 
 enigmatical obscurity, that its only effect may be to in- 
 crease their stupidity." (Calvin's Institutes, vol. ii, p. 192.) 
 
 "That the reprobates obey not the word of God, when 
 made tnown to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness 
 and depravity of their hearts; provided it he, at the same 
 time, stated that they are abandoned to this depravity, 
 because they have been raised up, by a just but inscrutable 
 judgment of God, to dis2:>lay his glory in their condemna- 
 tion. So, when it is related of the sons of Eli, that they 
 listened not to his salutary admonitions, * because the Lord 
 would slay them,' it is not denied that their obstinacy 
 proceeded from their own wickedness, but it is plainly 
 implied, that though the Lord was able to soften their 
 hearts, yet they were left in their obstinacy, because his 
 immutable decree had predestined them to destruction." 
 (Calvin's Institutes, vol. ii, p. 193.) 
 
 " Term election most commonly signifies, that eternal, 
 sovereign, unconditional, particular, and immutable act of 
 God, whereby he selected some from all mankind, and of 
 every nation under heaven, to be redeemed and everlast- 
 ingly saved by Christ. It sometimes, and more rarely, 
 signifies that gracious and almighty act of the divine 
 Spirit, whereby God actually and visibly separates his elect 
 from the world, by effectual calling." (Zanchius, p. '72.) 
 
 *' Reprobation denotes either God's eternal pretention of 
 some men, when he chose others to glory, and his predes- 
 tination of them to fill up the measure of their iniquities, 
 and then to receive the just punishment of crimes, even 
 ' destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from tlie 
 glory of his power.' This is the primary, most obvious, and 
 most frequent sense in which the word is used." (lb., p. 74 ) 
 
CHAF. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. " 73 
 
 Predestination " may be considered as that eternal, most 
 wise, and immutable 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. Of this decree actual providence is the 
 execution." (lb., p. 11.) 
 
 "Consider predestination as relating to the elect only, 
 and it is that eternal, unconditional, particular, and irrever- 
 sible act of the Didne will, whereby, in matchless love and 
 adorable sovereignty, God determined within himself, to 
 deliver a certain number of Adam's degenerate offspring 
 out of that sinful and miserable estate into which, by his 
 primitive transgression, they were to fall, and in which sad 
 condition they were equally involved with those who were 
 not chosen ; but being pitched upon and singled out by God 
 the Father, to be vessels of grace and salvation, they were, 
 in time, actually redeemed by Christ — are effectually called 
 by his Spirit, justified, adopted, sanctified, and preserved 
 safe to his heavenly kingdom." (lb., p. 19.) 
 
 "We assert, that all men universally are not elected to 
 salvation; so neither are all men universally condemned to 
 condemnation. . . . The Deity, from all eternity, and, 
 consequently, at the very time he gives life and being to a 
 reprobate, certainly foreknew, and knows in consequence 
 of his own decree, that such a one would fall short of 
 salvation. Now, if God foreknew this, he must have pre- 
 determined it; because his own will is the foundation of 
 his decrees, and his decrees are the foundation of his 
 prescience; he, therefore, foreknows futurities, because, by 
 his predestination, he hath rendered these futurition certain 
 and inevitable." (lb,, p. 88.) 
 
 "All things whatever arise from, and depend upon the 
 Divine appointment, whereby it was preordainod who 
 
74 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [ciIAP. II f. 
 
 should receive the word of hfe, and who should disbe- 
 lieve it — who should be dehvered from their sins, and 
 who should be hardened in them." (lb., p. 89.) 
 
 "We assert, that the number of the elect, and also of 
 the reprobate, is so fixed and determinate, that neither 
 can be augmented or diminished." (lb.) 
 
 "As the future faith and good works of the elect were 
 not the cause of their being chosen, so neither were the 
 future sins of the reprobate the cause of their being 
 passed by; but the choice of the former, and the de- 
 cretive omission of the latter, were owing, merely and 
 entirely, to the sovereign and determining pleasure of 
 God." (lb., p. 112.) 
 
 " Notwithstanding God did, from all eternity, irreversibly 
 choose out and fix upon some to be partakers of salvation 
 by Christ, and rejected the rest, acting in both according to 
 the good pleasure of his own sovereign will, yet he did not 
 herein act an unjust, tyrannical, or cruel part ; nor yet show 
 himself a respecter of persons." (lb., p. 119.) 
 
 " Now he [Paul] beginneth to ascend higher, namely, 
 to show the reason of this diversity, which he teacheth doth 
 not consist in any thing else than the election of God ; he 
 doth plainly refer the whole cause to the election of God. 
 and the same free, and such as doth not depend upon men ; 
 that, in the salvation of the godly, nothing might be sought 
 for above the goodness of God, and in the destruction, 
 nothing above his just severity. The Lord, in this his free 
 election, is at liberty and free from that necessity, that he 
 should indifferently impart the grace unto all, but, rather, 
 whom he will he passeth over, and whom he will he 
 chooseth." (Calvin, Com., Rom. ix, 11.) 
 
 " Although the corruption of nature, which is dispersed 
 over all mankind, before it come into action, is available- 
 enough unto condemnation, whereby followeth that Esau 
 was worthily rejected, because naturally he was the son of 
 
CHAP, iri.J ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 75 
 
 wrath ; yet, lest any doubt should remain, as though, 
 through respect of any fault or sin, his condition loas the 
 luorse, it was necessary as ivell sins as virtues should he 
 excluded. Surely, true it is, that the next cause of reproba- 
 tion is, for that we are all accursed in Adam, yet, to the end 
 we might learn to rest in the bare, simple will of God, Paul 
 did lead us aside from the consideration thereof, for so Jong 
 until he had established this doctrine, namely, that God 
 hath a sufficient, just cause of election and reprobation in 
 his own will or pleasured (lb.) 
 
 " God hath elected some, and rejected other some, and 
 the cause is nowhere else to be sought for than in his 
 purpose. For if the difference were grounded on the re- 
 spect of works, in vain had Paul moved the question of the 
 righteousness of God, whereof there could be no suspicion, 
 if he handled every one according to his desert. . . . 
 Before men are born, every one hath his lot appointed, by 
 the secret counsel of God." (lb., chap, ix, v. 14.) 
 
 " There are vessels prepared for destruction ; that is, be- 
 queathed and destinated to destruction: there are also 
 vessels of wrath ; that is, made and formed to this end, that 
 they might be testimonies of the vengeance and wrath of 
 God." (lb., chap, ix, v. 22.) 
 
 " There is no doubt but the preparation of them both 
 [elect and reprobate] doth depend on the secret counsel of 
 God ; otherwise, Paul had said the reprobates give or cast 
 themselves into destruction ; but now he giveth to wit, that 
 before they are born they are already addicted to their lot." 
 (lb., chap, ix, v. 23.) 
 
 " God, from all eternity, decreed to leave some of Adam's 
 fallen race in their sins, and to exclude them from the 
 participation of Christ and his benefits." (Toplady on Pre- 
 destination, p. 105.) 
 
 "Some men were, from all eternity, not only negativelv 
 excepted from a participation of Clirist and salvation, but 
 
76 ELECTION" AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 posithely ordained to continue in their natural blindness 
 and hardness of heart.' (lb., p. 106.) 
 
 Such is the doctrine of predestination, with respecc to 
 election and reprobation of men, as held by the Presby- 
 terian Church. It would be easy greatly to increase 
 quotations from their authorities upon this point; but the 
 foregoing are sufficient. And from these, together with 
 the former quotations, we deduce the following, as the sum 
 of their faith : 
 
 1. God decreed, from eternity, the fall of Adam, and the 
 ruin or fall of his posterity in him. 
 
 2. That, regarding man as fallen, he elected some men, 
 whose names and number were designated, unto ever- 
 Vsting life. 
 
 3. That those thus predestinated, were so predestinated, 
 unchangeably and unconditionally, without any reference 
 whatever to their works or character 
 
 4. That for these, and these only, he provided a Savior, 
 and all the means necessary to procure their salvation, 
 without aiiy conditions on their part. 
 
 5. That the persons thus unchangeably designed, cannot 
 possibly perish, do what they may, but will be irresistibly 
 drawn to Christ, and to justification, adoption, and sanc- 
 tification. 
 
 6. With Aspect to the rest, whose names and number 
 are also definitely fixed, that he passed them by in their 
 sins, and predestinated them unto destruction. 
 
 7. That they were thus passed and predestinated from 
 eternity, and so were ordained to destruction before they 
 were born, of the good pleasure of God, and to the glory 
 of his sovereign justice. 
 
 8. That for these he never did provide a Savior, and that 
 consequently they could not be saved, do what they might. 
 
 9. That those reprobated in no respect differed from 
 those elected, and the one class were elected, and the other 
 
611AP. III.] ELECTION AND KEPilOBATION, ^^ 
 
 class reprobated, of the mere sovereign pleasure of God. 
 without any respect to any difference in them whatever. 
 
 To sum it all up in a few words, we understand the 
 above to teach, that a certain, definite number of the 
 human race are elected, unconditionally and unalterably, 
 without reference to any thing in them, or to be performed 
 by them, and of the mere good pleasure of God, unto ever- 
 lasting life, so that they cannot perish ; that the rest are so 
 predestinated to eternal damnation, that they cannot be 
 «aved, no Savior ever having been provided for them. 
 
 To the doctrine thus stated I object, generally, all that 
 has been already urged against the doctrine of decrees, and, 
 particularly, much more which I shall now immediatelv 
 proceed to state. 
 
 1. I object to the system, that it makes God the author 
 of man's fall from holiness into sin. This is a point I 
 desire all my readers to give particular attention to, as it 
 has important bearings on subsequent reasonings. The 
 argument upon which this deduction is founded is very 
 brief, and exceedingly pJain. It is this : 
 
 " God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy 
 counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain 
 whatsoever comes to pass." (Confession of Faith.) 
 
 But man's fall came to pass; therefore, God, from all 
 eternity, did ordain man's fall. 
 
 " The decree of God is the necessity of things." (Calvin , 
 
 But man's fall is something; therefore, God's decree is 
 the necessity, or necessitating cause, of man's fall. But I 
 need hardly be at the pains of arguing out a conclusion so 
 palpable that a child could not fail to perceive it, and, 
 withal, a conclusion admitted by the great projector of the 
 system I antagonize. 
 
 " I confess, indeed," says Mr. Calvin, " that all the 
 descendants of Adam fell by the Divine will into that 
 raif.erable condition in which they are now involved; and 
 
78 ELECTION AND REFKOBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 aHIs is what I asserted from the beginning, that we must 
 always return, at last, to the sovereign determination of 
 {.rod's will, the cause of which is liidden in himself." 
 (Institutes.) 
 
 Having thus delivered himself, and anticipating objections 
 to his candid statement from his opponents, he thus enters 
 his defense and explanations : 
 
 " For we will answer them thus, in the language of 
 Paul: * man, who art thou, that repliest against God?' " 
 
 Certainly a most lucid and satisfactory mode of escaping 
 difficulties ! 
 
 Let it not be pretended that the fall, though ordained, 
 was ordained as foreseen — decreed because it was perceived 
 as an event that would take place — for this would oppose 
 the system to itself, which teaches that things are not de- 
 creed because foreknown, but foreknown because decreed, 
 also, it would oppose the system where it teaches that the 
 decree is itself the cause of all things — the cause without 
 which they could not be. 
 
 Shall I be told that, though Adam fell, it was freely — 
 by voluntarily eating the inhibited fruit — in the language of 
 the Confession itself, that, " Our first parents being seduced 
 by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating 
 the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, ac- 
 cording to his wise and holy c©unsel, to permit, having 
 purposed to order it to his own glory." 
 
 All this seems plausible enough ; but the slightest scrutiny 
 detects a meaning here not discoverable upon the surface. 
 It would seem to represent that man's fall was his own free 
 and unnecessitated act. But that this is not the meaning, 
 will appear in a variety of ways. If you ask, Could he 
 have done otherwise than as he did? they must answer 
 you, No — God had decreed it thus. He could no more 
 avoid taking the forbidden fruit than he could resist the 
 iecree of the Almighty — fall he must, for Omnipotence 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. *19 
 
 arged him on to the catastrophe. If you ask thcrt, what, 
 then, they mean by man's falling freely, they -will answer in 
 the language of the Confession again : 
 
 " Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power 
 tc will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to 
 God, but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it." 
 
 This agaiL is plausible enough, and would seem to teach 
 that our first parents h.' J power to stand or fall ; but a more 
 narix)w and careful examination shows that this is not their 
 meaning ; for they admit that they could not help but fall, 
 or else they believe that they had power to overcome the 
 decree of God — they may select their own alternative. All 
 they mean, when they speak of freedom before or since the 
 fall, is simply the power man has to do as he pleases — to 
 follow his choice. But now observe, they insist that, when 
 man chooses one thing, he has no power to choose its oppo- 
 site ; for his particular choice was fi^xed by decree. Adam, 
 when he chose to take of the forbidden fruit, could not 
 have chosen to decline taking it any more than he could 
 overcome a decree of God which fixed his choice as it was. 
 He was free, I am told, because he did as he pleased. I 
 answer, he had no power to please otherwise — therein is 
 his want of freedom. His choice, according to the S3^stem, 
 was forced upon him, by placing him in circumstances 
 where another choice was impossible. He fell himself, I 
 am told, by his own act, dictated by his own choice. I 
 answer, the act was decreed from eternity ; and the choice 
 which dictated the act w^ also decreed from eternity; and 
 iie circumstances which made the choice necessary were 
 also decreed from eternity ; and the man was created and 
 placed in the circumstances, that the choice and act, and 
 consequent fall, should necessarily take place. Thus, nel^ 
 ther the act, nor the choice, nor the fall, were free, but all 
 necessitated by unavoidable fate, or decree. God's decree 
 was the sole, original cause of man's fall. I may have 
 
80 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [i^HAP. III. 
 
 occasion to saj more upon this point to show other revolting 
 aspects of it ; but for the present T pass it to the presenta- 
 tion of other consequences and involvements of the system. 
 
 2. I object to the system, in the second place, that it 
 teaches that, when man was thus involved in the sin and 
 miseries of the fall, by God's own agency, he elected a part 
 of the race, whose names and number were definitely fixed, 
 unto everlasting life, without any respect whatever either to 
 their character or deeds, and reprobated or predestinated 
 the residue, whose names and number were also definitely 
 fixed from eternity, unto eternal damnation, and this, also, 
 without reference to their character or deeds. The one 
 part were decreed to be saved not for any thing in them — 
 the other part were preappointed to damnation, not as 
 being Avicked. But in both cases eternal destiny was fixed, 
 without respect to any thing in the creature. Do not, I 
 pray you. Dr. Rice, turn away from this appalling propo- 
 sition. Do not say, in your haste, it is slanderous. Hear 
 my reasons for attributing it to your system. 
 
 The argument upon which I base this statement is as 
 follows : 
 
 "Although God knows whatever may or can come to 
 pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed 
 any thing because he foresaw it as future, or as that which 
 would come to pass upon such supposed conditions." (Con- 
 fession of Faith.) 
 
 This clause, as I understand it, teaches that God's decree, 
 that any event shall come to pass, was entirely without 
 respect to foreknoAvledge that such would be the case, and, 
 also, without respect to conditions as a cause moving to the 
 decree. If I am correct in this, and I think I am, then, 
 when God decreed the salvation of the elect, it was entirely 
 without foresight of faith or good works in them — this yon 
 admit, and your Confession expressly asserts : and so, when 
 he willed the damnation of the rest, it was, also, without 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 81 
 
 foresight or consideration of sin as a cause thereto — this 
 you deny, and no doubt you will esteem it a misrepresenta- 
 tion of your system. But, if I am mistaken here, all I ask 
 IS that you will point out the mistake in my reasonings. A 
 disclaimer will do no good, unless you can show that it does 
 not result from your system. First, you tell me that God, 
 from eternity, unconditionally decreed whatsoever comes to 
 pass; but the damnation of the reprobate comes to pass; 
 therefore, the damnation of the reprobate was uncondi- 
 tionally decreed. But if it was unconditionally decreed, 
 then it could not have been decreed because of sin, for , 
 that would make sin the condition ; and so your doctrine / 
 Tvould be found at fault, when it asserts that the decrees •; 
 are unconditional. 
 
 But it is a necessary conclusion, that the decree of repro- 
 bation is without respect to sin for another reason. To 
 suppose it to be upon the foresight of sin is to abandon 
 your system, which teaches that the decrees of God do not 
 proceed from foreknowledge, but foreknowledge proceeds 
 from decree ; for, if the reprobates are decreed to reproba- 
 tion, because of foreseen sin, then is foreknowledge the 
 ground of decree. But, not to take up the time of our 
 readers in reasonings here, it may be shown by numerous 
 references to Calvin himself that this was his doctrine — 
 that neither the salvation of the elect, nor damnation of the 
 reprobate, were ascribable to any thing in the creature, but 
 equally and both to the mere will and pleasure of God — 
 the one part elected to life, and the other to death, simply 
 because God willed it. He says, and I give one quotation 
 as a specimen : 
 
 " For this he goeth about to bring to pass among us, that 
 concerning the diversity that is between the elect and repro- 
 bate, our minds might be content with this, namely, that it 
 hath so pleased God to illuminate some unto salvation, and 
 blind other some unto death, and not seek any cause above 
 
82 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [CHAP. 111. 
 
 his wi\.; for all external things which make to the exceca- 
 lion of the reprobate are the instruments of his wrath ; and 
 Satan himself, which inwardly worketh effectually, is so far 
 forth his minister that he worketh not but at his com- 
 mandment ! 
 
 "Therefore, that frivolous evasion or refuge, which the 
 schoolmen have of foreknowledge, doth fall down ; for Paul 
 doth not say, that the ruin of the wicked is foreseen of the 
 Lord, but is ordained by his counsel and will : as Solomo» 
 also teacheth, that the destruction of the wicked was noi 
 only foreknown, but that the wicked ones themselves were 
 purposely created that they might perish ! 
 
 " God hath elected some, and rejected other some, and tlie 
 cause is nowhere else to he sought for than in his purpose; 
 for if the difference were grounded upon the respect of 
 works, in vain had Paul moved the question of the un- 
 righteousness of God, whereof there could be no suspicion, 
 if he handled every one according to his desert." 
 
 It is manifest that Calvin finds the cause of reprobation, 
 as well as election, in the will of God alone, irrespective of 
 Ts^r^rks. The decree of election involves the decree of 
 reprobation. This is clearly and repeatedly admitted by 
 your own authors, and by your Confession itself. 
 
 " By the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, 
 some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting 
 life, and otiiers foreordained to everlasting death. These 
 angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained, are 
 particularly and unchangeably designated ; and their num- 
 ber is so certain and definite that it canijot be either in- 
 creased or diminished." (Confession of Faith.) 
 
 I need not reinsert the quotations, full upon this point, 
 given heretofore — it is admitted, and, if not, it is unavoidably 
 involved. There can be no election of a part, without an 
 implied and actual rejection of the other part, not elected. 
 To present the case in the most favorable aspect for 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 82 
 
 Calvinism, it stands thus : the human race appear before God 
 as a race of miserable sinners, all under sentence of con- 
 demnation. God so beholding them, selects a portion, say, 
 less than one-half, without any reference to character, or 
 any thing else in them — for they are all precisely alike: 
 these he determines to save, or elects them, unconditionally, 
 unto life — sets them apart for himself. The others he passes 
 by, and makes no provision for them whatever, but leaves 
 them, by his sovereign disposal, to eternal damnation. Now 
 this election of a part is, to all intents and purposes, a 
 rejection of the othei part. I state it in a manner certaini\ 
 the least objectionable to a Calvinist. And now, I object 
 to it, even in this favorable aspect, as involving the divine 
 Being in the grossest injustice and criminal partiality. 
 
 My reasons for this charge shall be given, in a moment. 
 In the meantime, I hear you say. Had not God a right 
 to extend mercy to a part, without bringing him under ob- 
 ligation to extend it to all ? he might in justice have passed 
 all by: he did those no harm, therefore, whom he passed 
 by, because they deserved it ; and that he saved any was a 
 mere act of grace. I am familiar with your eloquent 
 declamation on this point ; but it falls powerless upon my 
 mind for this reason. How came these miserable creatures 
 in their condition of sin and wretchedness? You must 
 answer me. They were put there by the decree of God. 
 First, he put them all in the consequences of the fall, that 
 he might have an occasion to display his grace, in saving 
 some, and to glorify his justice in damning others! He 
 made them sinners, that he might have a pretense to tor- 
 ment them for ever, to the glory of his sovereign justice 
 If you can reconcile this to justice, I should be happy it 
 have the benefit of your assistance here. 
 
 Upon this point, Dr. Fisk says, **The doctrine of uncon- 
 ditional election of a part, necessarily implies the uncondi- 
 tional reprobation of the rest. I know some, who hold to 
 
84 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 the former, seem to deny the latter ; for they represent God 
 as reprobating sinners in view of their sins. When all were 
 sinners, they say, God passed by some, and elected others. 
 Hence, they say, the decree of damnation against the 
 reprobate is just, because it is against sinners. But this 
 explanation is virtually giving up the system, inasmuch as 
 it gives up all the principal arguments by which it is sup- 
 ported. In the first place, it makes predestination dependent 
 on foreknowledge ; for God first foresees that they will be 
 sinners, and then predestinates them to punishment. Here 
 is one case, then, in which the argument for Calvinian pre- 
 destination is destroyed by its own supporters. But, again, 
 if God must fix, by his decree, all parts of his plan, in order 
 to prevent disappointment, then he must fix the destiny of 
 the reprobates, and the means that lead to it. But if he 
 did not do this, then the Calvinistic argument in favor of 
 predestination, drawn from the Divine plan, falls to the 
 ground. Once more : this explanation of the decree of 
 reprobation destroys the Scripture arguments, which the 
 Calvinists urofe in favor of unconditional election. The 
 passages, for instance, in Romans ix, which are so often 
 quoted in favor of Calvinian election, are connected with 
 others equally strong, in favor of unconditional reprobation. 
 Now, if these relate to personal election to eternal life, they 
 relate also to personal reprobation to eternal death. But 
 if there is any explanation, by which these are shown not 
 to prove unconditional reprobation to eternal death, the 
 same principle of interpretation will and must show that 
 they do not prove Calvinistic election. 
 
 But I have not done with this objection yet. Whoever 
 maintains that " God foreordained whatsoever comes to 
 pass," must, also, hold to unconditional reprobation. Does 
 it come to pass that some are lost ? Then, this was ordained. 
 Was sin necessary as a pretense to damn them ? Then, this 
 was ordained. From these and other views of the subject, 
 
(IIIAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 85 
 
 Calvin was led to say, that "election could not stand witli- 
 out reprobation;" and that it was "quite silly and childish" 
 to attempt to separate them. All, therefore, who hold to 
 the unconditional election of a part of mankind to eternal 
 life, must, to be consistent with tliemselves, take into their 
 creed the "horrible decree of reprobation." They must 
 believe that in the ages of eternity, God determined to 
 create men and angels for the express purpose to damn 
 them eternally ! — that he determined to introduce sin, and 
 harden them in it, that they might be fit subjects of his 
 wrath ! — that, for doing as they are impelled to do by the 
 irresistible decree of Jehovah, they must lie down for ever 
 imder the scalding vials of his vengeance in the pit of hell ! 
 To state this doctrine in its true character is enough to chill 
 one's blood; and we are drawn, by all that is rational 
 within us, to turn away from such a God with horror, as 
 from the presence of an almighty Tyrant. And yet, I 
 charge upon Dr. Rice, and all consistent" Calvinists, this 
 appalling dogma. 
 
 3. I object to the decree of election and reprobation, still 
 further, that it at the same time renders God a partial 
 being, and destroys entirely the foundation for the doctrine 
 of grace. If it be true there is no grace in the salvation- 
 of the elect, there is great cruelty in the damnation of the 
 reprobate, and God is a most partial being ; and in all these 
 respects the system is opposed to the Scriptures. " To the 
 reprobates there is certainly no grace or mercy extended. 
 Their very existence, connected as it necessarily is with 
 eternal damnation, is an infinite curse. The temporal bless- 
 ings which they enjoy, the insincere oflfers which are held 
 out to them, and the Gospel privileges with which they are 
 mocked, if they can be termed grace at all, must be called 
 damning grace ; for all this is only fattenmg them for the 
 slaughter, and fitting them to suffer, to a more aggravated 
 extent, the unavoidable pains and torments that await them 
 
86 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 Hence, Calvin's sentiment, 'that God calls the reprobate 
 that they may be more deaf — kindles a light that thev 
 may be more blind — brings his doctrine to them that they 
 may be more ignorant — and applies the remedy to them 
 that they may not be healed,' is an honest avowal of the 
 legitimate principles of the system. Surely no one will 
 pretend that according to this system there is any grace 
 in the reprobate. And perhaps a moment's attention will 
 show that there is little or none for the elect. It is said 
 that God, out of his mere sovereignty, without any thing 
 in the creature to move him thereto, elects sinners to ever- 
 lasting life. But if there is nothing in the creature to 
 move him thereto, how can it be called mercy or compas- 
 sion? He did not determine to elect them because they 
 were miserable, but simply because he pleased to elect 
 them. If misery had been the exciting cause, then, as all 
 were equally miserable, he would have elected them all. 
 Is such a decree of election founded in love to the suffer- 
 ing object, or is it not the result of the most absolute and 
 omnipotent selfishness conceivable? It is the exhibition 
 of a character that sports, most sovereignly and arbitrarily, 
 with his almighty power to create, to damn, and to save." 
 Shall it be insisted that the salvation of miserable, per- 
 ishing sinners, is an act of grace ? then we continue, in the 
 language of Fisk, to ask, "Who made them miserable, 
 perishing sinners? Was not this the effect of God's de- 
 cree? And is there much mercy displayed in placing 
 men under a constitution which necessarily and unavoid- 
 ably involves them in sin and suffering, that God may 
 afterward have the sovereign honor of saving them? 
 Surely the tenderest mercies of this system are cruel — 
 its brightest parts are dark — its boasted mercy hardly 
 comes up to sheer justice even to the elect; since they 
 only receive back what God had deprived them of; and 
 for the want of wliich they had suffered perhaps for years. 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 87 
 
 And as to the reprobates, the Gospel is unavoidably a 
 source of death unto death. To them Christ came, that 
 they might have death, and have it more abundantly, to 
 the praise of his glorious justice." 
 
 In the language of Mr. Wesley, "How is God good or 
 loving, to a reprobate, or one that is not elect? You 
 cannot say he is an object of the love or goodness of God, 
 with regard to his eternal state, whom he created, says Mr. 
 Calvin, plainly and fairly, '' to live a reproach and die ever- 
 lastingly.' Surely no one can dream that the goodness of 
 God is at all concerned with this man's eternal state, how- 
 ever God is good to him in this world. What ! when, by 
 the reason of God's unchangeable decree, it had been good 
 for this man never to have been born ? when his very birth 
 was a curse, not a blessing? 'Well, but he now enjoys 
 many of the gifts of God, both gifts of nature and of 
 providence. He has food, and raiment, and comforts of 
 various kinds ; and are not all these great blessings ?' No, 
 not to him. At the price which he is to pay for them, 
 every one of these is also a curse. Every one of these 
 comforts is, by an eternal decree, to cost him a thousand 
 pangs in hell. For every moment's pleasure which he 
 now enjoys, he is to suffer the torments of more than a 
 thousand years; for the smoke of that pit which is pre- 
 paring for him, ascendeth up for ever and ever. God 
 knew this would be the fruit of whatever he should enjoy, 
 before the vapor of life fled away. He designed it should. 
 It was his very purpose in giving him those enjoyments; 
 so that; by all these, he is in truth and reality only fatten- 
 ing the ox for the slaughter. *Nay, but God gives him 
 grace, too.' Yes, but what kind of grace? Saving grace, 
 you own, he has not; and the common grace he has was 
 not given with any design to save his soul ; nor with any 
 .Vjsign to do him any good at all, but only to restrain him 
 
88 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [CHAP. III. 
 
 from hurting the elect: so far from doing him good, that 
 this grace also necessarily increases his damnation, 
 
 "'And God knows this,' you say, 'and designed it 
 should : it was one great end for which he gave it !' Then 
 I desire to know how is God good or loving to this man, 
 either with regard to time or eternity. 
 
 "Let us suppose a particular instance: here stands a 
 man who is reprobated from all eternity ; or, if you would 
 express it more smoothly, Avho is not elected — whom God 
 ete?^ally decreed to pass by. Thou hast nothing, there- 
 fore, to expect from God after death, but to be cast into 
 the lake of fire, burning with brimstone — God having con- 
 signed thy unborn soul to hell by a decree which cannot 
 pass away. And from the time thou wast born under the 
 irrevocable curse of God, thou canst have no peace; for 
 there is no peace to the wicked, such as thou art doomed 
 to continue, even from thy mother's womb. Accordingly, 
 God giveth thee of this world's goods on purpose to en- 
 hance thy damnation. He giveth thee more substance or 
 friends in order hereafter to heap the more coals of fire on 
 thy head. He filleth thee with good ; he maketh thee fat 
 and Avell-looking, to make thee a more specious sacrifice to 
 his vengeance. Good-nature, generosity, a good under- 
 standing, various knowledge, it may be, or eloquence, are 
 the flowers wherewith he adorneth thee, thou poor victim, 
 before thou art brought to the slaughter. Thou hast 
 grace, too! but what grace? Not saving grace. That 
 is not for thee, but for the elect only. Thine may be 
 termed damning grace; since it is not only such in the 
 event, but in the intention. Thou receivedst it of God 
 for that very end, that thou mightest receive the greater 
 damnation. It was given not to convert thee, but only 
 to convince; not to make thee without sin, but without 
 excuse! not to destroy, but to arm the worm that never 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 89 
 
 dieth, and blow up the fire that shall never be quenched. 
 Now, I beseech you, how is God good or loving to this 
 man? Is not this such love as makes your blood run 
 cold?" 
 
 4. I object to the doctrine further, that it not only 
 teaches the unconditional reprobation of a part of man- 
 kind, who, in the language of Mr. Calvin, were created 
 for destruction, but it also teaches, in harmony with the 
 foregoing, that Christ never died for the lost — never in 
 any sense made salvation possible. This is not only an 
 inference deducted from the decree of election and repro- 
 bation — though it is unavoidably inferable from that de- 
 cree, because it is manifest, if a man is eternally and 
 unconditionally decreed to be damned, he never had a 
 possibility of salvation. But our proposition is not a mere 
 inference — it is an express statement of Calvinists them- 
 selves. Two authorities will answer upon this point. 
 
 The Confession of Faith shall be my first reference — it 
 is very explicit. Its language is : " Neither are any other 
 redeemed by Christ, but the elect only.''^ 
 
 "In this section we are taught," says Mr. Shaw, the 
 expositor of the Confession, in his work revised and pub- 
 lished by the Presbyterian board of publication, and re- 
 ceived as a true exposition of their doctrines, "that Christ 
 died exclusively for the elect, and purchased redemption for 
 them alone; in other words, that Christ made atonement 
 only for the elect, and that in no sense did he die for the 
 rest of the race. Our Confession first asserts, positively, 
 that the elect are redeemed by Christ ; and then negatively 
 that none other are redeemed by Christ but the elect only. 
 If this does not affirm the doctrine of particular redemp- 
 tion, or of a limited atonement, we know not what lan- 
 guage could express that doctrine more explicitly." 
 
 These authorities are sufficient for my purpose at present, 
 '.hough a large number equally explicit might be adduced, 
 
 8 
 
90 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 showing that it is the common opinion of Calvinists, and 
 certainly the only opinion at all consistent with theiir 
 system. 
 
 Well, now, in view of this doctrine, I alledge the follow- 
 ing objections : 
 
 (1.) It renders the conclusion unavoidable, that the sin- 
 ner is absolutely damned, not only without the possibility 
 of salvation, but without any fault of his whatever. 
 
 For, first, it was certain he was involved in guilt, without 
 his consent, by the sin of Adam, thousands of years before 
 he was born. It will not be pretended that he was to 
 blame for this, unless it can be shown that a man is blame- 
 worthy for an act which occurred thousands of years before 
 he had an existence. 
 
 Well, as he was involved in guilt, without his consent, so 
 no plan was ever devised by which it was possible for him 
 to escape from his guilt. He is therefore shut up to be 
 damned in hell torments for ever on account of guilt which 
 he had no part in procuring to himself, and from which it 
 Avas never possible for him to escape. Sir, is not this 
 dreadful ? 
 
 (2.) I object to this doctrine further, because it finds the 
 cause of the sinner's reprobation and damnation in his cor- 
 ruption of nature alone. 
 
 The doctrine is, that mankind were viewed as fallen in 
 Adam, and all of them under condemnation, and deserving 
 of death ; whereupon, God, out of his mere good pleasure, 
 elected a certain definite number to life, and passed by the 
 other definite part, and left them under sentence of death 
 on account of their sin. Of what sin ! why, their sinful 
 estate in Adam. This then was the cause of their repro- 
 bation and damnation — Adam's sin, and not their own ! 
 
 It will be no relief to this to insist that the reprobates 
 are also punished for their actual transgressions ; for there 
 stands the fact, first, that the sufficient cause of their 
 
CflAP. III.J ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 91 
 
 reprobation, was their sinful state; and if this was the 
 sufficient cause, they might, they would have been damned, 
 if they had never committed one single actual sin ! They 
 were damned before ever they committed a sinful act 
 themselves! Nay, 1 go a step further, and say that the 
 actual sins of the reprobates forms no juster ground of 
 their damnation than their natufal corruption, even if we 
 should admit that their actual sins were taken into account 
 in their reprobation; for they were brought into existence 
 with a corrupt nature, from which it never was possible 
 for them to free themselves, which they had no consent 
 in bringing upon themselves; and with it their actual sins 
 were absolutely unavoidable, and so could no more consti- 
 tute a just ground of damnation than would their inherited 
 depravity. 
 
 (3.) And here again let me ask, why shall Calvinists 
 demur when we charge them with holding to infant dam- 
 nation ? The fact is, they hold to no other kind of damna- 
 tion! Every reprobate was reprobated for that which he 
 possessed as soon as he came into the world! He was 
 damned in the purpose of God for his natural depravity, 
 before he was born, and his after actual transgressions 
 were only the fruits of his reprobation! I can see no 
 difference between consigning an infant to hell, as soon 
 as born, and actually sentencing it as soon as born for its 
 then state, and permitting it to live a hundred years to 
 commit actual sins, that a pretense may be actually created 
 for rendering its damnation doubly deep — only that the 
 latter seems worse than the former ! 
 
 (4.) I object to the doctrine that God really preferred 
 the damnation of a part to the salvation of all — he chose 
 it as more agreeable to himself, not to meet the ends of 
 justice or promote good government, but purely for his 
 own gratification, that a part should be lost to the glory 
 
92 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 of his justice, than that all should have an opportunity 
 ' to be saved ! 
 
 This is apparent in the fact that Calvinists admit that 
 there was merit enough in the death of Christ to secure 
 the salvation of all ; but God, by a sovereign act, limited 
 it to a part. He could have saved all as well as a part, 
 but he preferred not to do it! It will not do to reply, 
 he must damn some to vindicate his justice, for it is con- 
 tended that the death of Christ was ample, entirely suffi- 
 cient, to satisfy the claims of justice for the whole race: 
 but God, by a sovereign prerogative, chose to limit it to a 
 part. He must therefore have preferred the damnation of 
 a part, the reprobates, or he would at least have made their 
 salvation possible. Can Dr. Rice assign any reason for the 
 damnation of the reprobate, but the mere good pleasure of 
 God ? He could have saved them, but he chose not to do 
 so. And why did he choose not to do so ? Is it answered, 
 on account of their sins? But why on account of their 
 sins ? Could he not have saved all, as well as a part, when 
 there was a sufficient ransom, and the application of it de- 
 pended updn his mere sovereign will ? That the application 
 was not made, therefore, can be ascribed to nothing else but 
 the good pleasure of God, or he damns a large part of 
 mankind simply because he had rather damn them than 
 save them ! Is not this blasphemous ? 
 
 5. To the Calvinian doctrine of eternal reprobation I 
 fui'ther object, as being inconsistent with the Scriptures: 
 
 (1.) To all those passages which teach that "Christ died 
 for all men''' for "the whole world," &c. This class of 
 Scripture texts is quite numerous, and very unequivocal. 
 
 " Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away ^he sin 
 
 \ of the world." " God so loved the world that he gave his 
 
 only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should 
 
 not perish, but have everlasting life." " This is indeed the 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 98 
 
 Christ, the Savior of the world." " For the love of Christ 
 constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if one died for 
 all, then were all dead." " That he, by the grace of God, i 
 should taste death for every man." " And he is the propi- ' 
 tiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the 
 sins of the whole world." "Who is the Savior of all men, 
 especially of those that believe." "Who gave himself a 
 ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 
 
 We give the above as. a selection of texts asserting that 
 the death of Christ was for all men, for every man, for the 
 whole world. The list might be greatly extended ; but, for 
 the present, these are sufficient. 
 
 (2.) The same fact is clearly taught in all those passages 
 where a parallel is run between the death of Christ and the 
 fall of our first parents. " For as in Adam all die, even so 
 in Christ shall all be made alive." "But not as the offense, 
 so also is the free gift. For if, through the offense of one, 
 many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift 
 by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded 
 unto many. Therefore, as by the oftense of one judgment 
 came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the 
 righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto 
 justification of life." 
 
 (3.) The idea that Christ died for the elect only is con- 
 trary to those Scriptures, which teach that some for whom 
 Christ died may perish. "And through thy knowledge 
 shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died." 
 ** False teachers who privily shall bring in damnable here- 
 sies, even denying the Lord that bought them, iind bring 
 upon themselves swift destruction." " Of how much sorer 
 punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy, who 
 has trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted 
 the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an 
 unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the spirit of 
 
94 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 grace." " Destroy not him, with thy meat, for whom 
 Christ died." 
 
 (4.) A further argument is deducible from those passages 
 which make the offers of the Gospel to all men, and require 
 all men to repent and believe, condemning them to death 
 for rejecting the offer, and refusing to comply. " He that 
 believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that 
 believeth not the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of 
 God abideth on him." " But these are written that ye 
 might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and 
 that believing ye might have life through his name." " He 
 that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath 
 not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." 
 ** And said unto them. Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 my Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is 
 baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be 
 damned." " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great 
 salvation ?" 
 
 (5.) In all those passages in which men's failure to obtain 
 salvation is placed to the account of their own will, this 
 doctrine of limited atonement, of election, and reprobation, 
 is disallowed. " How often would I have gathered thy 
 children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under 
 her wings, and ye would not." " And ye will not come to 
 me that ye may have life." "Bringing upon themselves 
 swift destruction." "Whosoever will, let him take the 
 waters of life freely." 
 
 It is useless to multiply quotations, since the New Testa- 
 ment so constantly exhorts men to come to Christ, reproves 
 them for neglect, and threatens them Avith the penal conse- 
 quences of their own folly, thus uniformly placing the bar 
 of their salvation just where Christ places it in his parable 
 of the supper — in the perversencss of those who, havmg 
 been bidden to the feast, would not come. 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 95 
 
 Thus the idea that Christ did not die for all men is con- 
 trary to all those Scriptures, in which the atonement is 
 represented as universal — in which it is contrasted with the 
 fall — in which it is represented as possible for those for 
 whom Christ died to perish — in which all men are required 
 to believe, and condemned for not beheving — in which 
 failure to obtain salvation is charged to the will and folly 
 of the lost — in which invitations are made to sinners, warn- 
 ings given to saints, as though the former might be saved, 
 the latter lost — in which conditions are expressed, the voli- 
 tion of the creature is addressed, and final destiny is sus- 
 pended upon their action, with a great variety of classes of 
 Scriptures needless to mention. 
 
 6. If Christ only died for a part of mankind, and if only 
 a definite number may come to him and be saved, I ask Dr. 
 Rice, in the name of all reason and consistency, with what 
 propriety can he invite persons, not of the elect, to come to 
 Christ, to turn that they may have life, to seek the favor of 
 God? &c. Why does he make such invitations? He 
 knows they cannot comply ; that it is absolutely impossible ; 
 that they have no more power to do so than they have to 
 make a world. Is it not mockery, then, to ask them? 
 Are not all such invitations sheer trifling with interests the 
 most awful and tremendous? Invite a sinner to come to 
 Christ when he cannot — when he dare not ! In the name 
 of consistency, how is this to be reconciled with human 
 candor, to say nothing of Divine sincerity ? 
 
 7. But again : if Christ only died for the elect, why are 
 reprobates commanded to believe ? What are they required 
 to believe ? Are they required to believe in Christ for sal- 
 vation. If so, they are either able to believe, or they are 
 not. If not able, they are required to perform an absolute 
 impossibility. If they are able, then they may believe ; and 
 as salvation is by faith, a reprobate may be saved ; and if 
 saved, he will be saved by believing a lie — that Christ was 
 
96 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 his Savior, when in fact he was not : he will also be saved 
 without a Sa\dor ; but if he believes and is not saved, he 
 will falsify the Scriptures and the Confession, which teach 
 that whosoever believeth shall be saved. 
 
 8. But again : why is the unbelief of the reprobate 
 made the ground of his condemnation — of his final destruc- 
 tion ? He is damned for not believing on Christ ; that is, 
 for not belie\ing a lie. Had he believed on Christ, if tht 
 thing were possible, he would have believed a lie ; but foi 
 not believing a lie, he is damned for ever. Sir, is not this 
 dreadful ! Yet these, and many more such consequences, 
 are the unavoidable results of your system. 
 
 9. The sinner's damnation is ascribed to his rejection of 
 Christ — to his resistance of proffered mercy — to his willful 
 distance from God. But, according to this system, he does 
 not reject Christ, for Christ never was offered to him ; he 
 could not accept him ; he did not refuse mercy, for mercy 
 never was held out to his acceptance ; his own will did not 
 keep him in sin, for there never was a way of escape. 
 
 10. The Scriptures ascribe the sinner's ruin to his own 
 choice — to his own will ; but, according to this system> his 
 will has nothing whatever to do with it ; for either it was 
 possible for him to will to come to Christ and be saved, or 
 it was not. If it was possible for him to will to come to 
 Christ and be saved, a reprobate might be saved by Christ, 
 who never died for him ; if he could not will to come to 
 Christ, and is damned for not willing it, then he is damned 
 for not performing an impossibility. His destruction is 
 not assignable to the perversity of his own will, but to tha 
 fact that no possible chance of salvation was ever given 
 to him. 
 
 11. Why do Calvinists demur and complain of us when 
 we say, the reprobate must be damned, do what he may or 
 can? Do they not know this is true? He cannot be 
 saved ! It is eternally out of the question, and impossible, 
 
OlIAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 97 
 
 for a cause with which he had no consenting or persona] 
 connection, any more than Gabriel had. 
 
 12. Why do Calvinists complain when we say, the elect 
 must bo saved, do what they may or can? Do they not 
 know that this is so ? One of the elect cannot be lost — no 
 sin, in his power, will ever peril his salvation. He cannot, 
 though he exert himself to that end, endanger his soul in 
 the slightest degree. And this Dr. Rice will be compelled 
 to admit. I say not, now, that he will not endanger his 
 salvation, but I say he cannot. He is now saved, and never 
 can be lost. The poor reprobate cannot be saved, do what 
 he may. Tell me not that he might if he would ; it is sin- 
 ning to pretend any thing of the kind. If he willed ever 
 so much, he has no Savior! He is damned without any 
 fault of his, and when escape was impossible. 
 
 13. Why remonstrate with the reprobate upon the folly 
 of his course, and about destroying himself? Does not 
 God know that the poor wretch cannot help it ? He help 
 it ! he was damned thousands of years before he was born ! 
 He never had any hand in it originally ! And if he has had 
 since, it was only in this way : He was given an existence, 
 which he was compelled to employ in sin, that a pretense 
 might be furnished infinite cruelty for doubly damning him I 
 Why will you die ? What language to put in the mouth 
 of God concerning the reprobates ! 
 
 14. Why expostulate with the elect upon the necessity 
 of watchfulness, the use of means, the danger of coming 
 shgrt of life, and such like? There is no danger to the 
 elect ; he can do nothing more nor less than was decreed ; 
 and if he could do ever so much, his works have nothing to 
 do in regard to his salvation. Is it pretended, that warn- 
 ings are designed to stimulate to duty ? Then, I answer, a 
 deception is attempted to be played off upon the elect, to 
 promote the fruits of the Spirit ! 
 
 15. I object to the whole system, that it destroys the 
 
 9 
 
98 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 moral government of God, and renders his sovereignty a 
 l:)lind, capricious, and tyrannical sovereignty. The idea of 
 moral government is that of dealing with men according to 
 their deeds; but this system excludes such idea entirely. 
 Men are elected unto life without respect to their deeds, and 
 they are also appointed unto damnation without respect to 
 their dee^s. Let it not be said that their deeds are taken 
 into the account, in their election and reprobation ; for it is 
 previously said, that these — election and reprobation — are 
 unconditional and without foresight, and so can have no 
 respect whatever to character or conduct ; and so, according 
 to Calvinism, there is no such thini^ as dealinor with men 
 according to character or conduct — no moral government. 
 But, even if the system admitted conduct and character as 
 questions in the Divine government, it would not help the 
 case in the slightest degree ; because these, according to the 
 system, are necessitated, without any agency of the creature 
 whatever. The character and conduct are forced upon him, 
 and then he is held to account for them ! All this may be 
 denied, and no doubt will be ; but denials are useless, so 
 long as the system is liable to such logical imputation. 
 According to Calvinism, there is no moral government. 
 When some are admitted to heaven, and others are con- 
 signed to hell, the sole cause of their different destinies is 
 the decree of God, by which the former were elected, and 
 the latter reprobated; and their respective vice or virtue 
 was the fruit of their previously determined fate, not its 
 cause. They are rewarded not according to their wolks, 
 but according to the decree of God. 
 
 16. The Calvinian doctrine of election and reprobation, 
 in the place of making the atonement a benefit to the re- 
 probates, makes it an infinite curse, not in its avoidable 
 abuse, but in itself necessarily. So that here is a sovereign 
 scheme of God, intended to be a benefit to some chosen 
 persons, by being, in its very nature, an infinite curse to 
 
CHAP. III. I ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 09 
 
 others. This must appear in one moment. Let it be re- 
 membered, that the atonement, with respect to reprobates, 
 does not make their salvation possible — they cannot be 
 saved by it. Let it be further remembered, that, while it 
 does not make it possible for them to be saved, it makes 
 their damnation a hundred-fold worse than if it had never 
 been made — it does them no real good — it brings them 
 infinite mischief, and this entirely without respect to any 
 thing in them that was voluntary ; and this their infinitely 
 increased misery is upon a false pretense. They are called 
 to return unto God — to repent — to believe in Christ — to a 
 holy life : no one of which calls could they possibly obey ; 
 and yet, for not obeying, every time they refuse, their 
 damnation is increased. Is not this awful — friohtful! 
 Could Satanic cruelty display greater malevolence than is 
 here supposed? Every mercy, every call, every seeming 
 good, is so arranged as necessarily to sink the poor, misera- 
 ble victim deeper into the quenchless flames of eternal 
 damnation. Thou glorious God of the universe, whose 
 v^ery nature is love, what a representation of thy character ! — 
 holding out to thy hapless, miserable creatures, an empty 
 semblance of good, which it is impossible, in the nature ol 
 things, for them to attain, and then increasing their alread}' 
 dreadful miseries for failing to comply ; and still repeating 
 the impracticable, heartless offer, every day, every hour, 
 that, by their unavoidable rejection, they may go on sinking 
 deeper and deeper yet into torments, beyond the power of 
 mind to conceive, and of eternal continuance ! Dreadful ! 
 dreadful ! dreadful ! Thou great Spirit of the heavens, art 
 thou such a monster as this ! 
 
 In the language of Mr. Wesley, " This is the blasphemy 
 for which — however I love the persons who assert it — 1 
 abhor the doctrine of predestination : a doctrine, upon the 
 supposition of which, if one could possibly suppose it for a 
 moment, one might say to our adversary, the devil, * Tliou 
 
100 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [cHAP. III. 
 
 fool, why dost thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in 
 wait for souls is as needless and useless as our preaching. 
 Hearest thou not that God hath taken thy work out of thy 
 hands ? and that he doth it more effectually ? Thou, with 
 all thy principalities and powers, canst only so assault that 
 we may resist thee. But he can irresistibly destroy both 
 soul and body in hell ! Thou canst only entice. But his 
 unchangeable decree, to leave thousands of souls in death, 
 compels them to continue in sin till they drop into everlast- 
 ing burnings. Thou temptest ; he forceth us to be damned, 
 for we cannot resist his will. Thou fool, why goest thou 
 about any longer, seeking whom thou mayest devour? 
 Hearest thou not that God is the devouring lion — the de- 
 stroyer of souls — the murderer of men? Moloch caused 
 only children to pass through the fire; and that fire whs 
 soon quenched, or, the corruptible body being consumer' , 
 its torments were at an end. But God, thou art told by h^ t 
 eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evi 
 causes whom he destroys to pass through the fires of hell— 
 the fire which shall never be quenched ; and the body whici 
 is cast thereinto, being now incorruptible and immortal, wil 
 be ever consuming and never consumed, but the smoke of 
 their torment, because it is God's good pleasure, ascendetl 
 up for ever and ever.' 
 
 " how would the enemy of God and man rejoice tc 
 hear these things were so ! How would he cry aloud and 
 spare not! How would he lift up his voice and say, *Tg 
 your tents, Israel !' Flee from the presence of this God, 
 or ye shall utterly perish ! But whither will ye flee : into 
 heaven? He is there. Down to hell? He is there also. 
 Ye cannot flee from an omnipresent, almighty tyrant. And 
 whether ye flee or stay, I call heaven, his throne, and the 
 earth, his footstool, to witness against you, ye shall perish ; 
 ye shall die eternally. Sing, hell, and rejoice yo that are 
 under the earth ; for God, even the mighty God, hath 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND RLPROBATION. 3 01 
 
 spoken, and devoted to death thousands of souls, from the 
 rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. Here, 
 death, is thy sting ! They shall not, cannot escape ; for the 
 mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. Here, grave, is thy 
 victory ! Nations yet unborn, or ere they had done good 
 or evil, are doomed never to see the light of life, but thou 
 shait gnaw upon them for ever and ever. Let all those 
 morning stars sing together who fell with Lucifer, son of 
 the morning. Let all the sons of hell shout for joy ! For 
 the decree is past, and who shall disannul it !" 
 
 Do you shudder at this? is your whole soul filled with 
 just horror at the blasphemous intimation? Who, let me 
 ask, is guilty of the enormous blasphemy? Who is it that 
 thus charges God foolishly, nay, wickedly? Reflect, ye 
 that hold to unconditional election and reprobation! how 
 can you escape? In the sight of heaven and earth, are 
 you not guilty ? Have you not aspersed the glorious God, 
 and made wicked men and devils to triumph in your blas- 
 phemies? In the spirit of kindness and love we beseech 
 you to consider these things ; and may God help you ! 
 
 17. The doctrine of election and reprobation, if true, 
 renders the condition of mankind far worse than that of 
 devils in hell; for these were, sometime, in a capacity to 
 have stood ; they might have kept their happy estate, but 
 would not ; whereas, many millions of men, according to this 
 doctrine, are tormented for ever, without ever having had 
 the opportunity to be happy ! It renders the fate of human 
 beings worse than the beasts of the field, of whom the 
 master requires no more than they are able to perform ; and 
 if they die, death is to them the end of all sorrow ; whereas, 
 man is in pain without end, for not doing that which he 
 never was able to do. It puts him in a far worse state than 
 Pharaoh put the Israelites ; for though he withheld straw 
 from them, yet they could obtain it by much labor. But 
 this doctrine makes God to withhold from the reprobates 
 
102 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [CHAr. III. 
 
 all means of salvation, so that they cannot attain it by all 
 their pains. Yea, it places mankind in that condition which 
 the poets feign of Tantalus, who, oppressed with tliirst, 
 stands in water up to the chin, yet can, by no means, reach 
 it Avith his tongue ; and being tormented Avith hiinger, hath 
 fruit hanging at his very lips, yet so as he can never lay 
 hold of it with his teeth ; and these things are so near him, 
 not to nourish him, but torment him. So does this doctrine 
 make God deal with mankind. It makes the outward crea- 
 tion, the work of Providenqe, the smiting of conscience, 
 sufficient to convince the reprobates of sin, but never in- 
 tended to help them to salvation. It makes the preaching 
 of the Gospel, and the offer of salvation by Christ, sufficient 
 to condemn them, serving to beget a seeming faith and vain 
 hopes ; yet, by reason of God's irresistible decree, all these 
 are wholly ineffectual to bring them the least step toward 
 salvation, and do only contribute to make their condem. 
 nation the greater, and their torments the more violent an I 
 intolerable. Truly, if these things be so, may the man 
 with his one talent in the day of final settlement say to the 
 Judge, "I knew thee that thou art a hard man, reaping 
 where thou hast not sown, and gathering where t jou hast 
 not strewed." Such is Calvinism — such are som.; of the 
 difficulties of this boasted system, which Dr. Rioe, after 
 proclaiming his readiness, nay even anxiety, to defend for 
 years past, has not even attempted to remove, and, though 
 pledged, I venture to predict, to my readers, he never will 
 attempt to remove, by a direct refutation. Dr. Rice knows 
 very well it cannot be done : he will not hazard a trial of 
 his powers here. With all his fondness for debate — with 
 liis professed conviction that controversy serves the cause 
 of truth, he will never squarely meet these points. But 
 why is this — why will these issues be avoided ? Does any 
 one believe that, if they could be triumphantly met, it 
 w^ould not be done ? Do Presbyterians believe this ? Does 
 
rriAP. III.] ELECTION AKD REPROBATION. 103 
 
 not Dr. Rice understand his own heart sufficiently well tc 
 know, that his present backwardness proceeds from con- 
 sciousness that he could not make a successful defense? 
 Let him not deceive himself upon this point — let him not 
 suppose he can deceive the public, who are acquainted with 
 the facts in the case — let him not imagine that either silence 
 or evasion w^ill answer under existing circumstances. If 
 the objections alledged can be answered, let him, as a lover 
 of truth and as a teacher of the erring, come to the work. 
 If we are in error, and he can show it with so much ease, 
 he may thereby advance his cherished system, and do good 
 service in the cause of his Redeemer. Will he allow the 
 opportimity to pass? Will he amuse his readers with 
 evasions — mvectives? Or will he come to the work as a 
 candid, magnanimous. Christian disputant? All this is for 
 Dr. Rice to determine. 
 
 We have expressed a part of the objections we find 
 against decrees in general, and the decree of election and 
 reprobation in particular, as held by Calvinists. We have 
 studied brevity — presented our arguments in the smallest 
 possible limits, even at the hazard, in some instances, of 
 lessening their force; and we have avoided using a great 
 number of additional arguments, because of their seeming 
 severity. The objections we have thus brought against 
 Calvinism, we believe to be legitimate and unavoidable to 
 the system. For the refreshing of our readers, we subjoin 
 a brief recapitulation. 
 
 1. We object to the Cahinistic system, that it renders 
 the conclusion unavoidable that God is the responsible 
 author of sin — author in the sense of originator and cause. 
 
 2. It is inconsistent with, and destructive of, the free 
 agency of man. 
 
 3. It destroys human accountability. 
 
 4. It removes moral quality from human actions and voli- 
 tions — renders man incapable of vice or virtue. 
 
104 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [CHAP. III. 
 
 5. In the day of judgment it must place the conscience 
 and judgment of the universe on the side of the condemned, 
 and against God. 
 
 C. It puts a justifying plea in the mouth of the sinner 
 fc r all his crimes while upon earth, and renders all punish- 
 ments, human and divine, essentially unjust and tyrannical. 
 
 7. It asperses the character of God in a most dreadful 
 manner, inevitably involving, 
 
 (1.) His holiness, showing him to be the very centre and 
 author of all impurity. 
 
 (2.) His benevolence, showing him to be a minister of 
 cruelty. 
 
 (3.) His justice, showing him to be the direst tyrant. 
 
 (4.) His truthfulness and sincerity, proving him to be an 
 amalgam of duplicity and falsehood. 
 
 8. It makes God self- contradictory, and the author of all 
 the absurdities and contradictions, yea, of all things of what- 
 ever description in the universe. 
 
 9. It is calculated to do away all sense of obligation, and 
 to produce recklessness, crime, and despair. 
 
 10. It is wholly without foundation, either in reason or 
 Scripture. 
 
 11. It makes God the author of man's fall. 
 
 12. It teaches that some are elected to life, and others 
 unto death, wholly without respect to their character or 
 conduct, thus leaving sin and virtue entirely out of the 
 question in regard to human destiny. 
 
 13. It renders God a partial being, and at the same time 
 entirely destroys the doctrine of grace. 
 
 14. It teaches not only unconditional reprobation, but 
 also that for the reprobates Christ did not die in any sense. 
 
 15. It is inconsistent with the Scriptures: 
 (1.) Which teach a universal atonement. 
 
 (2.) Which teach that some, for whom Christ died, may 
 finally perish. 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 105 
 
 (3.) Which offer salvation to all men. 
 
 (4.) In which failure to obtain salvation is ascribed to the 
 perversity of the human will. 
 
 (5.) In which warnings and expostulations are used 
 toward sinners, and also toward saints. 
 
 16. It is inconsistent with all calls and invitations to sin- 
 ners by the ministry of the word. 
 
 17. It is inconsistent with commands and exhortations to 
 sinners to believe. 
 
 18. It is inconsistent with making the unbehef of the 
 sinner the cause of his condemnation. 
 
 19. It is inconsistent with ascribing the sinner's damna- 
 tion to his rejection of Christ. 
 
 20. It is inconsistent in making the sinner's own choice 
 the cause of his ruin. 
 
 21. It makes it impossible for reprobates to be saved, do 
 what they may or can. 
 
 22. It makes it impossible for the elect to be lost, do 
 what they may or can. 
 
 23. It renders all remonstrance, exhortation, or entreaty, 
 either to the elect or reprobates, absurd. 
 
 24. It makes the atonement, in itself, in its very nature, 
 and necessarily, an infinite curse to milHons of human 
 beings. 
 
 Such are a part of the objections we bring against this 
 system — all of tuem imavoidably bearing against it, and 
 any one of them sufficient, as we believe, to render it 
 unworthy of all credit and respect. And the most casual 
 reader must perceive that each one of these objections 
 must necessarily bring, in its train, many others equally 
 revolting. How, I ask, in the name of reason, Scripture, 
 humanity, and religion, can a system, so embarrassed, find 
 advocates among rational beings ? 
 
 The only attempt at reply is contained in a denial, 
 that they are a true representation of Calvinism in 
 
106 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [CHAP. III. 
 
 the premises. The argumentation is thus admitted to be 
 sound. No effort has been made to coiTect the misrep- 
 resentations — no authority has been rejected — no specific 
 points named, but simply a blank denial that Calvinists do 
 not believe Avhat is charged against them — no argument 
 sustaining the charges has been refuted — no quotation set 
 aside. What a beautiful defense this ! How creditable to 
 men who have vaunted their readiness for controversy! 
 who have ceased not to disturb sister Churches, who were 
 content with peace, and anxious to maintain it ! What an 
 intellectual, manly, Christian palladium this, when con- 
 sequences unavoidable are proved, to meet them with the 
 rational and lucid reply, "We do not beheve these things!" 
 But if this is the best defense your system is capable of, 
 we must not complain. You have done the best you could ; 
 and as it is not in our creed to hold men accountable for 
 more than they have ability to perform, we must appreciate 
 your effort. 
 
 You will excuse us, however, for going on to show how 
 unsound your defense is, and for pointing out your mistake, 
 in charging us with misrepresentation. You believe that 
 we are guilty — that the system is not so had as we 
 made appear; but we shall show you that the mistake is 
 your own — that it is precisely what we declared. 
 
 I have charged upon the system that it makes God the 
 author of sin, and destroys the free agency and account- 
 ability of man. Dr. Rice replied — for he commenced re- 
 plying to my letters, and, for reasons doubtless sufficient 
 in his esteem, abruptly ceased — that the objections had 
 been often refuted, and that no Presbyterian author taught 
 the doctrine which I charged upon them. This last state- 
 ment of the Doctor's I have shown to be an entire mistake, 
 by quoting many authors who unequivocally teach the very 
 things he denies, and for which he says they would be 
 deposed — I suggest to the Doctor that he had better depose 
 
CHAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 107 
 
 them yet, whether Uving or dead — Calvin, Hill, D wight,. 
 Chalmers, Witsius, Shaw, the Westminster Assembly, 
 Buck, <fcc. ; and now, having proved that these distin 
 guished men did and do teach precisely what I charged, 
 I leave it with my readers to judge who has misrepre- 
 sented Calvinists, Dr Rice or myself. 
 
 But I shall now proceed to show that the former part 
 of- his assertion is also without foundation, in which he 
 says these objections have often been answered. This, I 
 assert, is a mistake — they have never been answered. If 
 Dr. Rice, as he affirms, will refer to a single answer upon 
 which he will rely, and it proves conclusive, we will confess 
 ourselves wrong in the charges we have made. But lest 
 the Doctor will find it convenient to be silent just now, 
 I will help my readers to some of the answers about which 
 these vauntings are made — some of the lucid and luminous 
 refutations given; and to prevent the idea that we have 
 selected w^eak apologies from feeble men, we shall select 
 from the champions, the confessed fathers of the defense. 
 
 Take Witsius: how does he answer to these charges? 
 Hear him: "And though it be difficult, nay, impossible, 
 for us to reconcile these truths with each other, [namely, 
 how God causes the vicious actions of men, but not the 
 sin itself,] yet we ought not to deny what is manifest, on 
 account of that which is hard to be understood. We will 
 religiously profess both truths, because they are truths, 
 and worthy of God: nor can the one overturn the other; 
 though in this, our state of blindness and ignorance of 
 God, we cannot see the amicable harmony between them." 
 Now, I appeal to my readers, is not this overwhelming 
 refutation — unanswerable argument! How dare any Ar- 
 minian ever again name the exploded objection ! 
 
 But if this does not suffice, hear Calvin himself, and see 
 how, at a stroke of his pen, he demolishes all his opposers. 
 After asserting that Adam fell in consequence of the Divme 
 
108 ELECTION AND REPROBATION. [CHAP. Ill, 
 
 predestination, and supposing the objection introduced, tha^ 
 this makes God the author of sin, he thus rephes : " But it 
 follows noL, therefore, that God is liable to this reproach. 
 For we will answer them thus, in the language of Paul, 
 *0 man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall 
 the thing formed say to him that formed it. Why hast thou 
 made me thus ?' " Surely this is sufficient to satisfy any 
 Arminian! Can you, my readers, conceive of logic more 
 irresistible ! Is it strange that Dr. Rice should say this old 
 objection has been answered a thousand times! Is not 
 either one of the foregoing replies a thousand-fold answei 
 itself! 
 
 But hear Mr. Dick, a modem. He says, in answer to 
 the objection that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, 
 *'I confess that the statement may be objected to as not 
 complete; that there are still difficulties that press upon 
 us; that perplexing questions may be proposed, and that 
 the answers which have been returned to them by great 
 divines are not satisfactory in every instance, as those 
 imagine wjj^o do not think for themselves, and take too 
 much upon trust. The subject is above our comprehen- 
 sion. There are two propositions of the truth of which 
 we are fully assured — that God has foreordained all things 
 which come to pass, and that he is not the author of sin. 
 Inhere can he no doubt about either of them in the mind of 
 the man who believes the Scriptures. He may not be able 
 to reconcile them, but this ought not to weaken his con- 
 viction of their truth." Was ever argumentation more 
 transparent! Ye Arminians, how can you withstand such 
 reasoning! How dare you open your lips again! Where 
 shall you find an apology for such temerity ! 
 
 Since writing the foregoing, I find Dr. Rice has favored 
 us with his mode of escaping from the charges I have 
 brought against his system. Hear him : " Are these repre- 
 sentations true?" he asks; and replies, "This question 
 
OIIAP. III.] ELECTION AND REPROBATION. 109 
 
 might be answered by a fair statement of the doctrine, 
 and a comparison of its principles with the word of God. 
 There is, also, another way of answering the question satis- 
 factorily, namely, hy inquiring what have been the fruits 
 of this and kindred doctrines called CalvinisticT' Then 
 follows a long article to show that the fruits of Calvinism 
 liave been good; and, therefore, the inference is drawn, 
 it is not liable to the charges we have preferred against 
 it. Now, I ask my readers, is not this a novel mode of 
 escaping logical consequences ? " The fruits of the system 
 ire good; therefore, the logical consequences, deduced from its 
 •premises, are not legitimate !" Verily, this is logic ! 
 
 But soberly, Doctor, do you not know, that there is not 
 a particle of soundness in this argument? that, if your 
 premises were admitted — which cannot be done without 
 o-reat abatement — the conclusion does not follow? that, in 
 
 to 
 
 direct terms, it is a sheer evasion, substituted to lay your 
 own apprehensions, and turn away from the real matter in 
 dispute? Why do you not, with candor and confidence, 
 take up the real issues, and show us how they may be 
 escaped ? If it can be done, and you say it can — you tell 
 your readers it has been for a thousandth time — why do 
 you waste your strength in such complete evasions, which 
 must unavoidably produce the impression, that your repre- 
 sentations are founded in error? 
 
110 THE ATONEMENT. [cHAP. IV. 
 
 ♦ CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 Tn this chapter we shall take up the Calvmian view of the 
 atonement. What do Calvinists believe on this point ? This 
 question shall be answered by their Confession of Faith, 
 and their standard authors. 
 
 The Confession of Faith says: "Wherefore, they who 
 are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ — 
 are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit 
 working in due season- — are justified, adopted, sanctified, 
 and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither 
 are any other redeemed hy Christ, effectually called, justified, 
 adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.'" 
 
 Upon this section, the expositor of the Confession, in- 
 dorsed by the board of publication, makes the following 
 remarks : " In this section we are taught, that Christ died 
 exclusively for the elect, and purchased redemption for them 
 alone; in other words, that Christ made atonement only for 
 tlie elect; and that in no sense did he die for the rest of the 
 race. Our Confession first asserts, positively, that the elect 
 are redeemed by Christ; and then, negatively, that none 
 others are redeemed -by Christ, but the elect only. If this- 
 does not affirm the doctrine of particular redemption, or of 
 a limited atonement, we know not what language could ex- 
 press that doctrine more explicitly." 
 
 Hear the Confession again: "To all those for whom 
 Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and 
 eff'ectually apply and communicate the same." 
 
 Upon this section, the expositor of the Confession re- 
 marks : " This section relates to the extent of Christ's death, 
 with respect to its objects, and in opposition to the Arminian 
 tenet, that Christ died for all men — for those who shall 
 finally perish, as well as for those who shall be eventually 
 waved; it affirms that the purchase and application of 
 
CEIAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. Ill 
 
 redemption are of the same extent. In the fifth section, we 
 were taught that Christ purchased redemption only for 
 those whom the Father hath given him, and here it is 
 asserted that, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased 
 redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and 
 communicate the same. What language, then, could affirm 
 more explicitly, than that here employed, that the atone- 
 ment of Christ is specific and limited, that it is neither uni- 
 versal nor indefinite, but restricted to the elect, who shall be 
 saved from wrath through him ? 
 
 "The sacrifice of Christ derived infinite value from the 
 divinity of his person ; it must, therefore, have been intrin- 
 sically sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole human 
 race, had it been so intended; but in the design of the 
 Father, and in the intention of Christ himself, it was limited 
 to a definite number, who shall ultimately obtain salvation." 
 
 The interpretation thus given to the Confession, is sus- 
 tained by the author quoted, with eleven arguments in 
 support of limited atonement. I think all will admit, that 
 he has fairly and correctly expressed the sense of his Con- 
 fession, and the doctrine of all consistent Calvinists, His 
 language is explicit; and I embrace his definition, as the 
 best I have seen, of the Calvinian view of the atonement. 
 
 " Christ died exclusively for the elect, and purchased 
 redemption for them alone ; in other words, Christ made 
 atonement onhj for the elect ; and in no sense did he die for 
 the rest of the race^ 
 
 Corroborative of this statement, I shall proceed to quote 
 from many other distinguished Calvinists, that there may be 
 no mistake as to the meaning of the system, as understood 
 by its friends. 
 
 "We shall now consider the persons for whom, as a 
 priest, Christ offered himself, and so enter on that subject 
 which is so much controverted in this present age, namely. 
 Whether Christ died for all men, or only for the elect. 
 
112 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. iv. 
 
 whom he designed hereby to redeem and bring to salvation. 
 And here let it be premised, 
 
 " 1. That it is generally taken for granted by those who 
 maintain either side of the question, that the sa\dng effects 
 of Christ's death do not redound to all men, or that Christ 
 did not die, in this respect, for all the world, since to assert 
 this would be to argue that all men shall be saved, which 
 every one supposes contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. 
 
 "2. It is allowed, by those who deny the extent of 
 Christ's death to all men, as to what concerns their salva- 
 tion, that it may truly be said that there are some blessings 
 redounding to the whole world, and more especially to those 
 who sit under the sound of the Gospel, as the consequence 
 of Christ's death ; inasmuch as it is owing hereunto, that the 
 day of God's patience is lengthened out, and the preaching 
 of the Gospel continued to those who are favored with it ; 
 and that this is attended, in many, with restraining grace, 
 and some instances of external reformation, which has a 
 tendency to prevent a multitude of sins, and a greater de- 
 gree of condemnation that would otherwise ensue. These 
 may be called the remote or secondary ends of Christ's 
 death, which principally and immediately designed to redeem 
 the elect, and to purchase all saving blessings for them, 
 which shall be applied in his own time and way : neverthe- 
 less, others, as a consequence hereof, are made partakers of 
 some blessings of common providence, so far as they are 
 subservient to the salvation of those for whom he gave 
 himself a ransom. 
 
 "3. It is allowed on both sides, and especially by all 
 who own the divinity and satisfaction of Christ, that his 
 death was sufficient to redeem the "whole world, had God 
 designed that it should be a price for them, which is the 
 result of the infinite value of it ; therefore, 
 
 " 4. The main question before us is, whether God designed 
 the salvation of all mankind by the death of Christ, oi 
 
CHAP. IV. J THE ATONEMENT. 113 
 
 whether he accepted it as a price of redemption for all, so 
 that it might be said that he redeemed some who shall not 
 be saved by him ? This is affirmed by many who affirm 
 universal redemption, which we must take leave to deny. 
 And they further add, as an explanation hereof, that Christ 
 died that he might put all men into a salvable state, or 
 procure a possibility of salvation for them ; so that many 
 might obtain it, by a right improvement of his death, who 
 shall fall short of it, and also that it is in their powder to 
 frustrate the end thereof, and so render it ineffectual. This 
 we judge not only to be an error, but such as is highly 
 derogatory to the glory of God, which we shall endeavor 
 CO make appear, and to establish the contrary doctrine, 
 namely, that Christ died to purchase salvation for none hut 
 ^■hose who shall obtain it." (Ridgley's Divinity.) 
 
 "We therefore conclude," says Witsius, "that the obe- 
 dience and suffering of Christ, considered in themselves, 
 are, on account of the infinite dignity of the person, of that 
 value, as to have been sufficient for redeeming, not only all 
 and every man in particular, but many myriads besides, had 
 it so pleased God and Christ, that he should have under- 
 taken and satisfied for them. 
 
 "The suretyship and satisfaction of Christ, have also 
 been an occasion of much good even to the reprobate; 
 for it is owing to the death of Christ, that the Gospel is 
 pwached to every creature — that gross idolatry is abolished 
 in many parts of the world — that wicked impiety is much 
 restrained by the discipline of the w^ord of God — that they 
 obtain at times many and excellent, though not saving gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit — that they have escaped the pollutions 
 of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and 
 Savior Jesus Christ. And who can, in short, enumerate all 
 those things which they enjoy, not through accident only, 
 and beside the intention of God and Christ, but by the 
 appointment of God? JVot, indeed, with a desiqn and 
 
 10 
 
114 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 purpose of saving them, according to the testament, hut from 
 a view to make known his long-suffering toward the vessels 
 of wrath, that is, those loho are to perish, who dwell among 
 those who are to he saved; for nothing falls out hy accident 
 with God, every thing heing according to his determinate 
 counsel. 
 
 " That the obedience and suflfering of Christ are of such 
 worth, that all, without exception, who come to him, may 
 find perfect salvation in him; and it was the will of God 
 that this truth should, without distinction, be proposed both 
 to them that are to be saved, and to them that are to 
 perish, with a charge not to neglect so great salvation, but 
 to repair to Christ with true contrition of soul ; and with a 
 most sincere declaration that all who come to him shall find 
 salvation in him. 
 
 " That, nevertheless, Christ, according to the will of God 
 the Father, and his own purpose, did neither engage nor 
 satisfy, and consequently in no manner die, hut only for 
 all those whom the Father gave him^ and who actually are to 
 be saved. 
 
 "If 2ve search the matter to the bottom, we shall learn 
 that it never was Christ's intention to satisfy for all in 
 general. Certainly he satisfied only for those he engaged for. 
 But he engaged to do the will of his Father. But this is the 
 will of his Father, not that every man should he saved, hut 
 those that were given him, that is, the elect out of every 
 nation, who are to receive the gift of faith.'' 
 
 "The two sides of this question [Arminian and Cal- 
 vinian] do not imply any difference of opinion with regard 
 to the sufferings of Christ's death, or with regard to the 
 number and character of those who shall eventually be 
 saved. They who hold the one and the other side of the 
 question agree, that although the sufferings of Christ have 
 a value sufficient to atone for all the sins of all the children 
 of Adam, from the beginning to the end of time, yet those 
 
CllAr. IV.] THE ATONEMENT Hj 
 
 only shall be saved by this atonement who repent and 
 beheve. But they differ as to the destination of the death 
 of Christ — whether, in the purpose of the Father and the 
 will of the Son, it respected all mankind, or only those 
 persons to whom the benefit of it is at length to be 
 applied." 
 
 After many remarks highly eulogistic of the doctrine of 
 general or universal redemption, the author remarks of his 
 own, the Calvinistic system: 
 
 *' The Calvinistic system gives a very different view of 
 the application of the remedy; and the difference may he 
 traced hack to its fundamental principle, that Christ did not 
 die for all men, hut for those in every nation who, in tJie end, 
 are to he saved. Them only he delivers from the curse, and 
 for them only he purchases those influences of the Spirit, 
 by which faith and repentance are produced." (Hill's 
 Divinity.) 
 
 " Nor do we hesitate to admit, that all mankind, as well 
 as those who live under the Gospel's light, have been 
 benefited by the Redeemer's death. Blessings have flowed 
 from this precious fountain of mercy to our sinful world, 
 that would, if Christ had not died, been ^vithheld. But 
 when the question is proposed. What is the extent of the 
 Savior's atonement? for whom did he satisfy Divine jus- 
 tice ? in whose place did he lay down his precious life ? we 
 ansioer, for all to whom his atonement shall he applied; for 
 all lohom his Father gave him to redeem^ (Presbyterian 
 Tracts.) 
 
 "Not so the advocates of indefinite atonement. Tlicy 
 affirm that Christ died for all and every man. This loe 
 cannot helieve.'' (lb.) 
 
 " On the extent of Christ's atonement, the two opinions 
 that have long divided the Church are expressed by the 
 terms, definite and indefinite. The former means, that 
 Christ died, satisfied Di\ine justice, and made atonement. 
 
116 THE ATONEMENT. [cHAP. IV 
 
 mly for such as are saved. The latter means, that Chribt 
 died, satisfied Divine justice, and made atonement for all 
 mankind, without exception. The former opinion, or what 
 is called definite atonement, is that tvhich we adopt. It may- 
 be thus stated : That the Lord Jesus Christ made atone- 
 ment to God, hy his death, only for the sins of those to 
 ivhom, in tJie sovereign good pleasure of the Almighty, the 
 benefits of his death shall he finally applied. By this defi- 
 nition, the extent of Christ's atonement is limited to those 
 who ultimately enjoy its fruits; it is restricted to the elect 
 of God, for whom alone ive conceive him to have laid down 
 his life.'" (Presbyterian Tracts.) 
 
 " Redemption is certainly applied and effectually com- 
 municated to all those for whom Christ has purchased it. ' 
 (Larger Catechism.) 
 
 "And here we believe, after all, hes the main point of 
 dispute in regard to the atonement. Among those who 
 agree as to its nature, the chief question in dispute is. 
 What is its design? Avhat was it intended to effect? This 
 question was briefly discussed in the former discourse, and 
 we endeavored to point out some of the consequences which 
 would flow from the belief, that Christ died intentionally to 
 save all mankind. Such a belief must inevitably lead to 
 Socinianism on the one hand, or Universahsm on the other." 
 (Great Supper.) 
 
 " The advocates of a limited or definite atonement, [Cal- 
 vinists,] on the other hand, maintain, that the atonement 
 cannot be considered apart from its actual application — 
 that, in strictness of speech, the death of Christ is not an 
 atonement for any until it be applied — that the sufferings 
 of the Lamb of God are truly vicarious, or, in other words, 
 that Christ, in suffering, became a real substitute for his 
 people, was charged with their sins, and bore the punish- 
 ment of them, and thus was made a full and complete 
 satisfaction to l)i\ine justice, in behalf of all those who 
 
^HAl'. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 117 
 
 shall ever believe on him — that this atonement will eventu- 
 ally be applied to all for whom, in the Divine intention, it 
 was made, or to all whom God, in his sovereignty, has been 
 pleased to decree its application. They beheve, however, 
 notwithstanding the atonement is to be considered as exactly 
 commensurate with its intended application, that the Lord 
 Jesus Christ did offer a sacrifice, sufficient in its intrinsic 
 value, to expiate the sins of the whole world, and that if it 
 had been the pleasure of Gcd to apply it to every indi- 
 vidual, the whole human race would have bfeen saved by its 
 immeasurable worth. They hold, therefore, that-, on the 
 ground of the infinite value of the atonement, the ofier of 
 salvation can be consistently made to all who hear the 
 Gospel, assuring them that if they will believe they shall 
 be saved; whereas, if they will reject the overture of 
 mercy, they will increase their guilt, and aggravate their 
 damnation. At the same time, the Scriptures plainly teach, 
 that the will and disposition to comply with this condition 
 depends upon the sovereign gift of God, and that the actual 
 compliance is secured to those only for whom, in the Divine 
 counsels, the atonement was specifically intended." (Buck.) 
 " It [the Confession of Faith, chap, iii, sec. vi] is diamet- 
 rically opposed to the system of the Arminians, who hold 
 that Jesus Christ, by his death and suflPerings, made an 
 atonement for the sins of all mankind in general, and 0/ 
 every individual in particular. It is not less opposed to th«5 
 doctrine maintained by many, that though the death of 
 Christ had a special reference to the elect, and, in connec- 
 tion with the Divine purpose, infallibly secures their salva- 
 tion, yet that it has also a general reference, and made an 
 equal atonement for all men. The celebrated Richard 
 Baxter, who favored general redemption, makes the follow- 
 ing remark upon this and another section of our Confession, 
 fchap. iii, sec. vi, and chap, viii, sec. viii,] which speak against 
 universal redemption: 'I understand not of all redemption, 
 
lid THE ATONEMENT. [cHAP. IV. 
 
 and particularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of 
 man's sins, and satisfying God's justice, but of that special 
 redemption proper to the elect, which was accompanied 
 with an intention of actual application of the saving bene- 
 fits in time. If I may not be allowed this interpretation, 1 
 must hence dissent.' The language of the Confession, in 
 my opinion, will not admit of this interpretation ; and, what 
 is more, the Bible is silent about this general redemption, or 
 the general reference of the death of Christ." (Expositor 
 of Confession.) 
 
 "It Avas the will of God that Christ, by the blood of 
 the cross, should efficaciously redeem those, and those 
 only, who were, from eternity, elected to salvation, and 
 given to him by the Father." (Buck.) 
 
 "It was the most free counsel and gracious will and 
 intention of God the Father, that the quickening and 
 saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son 
 should exert itself in all the elect, to give unto them only 
 justifying faith, and by it to conduct them infallibly unto 
 salvation: that is, it was the will of God that Christ, by 
 the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new 
 covenant, should efficaciously redeem those, and those 
 only, who were, from eternity, elected to salvation, and 
 given to him by the Father." (Synod of Dort.) 
 
 The foregoing quotations contain what we understand to 
 be the Calvinian view of the extent of the atonement. It 
 would be an easy thing greatly to extend the list of au- 
 thorities, and also the amount of quotation from each ; but 
 this is not deemed necessary, as it is presumed there will 
 be no dispute upon the point now in question. 
 
 From the authorities cited, we make the following de- 
 ductions : 
 
 1. Calvinists believe that the death of Christ is of suffi- 
 cient value, intrinsically, to make atonement for all the feina 
 of the whole world, had it been so intended. 
 
CHAP. rV.J THE ATONEMENT. 119 
 
 2. That resulting from his death are many benefits and 
 blessings to all men — the reprobate in common with the 
 elect. 
 
 3. That though his death is thus sufficient to be an 
 atonement for the world, yet it is not an atonement for 
 all, because he did not die for all, but simply and only for 
 the elect. 
 
 The limitation of his death to a part, therefore, in their 
 estimation did not proceed from the fact that his death had 
 only value sufficient to atone for a part, hut from the fact 
 that he did not choose to die, and his Father did not choose 
 that he should die for all, but only for the elect. The 
 death itself was sufficient to satisfy for all to Divine jus- 
 tice; but in the design of the Father and the Son, there 
 were some for whom it was not so intended, for whom it 
 did not in any sense atone, and who, whatever common 
 temporal benefits they receive through the operations of 
 the plan, never did and never could receive salvation; 
 because, though the death of Christ was a sufficient sacri- 
 fice, they were sovereignly excluded from having any part 
 therein by the purpose of God, who intended it for the 
 elect alone, and in no sense for the reprobate. 
 
 That these deductions are legitimate, is so palpable as 
 to need no further vindication; they are indeed distinctly 
 made in the quotations from Witsius, Ridgley, and Hill, 
 already given. With the first, of course we make no issue ; 
 and with the second, only as it stands connected with the 
 third. 
 
 It is with the third we shall contend in what follows. 
 And it is presumed that Calvinists will not find fault with 
 our statement of their faith. We certainly have repre- 
 sented it in the least objectionable light; or, rather, we 
 have allowed its friends so to represent it. If any thing is 
 to be gained by expletives and mitigated statements, we 
 have allowed them this advanta:^e — blendini^ the terrible 
 
120 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 feature of limited atonement, with the benign history of 
 Providence toward those who are so unfortunate as to 
 be sovereignly excluded from any possible interest in it — 
 the fact that Christ's death is restricted in the intention of 
 the Father and Son to a part, with the acknowledgment 
 that it was ample and sufficient for all, in its own value — 
 the fact that if any fail to be saved by Christ, it is not 
 because he had not abiHty to save them; but simply be- 
 cause, in his infinite and inscrutable mercy, he thought best 
 that it should not apply to some — that though these can- 
 not possibly be saved by Christ, but must, necessarily, be 
 damned for ever, and damned a thousand- fold worse than 
 if he had never died, yet, in lieu thereof, he has given them 
 many temporal benefits, and if he had so chosen he could 
 have done more foi them ; but he did not so choose. May 
 God conduct us into all truth ! 
 
 Having thus gi^en the Calvinian view of the extent of 
 the atonement — namely, " That the Lord Jesus Christ 
 made atonement to God, hy his death, only for the sins of 
 those to whom, in the sovereign good pleasure of the Al- 
 mighty, the benefits of his death shall he finally applied. 
 Neither are any other redeemed hy Christ hut the elect mdy, 
 Christ died exclusively for the elect, and purchased redemption 
 for them alone; in other words, Christ made atonement only 
 for the elect, and in no sense did he die for the rest of the 
 race " — having thus presented their view of the atonement, 
 in their own language, Wfe shall now proceed to name some 
 objections to it. 
 
 1. And, first, we object to it in general terms — all that 
 has been objected to the deicree of election and reprobation 
 in the former chapter; for the doctrines are so kindred, 
 that much that is applicable to the one may also be ap- 
 plied to the other: what supports the one supports the 
 otlier ; and what opposes the one antagonizes the other to 
 a great extent. 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. - 121 
 
 2. Particularly I object to the doctrine of a limited 
 atonement, that it has no foundation in Scripture. Not a 
 solitary passage, from Genesis to Revelation, asserts the 
 doctrine, that Christ died for only a part of mankind — no 
 passage implies it — it finds no countenance in any fact 
 or principle of revelation. That it is repeatedly said that 
 Christ died for particular persons and classes is not dis- 
 puted, but it is nowhere said, it is nowhere implied, that 
 he did not die for others. This, then, is one great objec- 
 tion I bring to bear against this doctrine — it is nowhere 
 revealed in the wcyrd of God. 
 
 3. I object to it, that it is not only nowhere taught in 
 the woi-d of God, but is directly contrary to multitudes of 
 express declarations of revelation, and to the whole tenor 
 of Divine teaching. 
 
 (1.) It is contrary to those passages which teach that 
 Christ died for all men — for every man — for the whole 
 world. 
 
 (2.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which contrast 
 the death of Christ with the fall of Adam. 
 
 (3.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which represent 
 those who are lost as purchased by Christ. 
 
 (4.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which make offer 
 of the benefits of Christ's death to all men. 
 
 (5.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which require all 
 men to believe on and accept Christ. 
 
 (6.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which represent 
 the cause of the sinner's damnation as being his rejection 
 of Christ, and unbeHef in him. 
 
 (7.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which represent 
 that those who are finally lost might have been saved. 
 
 (8.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which represent 
 the Lord as not willing the destruction of sinners, but 
 as regretting their folly, and desiring them to turn and 
 live. 
 
 11 
 
122 THE ATONEMENT. [cHAP. IV 
 
 (9.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which represent 
 God as a being of universal love. 
 
 (10.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which represent 
 liim as impartial. 
 
 (11.) It is contrary to those Scriptures which represent 
 him as just. 
 
 4. I object that not only is not the doctrine of a limited 
 atonement nowhere taught in the Scriptures, and not only 
 is it diametrically contrary to the whole tenor of revelation, 
 and many express passages thereof, but it is also adversa- 
 tive to all our conceptions of the character of God as the 
 universal parent. In the light, or rather in the darkness, 
 of its consequences, we are compelled to change all oui 
 views of his character and nature. Shorn of all his glo- 
 rious perfections of infinite benevolence, and impartiality, 
 and truth, and sincerity, he is presented to us as a hideous 
 CQmpound of cruelty, and caprice, and duplicity, and false- 
 hood. I know these are severe charges; and it is their 
 indisputable truth, as every one, who will b^- .it the pains 
 of a faithful examination, will be compelled to admit, that 
 makes them severe. 
 
 Can any man believe, is it in the po';7er of the human 
 mind, that God is a being of infinite lovt», when he damns 
 millions of souls eteraally, with the most excrutiating tor- 
 tures, for that which they could not avoid, and this, too, 
 when it Avas in his power to save them, but he chose not 
 to do it ? Can this be believed ? 
 
 Can any man believe God is impartial, when he, by a 
 sovereign act, takes some men to heaven, and consigns 
 others to hell, when there was no difference betw^een them 
 whatever, but some were chosen, and others rejected, for 
 his pleasure alone ? No partiality — no caprice here ! 
 
 Can any man believe in the truth and sincerity of God, 
 when he proclaims himself ready to save all, and not will- 
 inor -iny should perish — when he goes to all with invitations, 
 
CflAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 12S 
 
 and promises, and exhortations, and yet the truth is, thai 
 many of those thus invited he has damned, for his own 
 pleasure, before they had an existence? Is this in your 
 idea of sincerity? 
 
 5. I object, further: if it is true that Christ did not die 
 for those who shall finally be lost, then there never was a 
 IMSSihility of their salvation. Either this must be ad- 
 mitted, or it must be assumed that a soul might be saved 
 for whom Christ did not die. There is no other alterna- 
 tive; and our Calvinistic brethren may select either horn 
 of the dilemma. If they select the latter, then they will 
 do away with the necessity of the deatii of Christ, and 
 find some other name or means whereby to be saved. If 
 they admit the former, then they damn the sinner, when it 
 was eternally impossible for him to escape damnation ; and 
 this his damnation is for a cause with which he never had 
 any consenting connection. 
 
 But if it was eternally impossible for the sinner to 
 escape damnation, then he is in no way to blame; nor 
 can he, in any sense, reflect upon himself for being 'lost, 
 seeing it was eternally impossible for him to be saved. 
 He cannot blame himself — no man, no angel, not God, can 
 blame him : it is no fault of his that he is damned ; for he 
 could not be saved. Let it not be said he brought himself 
 into this miserable condition, from which there is no re- 
 |)jrieve ; for the truth is, he had nothing whatever to do with 
 it, unless he personally acted before he had an existence; for 
 his damnation ivas fixed before he had an existence, and the 
 pretended causes were engendered with him in the womb 
 Look at the facts, stripped of all mysticism. There stands 
 a man for whom Christ did not die. Now, that man must 
 be lost ! But why ? Because, when he was conceived, he 
 became a partaker of a corrupt nature, which, if not re- 
 generated, must eventuate in his damnation. But Christ 
 never died for him, and so his nature cannot be regenerated ; 
 
124 THE ATONEMENT. [c'HAP. IV 
 
 and lie must, therefore, necessarily, be damned eternally for 
 thai Avhich was given to him with his existence. In Calvin's 
 words, ' Yea, and very infants themselves bring their own 
 damnation with them from their mother's womb." 
 
 G. Still further, I object: if there are any for whom 
 Christ did not die, such persons not only cannot avoid 
 damnation, and are not therefore to blame for being finally 
 destroyed, but, moreover, they cannot avoid sinning cii as 
 long as they live, and without any cessation or mitigation. 
 They cannot avoid this. Mark well this proposition ! Hu- 
 man nature is di praved, and imless changed by the grace 
 of God, it must sin on — it must sin ev( r. This is admitted 
 by Calvinists. But there is no grace out of Christ. If 
 there is a man for whom Christ did not die, there is there- 
 fore no means whereby he can be changed — he must, 
 therefore, necessarily, continue to sin. It is useless to 
 remonstrate with him, he must sin — it is his nature, and his 
 nature cannot be changed ; for the only Being in the uni- 
 verse who could effect the change, has withheld the means. 
 He sins as necessarily as the planet revolves — as water 
 descends to its level — as the stone projected to the heavens 
 must descend to the earth. 
 
 But if he must sin, and cannot avoid it — if the thing i .- 
 absolutely and entirely beyond his power, and all othe 
 available power, the man cannot be to blame for it, can he ; 
 Let it not be said he brought the disabihty upon himself. 
 If this were so, it would relieve the case. But this, you 
 know, is not the fact. His disability came with him into 
 the world — it was communicated as a part of his exist- 
 ence — it was his very and essential nature. And now, was 
 he to blame for an existence and nature which were forced 
 upon him — which never, at any period, he consented to, 
 and which he never could avoid ? His first parent may be 
 to blame, but surely he cannot be responsible; for he nou 
 only did not bring the disability upon himself, but it Ava.y 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 125 
 
 imposed on him without the possibility of its removal. Let 
 him sin — no being in the universe can censure him — he is 
 not to blame. It is his nature, unavoidable to his beino-. 
 You say he ought not to sin. I answer he cannot help it 
 You say he ought to help it. I ask, ought he to do an im- 
 possibility? Can you affirm this? But you say he can 
 help it, if he will. But can he will? If so, by what 
 power? His own? You will not pretend so much. The 
 power of God ? But God will not communicate the requi- 
 site assistance. But does God require men to avoid sinning ? 
 Then Calvinism is false, or God is unjust. 
 
 Take a similar case. There is a man of scrofulous habit — 
 the disease is destroying his life, and no remedy can cure 
 it. You find, on inquiry, that the disease has been in his 
 family for a succession of generations — it is transmitted 
 from father to son. Now, is the man to be blamed for 
 being scrofulous — is he responsible ? It was communicated 
 in his conception. Is he to blame for remaining under the 
 influence of the disease? He has tried every remedy in 
 vain, and has found none to cure him. He cannot be cured. 
 
 But I object, further : if it is impossible for the sinner to 
 avoid sinning, and if this disability of his was not brought 
 upon himself by his own act, then not only is he not to 
 blame for his sins, but he cannot be required to do right — 
 he is under no obligation to do right. No being in the 
 universe can create such an obligation. This must be so, 
 unless it can be shown that a being can be brought under 
 obligation to perform an absolute impossibility. Will any 
 man, in his senses, pretend so much? Suppose God were 
 to command me this moment to annihilate the sun, and yet 
 give me no more power than I now possess — would his un- 
 righteous command create an obligation? Yet, when he 
 commands that sinner, for whom Christ did not die, to do 
 right, he commands as absolute an impossibility as in ihe 
 former case. Does this command create an obligation . 
 
126 THE ATONEMENT. [ciIAP. IV. 
 
 No mysticism can escape this plain matter-of-fact statement. 
 But does God require men to do right? Then Calvinism is 
 false, or Grod is a despot! Calvinists may determine which 
 horn to choose. Let not our opponents refer to the condi- 
 tion of fallen angels and lost sinners, as proof that obligation 
 to do right may remain when the ability is gone. The cases 
 are not analogous. In the former case, the sinner is required 
 to perform what it never was possible for him to do ; and 
 the inabilit}' was communicated with his existence, and he 
 never could have got clear of it. 
 
 8. But I object, further: if the sinner cannot avoid doing 
 sin, and has no available power to do right, then not only is 
 he not to blame for his sins, and absolutely under no obliga- 
 tion to do right, but, moreover, he cannot be punished, 
 either in this world or the world to come, for his delin- 
 quencies, without the grossest injustice and sheerest tyranny* 
 He is a fool for inflicting upon himself the torture of re- 
 morse, the pang of regret, or as he gives himself any 
 sorrow, any uneasiness about his state. The God who 
 made him, and who punishes him, universal intelligence 
 must pronounce a monster of cruelty! Punish him! for 
 what, I pray you? Is not his very being curse enough? 
 Must other tortures be added? And for what? For his 
 sins? He never could avoid them. For not doing right? 
 He never had the power. Damn him in hell torments for 
 ever for this ? 0, sir, is not this dreadful ! Do you believe 
 our heavenly Father is such a being as this ! Does not 
 your blood shiver in your veins at the thought! Is not 
 being bad enough ! Must he suffer on for ever, the victim 
 of insatiable malevolence! What should be thought of a 
 human tyrant, who, supposing a certain family of his slaves 
 by birth were disqualified for his service, so that it was 
 absolutely impossible, for a cause connected with their con- 
 ception, for them to do what he required of them, should, 
 nevertheless, appoint them the usual task, and yet, because 
 
CIlAr. I V.J THE ATONEMENT. 127 
 
 tliey failed to perform it, at the close of every day, strip 
 them and inflict upon their naked persons inhuman tortures, 
 and this because they did not perform absolute impossi- 
 bilities — what would all men think of such a monster? 
 Would not the mute earth open her dumb mouth and curse 
 him? Would not the heavens execrate the abhorrent 
 wretch? But shall a thousand-fold worse conduct be 
 charged upon the glorious God, and no one resent the 
 indignity ? Under the sanctity of religion, shall the revolt- 
 insc slander be made that he will torture, throuorh all 
 eternity, men, for not performing impossibilities, and the 
 representative go unrebuked ? It must not be. 
 
 9. But I object, further: if Christ did not die for all, 
 then is it inconsistent and insincere to invite all to come to 
 him and be saved. This is so manifest, that I cannot ex- 
 press my a,stonishment that Calvinists do not perceive it. 
 Look at it. There stands a man for whom Christ did 
 not die — he never died for him that he might hve. Now, 
 I ask, in all consistency, how can that man be invited to 
 come to Christ for life? He cannot come; and if he 
 could, Christ has no life for him. Look at the invita- 
 tion in the light of these facts. Is it not horrible ? Can 
 you present Christ in this attitude, without alarm at the 
 blasphemy ? What pretense justifies this invitation — this en- 
 treaty? What excuse is there for that Calvinistic preacher, 
 who stands and entreats all sinners to come to Christ, when 
 he professes to believe, first, with respect to the persons 
 for whom Christ died, that they must come in the day of 
 God's power, and cannot come until that time — next, with 
 respect to the reprobate, that he never can come, that the 
 thing is impossible — what must be thought of such a 
 preacher? What would you think of a man who should 
 go into a grave-yard, and address himself in the same way 
 to a congregation of tomb-stones? 
 
 Is it pretended that all may be invited to come to Christ, 
 
128 ^ THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 because his death is sufficient for all ? What a miserable 
 evasion! Admit that the death of Christ is sufficient for 
 all, yet there stands the fact, it was not made for all. Some 
 men were eternally excluded from it. Here is a table suf- 
 ficient to accommodate all the citizens of a city; but it is 
 surrounded by an army, who are instructed to admit only 
 the white portion of its citizens, and to prevent all colored 
 persons from approaching, so that it is absolutely impossible 
 for such to reach that table. Now, I ask, with what con- 
 sistency could these colored persons be invited and entreated 
 to come to the table and eat, by the same authority that 
 placed an army to prevent their approach, under the 
 pretense that there is enough for all? Would not all 
 men pronounce such a procedure miserable duplicity — 
 abominable, shameless hypocrisy? If there be enough, 
 they have no share in it. But do you say, to justify a 
 universal invitation of sinners to Christ, that not only is 
 there a sufficiency in him for all, but, likewise, all who will 
 may come — there is no let or hinderance but in the sinner's 
 will only ? There is no army to prevent him. If he wlU 
 come, he may; and if he will not, whose fault is it? 
 
 But, now, look at this. The very reason why the sinnt 
 will not come is this— he has no power to will to comt 
 Here is where the army is planted to prevent — an army oj 
 irresistible motives, to prevent him from willing. He cannoi 
 will, and the reason is, the will must be given of God, but 
 it can only be given to those for whom Christ died ; but for 
 this sinner he did not die, and, hence, it is impossible for 
 him to have the will. So that to say if he will come he 
 may, and make this the ground of the offer, is arrant trifling 
 He cannot will to come to Christ, and the reason why he 
 cannot will is, that Christ did not die for him, to make the 
 will possible ; so that the bar is not in his will, but in the 
 fact that Christ did not die for him ; and hence the hypoc- 
 risy of inviting him, when the fact is he is prevented fron: 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 129 
 
 coming ; and if he could come, Christ has not the thing for 
 him which he is invited to receive. 
 
 10. I object: if Christ died not for all, then unbelief is 
 no sin in them that finally perish, seeing that there is not 
 any thing for those men to believe unto salvation for whom 
 Christ died not. Their unbelief is no sin, for three reasons : 
 First. Their unbelief is true — Christ did not die for them, 
 and they believe the truth when they believe he did not. 
 Second. They cannot believe without Divine aid, and are 
 not, therefore, sinful for not doing Avhat is impossible. 
 Third. They cannot be required to believe a lie ; but if they 
 believed on Christ they would believe a lie ; therefore, in not 
 believing, they violate no requirement, and so commit no sin. 
 
 11. But if Christ did not die for all men, then it would 
 be a sin in those for whom he did not die to believe he 
 did die for them, seeing it would be to believe a lie. But 
 God commands all men to believe — he therefore commands 
 some men to believe a lie ! If he wills them to do what he 
 commands, he wills them to believe a lie — if he does not 
 will them to believe, then he commands them to do what 
 he does not wish them to do ! 
 
 12. If Christ did not die for those who are damned, then 
 they are not damned for unbelief. Otherwise, you say they 
 are damned for not believing a lie ! 
 
 13. If Christ died not for all, then those who obey 
 Christ, by going and preaching the Gospel to every crea- 
 ture as glad tidings of grace and peace, of great joy to all 
 people, do sin thereby, in that they go to most people with 
 a lie in their mouth ; for if Christ did not die for all, the 
 Gospel cannot be glad tidings of great joy to all. To 
 many it must be a message of unmingled teiTor and grief; 
 for it only announces that they are hopelessly lost, and that 
 the death of Christ itself is, in its very design, an infinite 
 find everlasting curse to them ; for it will unavoidably en- 
 hance their damnation a thousand-fold. 
 
130 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 But not only does it make those to sin, by publishing ab- 
 solute falsehood, who publish the glad tidings to all, but, 
 also — and what cannot be written without trembling — it 
 represents our Lord Jesus Christ himself, in the language 
 of Mr. Wesley, "as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, 
 a man void of common sincerity; for it cannot be denied, 
 that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men 
 should be saved, and as if he had provided the possibility. 
 Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should 
 be saved — that he had provided no such possibility, is to 
 represent him as a hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be 
 denied, that the gracious words which came out of his 
 mouth are full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, 
 he did not intend to save all sinners, upon proffered and 
 possible conditions, is to represent him as a gross deceiver 
 of the people. You cannot deny that he says, ' Come 
 unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy-laden.' If, 
 then, you say he calls those that cannot come — those 
 whom he knows to be unable to come — those whom he can 
 make able to come, but will not, how is it possible to 
 describe greater insincerity ? You represent him as mocking 
 liis helpless creatures, by offering what he never intends to 
 give. You describe him as saying one thing and meaning 
 another — as pretending a love which he had not. Him, *in 
 whose mouth was no guile,' you make full of deceit, void 
 of common sincerity : then, especially, when drawing nigh 
 tne city, he wept over it, and said, ' Jerusalem, thou that 
 Killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto 
 thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, 
 and ye would not.' Now, if you say that he would not, 
 you represent him — which who can hear? — as weeping 
 hypocritical tears over the prey which himself, of his own 
 good pleasure, doomed to destruction." 
 
 Such blasphemy as this, one might think, might make the 
 cars of a Christian to tinofle. But there is vet more behind . 
 
CHAP. I\.J THE ATONEMENT. 131 
 
 for just as it honors the Son, so it honors tlie Father. As 
 alledged, it destroys all his attributes at once — it over- 
 turns his justice, mercy, and truth. Yea, it represents the 
 most holy God as worse than the devil can be — as more 
 false, more cruel, and unjust. More false, oecause the 
 devil) liar as he is, hath never said, " He willetn all men to 
 be saved:" more unjust, because the devil cannot, if he 
 would j be guilty of such injustice as you ascribe to God, 
 when you say that God condemns millions of souls to e^ tr- 
 lasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for con- 
 tinuing in sin, which, for the grace he will not give them, 
 they cannot avoid ; and more cruel, because that unhappy 
 spirit seeketh rest and findeth none, so that his own misery 
 is the occasion of his tormenting others. But God resteth 
 in his high and holy place ; so that to suppose him, of his 
 own mere motion, of his pure will and pleasure, happy as 
 he is, to doom his creatures, w^iether they will or no, to 
 endless misery, is to impute such cruelty to him as I know 
 of no warrant to impute to the great enemy of God and 
 man. It is to represent the most high God as more cruel, 
 false, and unjust, than the devil. Who hath ever said 
 worse of the devil — who can say worse of him, than this, 
 that he is a heartless dissembler, ever deceiving watli empty 
 pretenses — that he delights in the misery of his wretched 
 victims? but here it is said of God, that he pretends to 
 desire the happiness of his creatures — that he even comes 
 and implores them to live, weeping over them while he en- 
 treats, at the same time that he has doomed them to eternal 
 hell torments of his own pleasure, in such a way as that it 
 is absolutely and for ever impossible for them to escape, 
 and this for sins they never could avoid ! If this be the 
 God of the Bible, in what does he differ from its devil, only 
 in his larger growth ! 
 
 14. If Christ did not die for all men, then God is not 
 smcere in requiring all men to repent, nor can he equitably 
 
132 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV- 
 
 make the requisition ; for what good could this repentance 
 do them? What remission of sins could it procure for 
 those for whom Christ did not die ? Manifestly, none. If 
 it were possible for them to comply with the requirement, 
 it could do them no good ; but they cannot compl}^ if it 
 would be a means of their salvation. And hence it follows, 
 as has been Avell said by Whitby, " that no impenitent per- 
 son can justly be condemned for dying in his impenitent 
 estate; for, on this supposition, he may fairly plead that, 
 Christ not dying for him, his repentance, had he been ever 
 so careful to perform it, must have been in vain, since it 
 could not procure the remission of his sins. If here you 
 say that it is an impossible supposition that any one, for 
 whom Christ did not die, should repent, you only strengthen 
 this his plea, enabling him to say he is condemned and 
 perisheth for want of that repentance whict, from his birth 
 to his dying day, it was utterly impossible for him to per- 
 form. Hence, further, it must follow that God could not 
 equitably require of them, for whom Christ died not, obedi- 
 ence to the laws of Christ, since that obedience, could they 
 be ever so willing or industrious to perform it, could no- 
 avail for the remission of their sins, it being only the blood 
 of Christ which cleanseth from sin, which blood never was 
 given for them." 
 
 If it were possible for those for whom Christ died not to 
 obey every requisition of the Bible, it Avould not contribute 
 a particle to their salvation; but if it is impossible, then 
 they are finally to be damned for not performing impossi- 
 bilities. Thus, the Scriptures are made to require impossi- 
 bilities, and then to damn men for not complying. At the 
 same time, if they did and could comply, it would not, 
 could not bring them the salvation which is promised to all 
 who comply. Is not this creditable to God and the Bible? 
 
 15. If Christ did not die for all, then why does he say 
 he is not willing any should perish? Surely, he is willing 
 
CHAP VI J. THE ATONEMENT. 130 
 
 that the greater part should perish, or he would have per- 
 mitted his death to extend to them. Why do any perish, 
 but that it his sovereign will to limit his death to a part? 
 Indeed, if Calvinism be true, the will of God is the only orig- 
 inal cause of the sinner's damnation ! Not merely is it the 
 will of God that they should be damned as sinners, but it 
 is because of his will that they are sinners, that they might 
 be damned. This charge, fearful as it is — and I confess it 
 is startling — is based upon what has been abundantly and 
 ii-refutably proved in a former place, namely, that God 
 willed the fall of Adam — that he willed that reprobates 
 should come into the world with a necessity to sin — and 
 that, indeed, he is the first and only origmal cause of all 
 thin OS, sin included; and since he could not cause what 
 tvas contrary to his will, he must therefore will both the 
 sin and damnation of the reprobate. This is also to be 
 argued from the fact that he, according to Calvinism, limited 
 the death of Christ to a part, when he might have extended 
 it to all, and this for his own pleasure. He did not will that 
 all should be saved from sin and hell, or he would not have 
 limited the death of Christ to a part — he must, therefore, 
 have willed, contrary to his own declaration, that many 
 should die. 
 
 Look at it. Calvinists believe that all for whom Christ 
 died, must inevitably be saved ; they believe, also, that his 
 death was sufficient for the sins of the whole world. Well, 
 now observe, the only reason why this sufficient atonement 
 does not save the whole world is this : God the Father, and 
 God the Son, of their own good pleasure, limited it to a 
 part. It was their good pleasure, therefore, that the residue 
 should be left in their sins, and perish, and his sovereign 
 pleasure is the cause of their damnation ! Dreadful 1 
 dreadful! dreadful! The atonement was ample to satisfy 
 the demands of justice — liere there was no limit : the con- 
 dition of all the race was precisely the same — here there 
 
134 THE ATONEMENT. [ciIAP. IV 
 
 was no limit ; but in the will of God there was a limit ; as 
 a sovereign, for his own pleasure, he limited the remedy 
 which was sufficient for all to a part, and left the others to 
 perish ! If this be so, and Calvinists say it is so, are we 
 not shut up to the conclusion, that all who are left in sin 
 and damnation, are so left because God preferred this to 
 their holiness and salvation ! 
 
 16. But Calvinists tell the poor reprobates, as a kind of 
 palliation of their cruel treatment, that, though God has 
 sovereignly excluded them from salvation in Christ, yet he 
 has done a great deal for them. The death of Christ, it is 
 true, has not made it possible for them to escape the ven- 
 geance of eternal fire — for they were created for this — to 
 obtain a mansion in heaven, but it has procured them many 
 temporal blessings, such as the ministry of the word, 
 common operations of the Spirit, invitations of the Gospel, 
 and many other great privileges, for which they, as in duty 
 bound, ought to be very grateful. Ought the reprobates to 
 be grateful for these? Are these blessings? Are they 
 blessings in their design — in their result ? Or is it not true, 
 on the contrary, in their very nature and design, they are 
 the greatest curse that ever befell the poor miserable victims 
 of Almighty wrath? Did not the honest Calvin himself 
 say they were intended to fatten them for the slaughter — 
 that " God calls them that they may be more deaf — kindles 
 a light that they may be more blind — brings his doctrines 
 that they may be more ignorant — applies the remedy that 
 they may not be healed ! " For any one of these blessings 
 they are destined, in the purpose of God, when he bestows 
 them, to suffer the keenest, deepest pangs of hell for ever ! 
 They come to them as angels of light, but infix in the inmost 
 soul a thousand arrows of remorse and anguish, which shall 
 never be extracted through eternity. Blessings! designed 
 and destined to eventuate in eternal woe ! God of the uni- 
 verse, protect thy hapless creatures from such blessings as 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT, I3d 
 
 these! Blessings! sent upon the reprobates, that their 
 condition may be rendered more intolerable than that of 
 Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment — that a 
 pretense may be furnished for heightening the horrors of 
 perdition to utmost excess^ — all to the praise of his glorious 
 justice ! 
 
 17. If Christ did not die for all, and if only those for 
 whom he did die can be saved, then all for whom he iid 
 not die come into the world with the necessity of their 
 damnation; because they come into the world under an 
 arrangement by which their damnation is unavoidable, they 
 must necessarily be damned, because there is no salvation 
 out of Christ, and Christ did not die for them. Now, with 
 the question, whether they will be lost or not, they have 
 nothing to do whatever; because it was settled, from eter- 
 nity, when it was settled that Christ should not die for 
 them. But do you say, the first cause of their destruction 
 was their corruption of nature, and God only passed them 
 by in their sins, leaving them to suffer just punishment? 
 Very well ; let us take your explanation. Then it amounts 
 to this: these persons were left to damnation, because of 
 their corrupt nature. But had they any thing whatever to 
 do in making that corrupt nature ? If they had, they must 
 have acted before they existed. But if they had not, then 
 they were assigned to eternal damnation for an act with 
 which they had nothing to do whatever. But, again: if 
 they were assigned to damnation for their corruption of 
 nature, tlien they were damned for a cause existing in their 
 conception — then they were damned, all of them, when 
 they were unborn ; so here we have not the damnation of a 
 few children a span long, but of all who finally perish 
 before they have attained that stature. But, to escape 
 these horrible consequences, do you adopt this evasion, 
 that they were only passed by because of their corruption, 
 and left in a state in which, when they should attain to 
 
136 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 personality, they would inevitably sin, and then, on account 
 of these actual sins, they would be condemned and pun- 
 ished ? Well, let us look at this for a moment. You say, 
 they were only passed by because of their corruption of 
 nature. What do you mean by this? that it was deter- 
 mined Christ should not die for them ? Then, I ask, what 
 was their state thus passed by? Could they be saved? 
 If they could, then they could be saved without the death 
 of Christ? If they could not be saved, must they not 
 necessarily be damned? or is there some intermediate 
 state between salvation and damnation, to which they would 
 be assigned ? But, leaving this, let us admit that the final 
 damnation of those passed by, for whom Christ did not die, 
 is on account of their actual sins. The charge still stands 
 true, that they brought with them, into the world, the 
 necessity of their damnation, and its final infliction is without 
 any fault of theirs whatever. The facts are precisely these : 
 These unfortunate — for they are not guilty, if Calvinism is 
 true — persons came into the world with a corrupt nature, 
 which was forced upon them with existence. This nature 
 must unavoidably involve them in actual sih»; because, 
 being evil, it can only produce evil. From this corruption 
 there is no escape: Christ did not die for them, and his 
 death is the only means of escape from corruption. They 
 are, therefore, born into the world with a necessity to sin; 
 and if they are to be damned for these sins, they are bom 
 with a necessity of damnation ! Who has nerves suflficient 
 for these things ? Who is the man who can indulge such 
 thoughts of the Ruler of the universe, and the moral gov- 
 ernment thereof, without feelings of unmingled consterna- 
 tion! Who can beheve, that a God of infinite love has 
 brought millions of beings into existence, with the unavoid- 
 able necessity of eternal damnation, and this necessity 
 ascribable to nothing in the creature, over which he had 
 control, but merely to the good pleasui'c of God ! 
 
C'lIAr. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 13T 
 
 18. I must add, finally, upon this point, before passing 
 to others immediately connected therewith, that if it be 
 true that Christ died but for a part, then it is certain, if 
 the devil knows this, he is the greatest fool in the universe, 
 and Christians next in the dimensions of folly. What has 
 the devil to do any more? Why shall he walk through 
 the earth, seeking prey ? Why shall he hunt for the souls 
 of men? He already has his portion! They are counted 
 outy every soul of them! Their names and numbers are 
 designated! He cannot get one more, though he move 
 heaven and earth — though he employ every emissary in 
 hell. He cannot come short of one — the thing is for ever 
 impossible, for God is pledged — he has given them to the 
 devil in an everlasting covenant — they were created for 
 him — his they must be ! He need not watch and diminish 
 his rest, for God will bring them all safe to him, and no 
 being has power to pluck one of them out of his hand! 
 Let the devil rest, and hell hold jubilee, for God has 
 given them a large part of the human race, for his own 
 glory, and of his own sovereign pleasure ! 
 
 And what shall be said of the folly of Christians? 
 Know you not, that all for whom Christ died must be 
 brought in, in the day of his power ? Not one can fail — • 
 the Lord will hasten it in its time. Why shall you labor? 
 you cannot make one hair white or black. Why do you 
 take trouble about those whom God has given to the 
 devil? Would you rob him? It is impossible! What 
 folly you are guilty of! Pray, preach, mourn, weep, make 
 yourselves sad — for what ? Know you not it is all in vam ? 
 None can perish for whom Christ died; none can escape 
 for whom he did not die. Let the devil and Christians 
 quit their foolish warfare, and be at peace — let the world 
 have rest, for God will not defraud the devil of one soul 
 that is his, and he cannot steal one that is Christ's, and 
 12 
 
138 THE ATONEMENT. [cilAF. rV. 
 
 Christians can do nothing by interference ! Let the foolisli 
 strife come to an everlasting end. 
 
 Such are some of the consequences flowing unaA^oidably 
 from the proposition, that Christ died but for a part of 
 mankind. That they are terrible, I readily admit — so ap- 
 palling, that I cannot mention them against you, without 
 seeming to pervert and persecute you; because it must 
 ever seem unaccountable to all men, how rational beings 
 can embrace such absurdities — not to say wicked blas- 
 phemies. I have found no pleasure in pointing them out — 
 on the contrary, it has given me unmingled pain. God is 
 my witness, I am sincerely sorry for you — I regard you 
 with commiseration, as the victim of a miserable system, 
 whose frightful errors I must suppose you believe, and, by 
 some fatal infatuation, refuse to renounce. As I have 
 waded through the pages of your divines, I have involun- 
 tarily regretted that I found myself under the necessity of 
 becoming acquainted with their unaccountable and horrid 
 teachings — much more, that it became my duty to expose 
 them. Would that you had been content to enjoy peace, 
 and left your neighbors to pursue their own vocation, and 
 not, by your unprovoked intermeddling, rendered it neces- 
 *sary to uncover your revolting and shameful deformities to 
 the observation of our common enemies ! And now, what 
 may seem almost as paradoxical as many things in your 
 creed, after all that I have said, I must be allowed to 
 cherish love for your Church, in despite of all her blem- 
 ishes, and for yourself, also, as a professed follower of my 
 Savior. May the Spirit itself lead us into all truth ! 
 
 In addition to the foregoing objections to a limited atone- 
 ment are several others, resulting from the Calvinian view 
 of the nature of the atonement, and the method by which 
 those interested therein become partakers of its benefits. 
 
 If Calvinists hold to a limited atonement, as has been 
 
CHAP, 3 v.] THE ATONEMENT. lijQ 
 
 seen in the citations already made, they further hold, as 
 growing out of the nature of the atonement itself, that all 
 those particular persons, for whom it was made, must, in 
 consequence thereof, not only infallibly, but necessarily and 
 unconditionally, be saved. 
 
 It may be proper to make a few quotations bearing 
 directly on this point : 
 
 " To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemp- 
 tion, he doth certainly and effectually apply and commu- 
 nicate the same." (Confession of Faith.) 
 
 This clause, at the same time, necessarily limits the 
 atonement to those who are finally saved, because it says 
 all for whom it was made will be saved; and it asserts 
 that all for whom it was made must infallibly have its 
 application — they must necessarily be saved by it. 
 
 " The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice 
 of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once 
 offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of 
 his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an 
 everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all 
 those whom the Father hath given unto him." (Confession 
 of Faith.) 
 
 "We are further taught, that the atonement shall be 
 effectually applied by the Holy Spirit to all those who 
 were chosen of God, and redeemed by Christ, and that it 
 shall be effectually applied to them alone." (Expositor of 
 Confession.) 
 
 *' The Father, from all eternity, gave to Christ a people 
 to be his seed, and be by him brought to glory. . . . 
 He was not merely to procure for them a possibility of sal- 
 • vation, but to secure for them a full and final salvation; 
 and none that were given to him shall be lost." (lb.) 
 
 "The intention of Christ, in laying down his life, Avas 
 not merely to obtain for those for whom he died a possi- 
 bility of salvation, but actually to save them — to brinjj 
 
140 THE ATONEMENT. [cHAP. IV. 
 
 them to a real possession and enjoyment of eternal salva- 
 tion. From this it inevitably follows, that Christ died only 
 for those who shall be saved in him with an evei lasting; 
 salvation." (lb.) 
 
 *' Christ, therefore, is called our surety, because he en- 
 gaged to God to make satisfaction for us — the elect; which 
 satisfaction consists in this, that Christ, in our room and 
 stead, did, both by doing and suffering, satisfy Divine jus- 
 tice, both the legislatory, the retributive, and the vindictive, 
 in the most perfect manner, fulfilling all the righteousness 
 of the law, which the law otherwise required of us, in 
 order to impunity, and to our having a right to eternal 
 life." (Witsius.) 
 
 "But we must proceed a step further, and affirm that 
 the obedience of Christ was accomplished by him in our 
 room, in order thereby to obtain for us a right to eternal 
 life. The law which God will have secured inviolable 
 admits none to glory but on conditions of perfect obedi- 
 ence, which none was ever possessed of but Christ, who 
 bestows it freely on his own people." (lb.) 
 
 "But, besides, Christ satisfied the vindictive justice of 
 God, not merely for our good, but also in our room, by 
 enduring those most dreadful sufferings, both in soul and 
 body, which we had desei-ved, and from which he, by 
 undergoing them, did so deliver us that they could not, 
 with the wrath and curse of God, as the proper punish- 
 ment of our sins, be inflicted on us." (lb.) 
 
 " The Lord Jesus obtained for the elect, by his satisfac 
 tion, an immunity from all misery, and a right to eternal 
 life. ... A right to all the benefits of the covenant 
 of grace is purchased at once to all the elect, by the death, 
 of Christ, so far as that, consistently with the truth and 
 justice of God, and with the covenant he entered into with 
 his Son, he cannot condemn any of the elect, or exclude 
 them from partaking in his salvation; nay, on the contran/t 
 
CRAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 141 
 
 he has declared that satisfaction being now made by his 
 Son, and accepted by liimself, there is nothing- for the elect 
 either to suffer or to do, in order to acquire either impunity 
 or a right to hfe, but only that each of them, in their 
 appointed order and time, enjoy the right purchased for 
 them by Christ, and the inheritance arising from it." (lb.) 
 
 "Before actual conversion, the elect are favored with no 
 contemptible privileges above the reprobates in virtue of 
 the right which Christ purchased for them — such as, first, 
 that they are in a state of reconciliation and justification^ 
 actively considered, Christ having made satisfaction for 
 them," etc. (lb.) 
 
 "For since Christ did, by his engagement, undertake to 
 cancel all the debt of those persons for whom he engaged, 
 as if it was his own, by suffering what was meet, and to 
 fulfill all righteousness in their room, and since he has most 
 fully performed this by his satisfacton, as much as if the 
 sinners themselves had endured all the punishment due to 
 their sins, and had accomplished all righteousness, the con- 
 sequence is, he has engaged and satisfied for those, and 
 those only, who are actually saved from their sins." (lb.) 
 
 "Whoever makes a purchase of any thing has an un- 
 questionable right to it ; a. id it not only may but actually 
 does become his property, in virtue of his purchase, upon 
 paying down the price. And herein consists our liberty 
 and salvation, that we are no longer our own, nor the prop- 
 erty of sin, nor of Satan, but the property of Christ." (lb.) 
 
 "Divines explain themselves differently as to the condi- 
 tions of the covenant of grace. We, for our part, agree 
 wdth those w^ho think that the covenant of grace, to speak 
 accurately with respect to us, has no conditions." (lb.) 
 
 "Jesus Christ was ordained of God to be the Savior of 
 ihose persons, and God gave them to him to be redeemed 
 oy his blood, to be called by his Spirit, and finally to be 
 glorified with him. All that Christ did, in the character of 
 
142 THE ATONEMENT. [cUAr. IV. 
 
 mediator, was in consequence of this original appointment 
 of the Father, which has received, from many divines, the 
 name of the covenant of redemption — a phrase which 
 suggests the idea of a mutual stipulation between Christ 
 and the Father, in which Christ undertook all the work 
 which he executed in human nature, and which he con- 
 tinues to execute in heaven, in order to save the elect; 
 and the Father promised that the persons for whom Christ 
 died should be saved by his death. According to the tenor 
 of this covenant of redemption, the merits of Christ are 
 not considered the cause of the decree of election, but as a 
 part of that decree: in other words, God was not moved 
 by the mediation of Christ to choose certain persons out of 
 the great body of mankind to be saved, but, having chosen 
 them, he conveys all the means of salvation through the 
 hannel of this mediation." (Hill.) 
 
 " Christ engaged to pay the debt of his people, and sat- 
 isfy for the wrongs and injuries done by them. There is a 
 two-fold debt paid by Christ as a surety of his people — the 
 '^ne is a debt of obedience to the law of God. Another 
 thing which Christ, as a surety, engaged to do, was to bring 
 all the elect safe to glory." (Gill.) 
 
 In the sixteenth and seventeenth chapters of the second 
 book of Calvin's Institutes, it is elaborately taught, that 
 Christ has suffered and obeyed for his elect, so that their 
 salvation is positively secured, their debt being paid, and 
 they being entitled to salvation. "If Christ has satisfied 
 for our sins — if he has sustained the punishment due to 
 us — if he has appeased God by his obedience, then salva- 
 tion has been obtained for us by his righteousness." 
 
 "Justification is an act of God's free grace unto sinners, 
 in which he pardoneth all their sins — accepteth and ac- 
 counteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for any 
 thing wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the 
 perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God 
 
CHAP. IV.} THE ATONEMENT. 143 
 
 imputed to them, and received by faith alone." (Larger 
 Catechism.) 
 
 " Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make 
 a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God's justice, in the 
 behalf of them that are justified, yet, inasmuch as God ac- 
 cepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have 
 demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his only 
 Son, imputing his righteousness to them, and requiring 
 nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also 
 is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace." (lb.) 
 
 " Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because 
 of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of 
 good works that are the fruits of it, nor as if the grace of 
 faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for justifica- 
 tion, but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth 
 and applieth Christ and his righteousness." (lb.) 
 
 "The imputation that respects our justification before 
 God, is God's gracious donation of the righteousness of 
 Christ to believers, and his acceptance of their persons as 
 righteous on the account thereof. Their sins being imputed 
 to him, and his obedience being imputed to them, they are, 
 in virtue hereof, both acquitted from guilt, and accepted as 
 righteous before God." (Buck.) 
 
 "The Calvinists say, that the faith and good works of the 
 elect are the consequence of their election. God having, 
 from all eternity, chosen a certain number of persons, did, 
 in time, give his Son to become their Savior — he bestows 
 upon them, through him, (unconditionally,) that grace which 
 effectually determines them to repent and believe, and so 
 effectually conducts them, by faith and good works, unto 
 everlasting life. These are — faith and good works not con- 
 ditions, but — the fruit of election, and they were, from 
 eternity, known to God, because they were, in time, to be 
 produced, by the execution of the Divine decree." (Hill.) 
 
 *•' The atonement was a satisfaction made for the sins of 
 
144 THE ATONEMENT. [cHAP. IV. 
 
 tlie elect, which had respect to them personally, and secures 
 the pardon of all their iniquities. Christ was substituted 
 for the elect, to obey and suffer in their stead, and was, by 
 imputation, legally gmlty , so that the law could demand 
 his death. In the decree of election, the sinners who will 
 be saved were given to Christ to be justified. They were 
 given when ungodly, and not from any foreseen faith and 
 repentance. The ground of pardon is the mystical union 
 with the Lord Jesus Clirist." (Ely's Contrast.) 
 
 " Christ, being a propitiation for us, does also imply, that 
 God did also accept of the passive obedience of Christ, 
 together with his action, as sufficient satisfaction to the 
 demands of justice. So that the imputation of the obedi- 
 ence of Christ does fully and perfectly acquit the believer 
 from the guilt of sin, the empire of Satan, the curses of 
 the law, and the damnation of hell. God has received 
 satisfaction from the surety^ and, therefore, will demand no 
 more from the principal debtor." (Dickinson.) 
 
 "Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely 
 justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by 
 pai'doning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their 
 persons as righteous ; not for any thing wrought in them, or 
 done by them, but for Christ's saTce alone; not by imputing 
 faith-^itself the act of believing — or any other evangelical 
 obedience to them, as their righteousness, hut by imputing 
 the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto tliem, they 
 receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith ; 
 which faith they have not themselves- — it is the gift of God. 
 . . . Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully dis- 
 charge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did 
 make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's 
 justice in their behalf." (Confession of Faith.) 
 
 "Those who maintain that Christ obeyed the law, and 
 Buffered its penalty in our stead, and thereby made a 
 true and proper satisfaction to Divine justice, believe that 
 
CHAP. lY.] THE ATONEMENT. 145 
 
 his obedience and suflfering, constituting what is usually 
 styled his righteousness, are imputed to the believer for his 
 justification, Christ's righteousness being received by faith, 
 as its instrument. Accordingly, justification consists, not 
 only in the pardon of sin, or, in other words, in the release 
 of the believing sinner from punishment, but also in the 
 acceptance of his person as righteous, in the eyes of the 
 Jaw, through the obedience of Christ, reckoned or imputed 
 to him, by which he has a title to eternal life." (Old and 
 New Theology, p. 133.) 
 
 " They whose sins he bore in his own body on the tree — 
 tvhose sins he suffered for, cannot, with the most palpable 
 violation of all right, and law, and justice, be themselves 
 constrained to suffer for the same sins. Therefore, the 
 atonement, the satisfaction rendered to Divine justice, is as 
 extensive as the sheep of Christ's flock, and no more — the 
 atonement is as long and as broad as the salvation of God ; 
 or, in other words, they whose sins are washed out in the 
 blend of Calvary must be saved, and none others can be. 
 In other words, they, and all they for whom Christ died, 
 for whom he paid the ransom or price of redemption, will be 
 saved, and none other." (Junkins on Justification, p. 220.) 
 
 "As God doth not will that each individual of mankind 
 should be saved, so neither did he will that Christ should 
 properly and immediately die for each individual of man- 
 kind: whence it follows, that though the blood of Christ, 
 from its own intrinsic dignity, was sufficient for the redemp- 
 tion of all men, yet, in consequence of his Father's appoint- 
 ment, he shed it intentionally, and, therefore, effectually 
 and immediately, for the elect only.'" (Toplady et Zan- 
 chius, p. 37.) 
 
 "The absolute will of God is the original spring and 
 efficient cause of his people's salvation. I say the origmal 
 and efficient; for, sensu complexo, there are other interme- 
 diate causes of their salvation, which, however, all result 
 
 13 
 
] 46 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 froin, and are subservient to this primary one — the will of 
 God. Such are his everlasting choice of them to eternal 
 life; the eternal covenant of grace entered into by the 
 Trinity; the incarnation, obedience, death, and intercession 
 of Christ for them : all ^f which are so many links in the 
 great chain of causes." (lb., p. 43.) 
 
 " Since this absolute will of God is both immutable and 
 omnipotent, we infer, that the salvation of every one of the 
 elect is most infallibly certain, and can by no means be pre- 
 vented. This necessarily follows, from what we have 
 already asserted and proved concerning the Divine will, 
 which, as it cannot be disappointed or made void, must 
 imdoubtedly secure the salvation of all whom God wills 
 should be saved." (lb., p. 48.) 
 
 " By the purpose or decree of God, we mean his deter- 
 minate counsel, whereby he did, from all eternity, preordain 
 whatsoever he should do, or permit to be done, in time. In 
 particular, it signifies his everlasting appointment of some 
 men to life, and of others to death, which appointment flows 
 entirely from his own free and sovereign will." (lb., p. 47.) 
 
 " Nor could the justice of God stand, if he were to con- 
 demn the elect, for whose sins he has received ample 
 satisfaction at the hand of Christ; or if he were to save 
 the reprobate, who are not interested in Christ." (lb., 
 p. 92.) 
 
 *' Those who are ordained to eternal life, were not so 
 ordained on account of any worthiness foreseen in them, 
 or of any good works to be wrought by them, nor yet for 
 their future faith ; but solely of free, sovereign grace, and 
 according to the mere pleasure of God. This is evident, 
 among other considerations, from this: that faith, repent- 
 ance, and holiness, are no less the free gift of God than 
 eternal hfe itself." (lb., p. 94.) 
 
 *'Not one of the elect can perish; but they must all, 
 necessarilj^, be saved. The reason is this: because God 
 
CHAP. IV.'] THE ATONEMENT. 147 
 
 simply and unchangeably Avills that all and every one of 
 those whom he hath appointed unto life should be eternally 
 glorified. . . . Now, that is said to be necessary, quod 
 nequit aliter esse, which cannot be otherwise than it is." 
 (lb., p. 98.) 
 
 " Of those whom God hath predestined, none can perish, 
 inasmuch as they are all his own elect. They are the elect 
 who are predestinated, foreknown, and called according to 
 purpose. Now, could any of these be lost, God would be 
 disappointed ; therefore, they can never perish." (lb., 
 p. 99.) 
 
 " Our blessed Redeemer has not only procured for be- 
 lievers the pardon of their sins and reconciliation unto God, 
 but he has also purchased for them a title to God's favor 
 here, and eternal happiness hereafter. Now, if Christ has 
 purchased this inheritance for the believer, and made over 
 the title to him in his justification, who shall deprive him 
 of his own estate, procured for him at such an infinite 
 price?" (Dickinson's Five Points, p. 268.) 
 
 Now, from these quotations I make the following deduc- 
 tions, as further setting forth the Calvinian view of the 
 atonement : 
 
 1. All those for whom Christ died must necessarily be 
 saved, and cannot by any means perish. 
 
 2. Their salvation is thus certain, because his death 
 actually paid their debt to Divine justice, and procured 
 them a right to eternal life, by suffering and obeying in 
 their stead, which suffering and obedience is made theirs 
 by imputation. 
 
 That we do no injustice to our Calvinistic brethren, when 
 we charge them wdth teaching that all for whom Chi-ist 
 died — the elect — must infalhbly be saved, we presume no 
 one of their number will deny, as it would be a denial of 
 aH their written, and, so far as I know, of their oral 
 teaching. Upon this point, indeed, they are peculiarly 
 
148 THE ATONEMENT. [cHAP. IV. 
 
 eloquent and harmonious. Their whole system is shaped 
 to accommodate it. And if I do at all understand the 
 quotations already made, and the general tone of Calvinistic 
 theology, the ground of the certainty of the salvation of 
 the elect is this : 1*. They are the elect, or they are the 
 persons chosen of God, with an unchangeable purpose, 
 from eternity, to be saved, and they must, therefore, be 
 saved. 2. But, second, as God ordained these some to 
 glory, so he appointed the means of infallibly bringing 
 them to glory, which were that Christ should become their 
 surety, and both obey and suffer for them, and so purchase 
 a title for them to everlasting life. In other words, Cal- 
 vinists believe that the elect will necessarily be saved, 
 because Christ has suffeied the penalty due for all their 
 sins, and that they cannot therefore be held to suffer — 
 their sins are indeed no longer theirs, having been imputed 
 to Christ, and he has already suffered their penalty; and, 
 further, he, by his holy and spotless life, has fulfilled all 
 righteousness ; and this, his obedience and righteousness, is 
 accounted or imputed to the elect — those for whom he 
 died— so that their righteousness is henceforth complete in 
 Christ; and thus, by virtue of his death and obedience, 
 which have perfectly satisfied the law for them, they must 
 be saved. 
 
 Am I correct in this apprehension of Calvinism ? Will 
 any Calvinist say I am not? Do they not all teach that 
 Christ has entirely paid the debt of his people? — that he 
 has perfectly satisfied for their sins ? — that nothing is want- 
 ing, on their part, to render the atonement, thus made for 
 them, complete? Do they not also teach that Christ has 
 fully obeyed all righteousness for his people, and that this — 
 his obedience — is imputed to them, and thus becomes their 
 own? that is, it is just the same as though they had them- 
 selves perfectly obeyed. 
 
 And this transfer of their sins to Christ, and of his 
 
CHAP. IV.J THE ATONEMENT. 149 
 
 righteousness to them, is entirely without conditions oa 
 their part. Now, mark well this point. They are not re- 
 quired to do any thing by which this atonement, in either 
 branch of it, becomes theirs. It is so independently of 
 them ! Whatever they are expected to do, as the elect, is not 
 a means whereby this satisfaction becomes theirs, but it is 
 because this satisfaction is theirs. I ask my readers to look 
 critically into these points, as my object is here to show 
 some of the labyrinthian intricacies of this system, and 
 expose some of its most dangerous errors. Here is one of 
 the points where, for purposes of convenience, it is wont to 
 assume an Arminian garb, and bewilder with its equivoca- 
 tions. Calvinists talk about conditions — Dr. Rice is wont 
 to use this language — as though they believed it depended 
 upon something which the elect should do, whether the 
 atonement should be applied to them or not — they talk 
 about salvation by faith and repentance, as though these 
 were conditional to salvation! Now, the common idea 
 
 attached to the term condition is this : that it is somethino- 
 
 o 
 
 upon which the occurrence of another thing depends. 
 When we speak of conditions of salvation, we mean some- 
 thing by Avhich salvation is brought about. When we 
 speak of the condition, as performed by man, we mean 
 something which he may or may not perform, according as 
 he wills, and upon which his salvation depends. But Cal • 
 vinists do not mean this when they use the term condition — 
 they do not mean that the question, whether the atonement 
 shall apply to the elect, depends upon any conditions which 
 he may or may not perform. On the contrary, they believe 
 that it is his, and is applied without any condition — that 
 whatever the sinner does in his salvation, is because the 
 atonement is already irresistibly applied to him, and not 
 that he may procure its application. He is regenerated 
 irresistibly, because he is atoned for ; and then, because he 
 is regenerated, he must produce all the fruits of faith. 
 
150 THE ATONEMENT. [cnAP. IV. 
 
 repentance, &c. ; and now, to talk about these as conditions 
 (jf salvation, is sheer nonsense — it is to talk about conditions 
 of the existence of a thing, which depend upon its exist- 
 ence, and are consequent thereto. 
 
 To the doctrine contained in the above statement, 
 
 1. I object, first, that, making the salvation of those for 
 whom Christ died both infallible and unconditional, it is a 
 doctrine nowhere taught in the Scriptures. It is utterly 
 without foundation in the Bible. It is spurious ore, repro- 
 bate silver, taken from some other mine besides Divine 
 revelation. 
 
 2. It is expressly contrary to all those Scriptures which 
 teach a conditional salvation; 
 
 3. To those which teach that some for whom Christ died 
 may come short of life; 
 
 And to all the classes of Scriptures already enumerated 
 against this doctrine of limited atonement. 
 
 4. I object: it renders it unnecessary, nay, impossible, 
 for the elect to do any thing in order to their salvation, 
 and as it is unnecessary and impossible for them to do any 
 thing conditional to salvation, so it does not require them to 
 do any thing. "Whatever they shall find themselves able to 
 do, and whatever they are required to do, is the fruit of 
 their being already saved without their consent. Is this 
 the doctrine of the Bible? Let it not be said, that Cal- 
 vinists teach that faith is a condition of salvation, implying 
 a free exercise of the creature. This is what they teach : 
 that certain persons are elected unto life — that for these 
 Christ makes satisfaction, or, in other words, saves them — 
 that this salvation includes the spiritual life, from its begin- 
 ning to ite eternal completion in heaven — and that this is 
 developed, 1. In irresistible regeneration, or the new birth, 
 without the action of the man. 2. That this irresistible 
 regeneration develops, as a cause, the fruits of faith and a 
 holy life. 3. That these are crowned with glory; but the 
 
CHAP. IV. J THE ATONEMENT. 151 
 
 man, in the whole process, has only passively experienced 
 an unconditional salvation, commenced and perfected by 
 irresistible agency. This, then, is my objection, that it 
 renders it unnecessary and impossible for the elect to do 
 any thing iu order to their salvation. 
 
 5. But I further object, that, if true, then the persons 
 for whom Christ died are not only not required to do any 
 tiling in order to their salvation, but, also, that they cannot 
 avoid being saved — the thing is utterly and eternally out 
 of the question, if Calvinism is true — they cannot prevent 
 themselves from going to heaven. My proposition is not 
 that they will not, but tkey cannot — nothing in the range 
 of their power — they may sin to their utmost ability, and 
 they will not suffer the least inconvenience from it, so far 
 as their eternal salvation is concerned. But now look at 
 this. There stands a man that never can get to heaven — 
 the thing is impossible, and eternally has been so. Poor 
 creature! he must sufiFer the torments of an ever- burning 
 hell — he must lie down with devils, and w^eep, and wail, 
 and sorrow, without relief, while the spark of immortality 
 glows in his undying soul — he cannot help it — and this for 
 no avoidable fault of his — he was created to howl amid 
 these flames. There stands another man — by nature he is 
 precisely such as the former — but this man cannot possibly 
 miss of heaven. Nothing that he can do can keep him 
 out of its blessedness. He may sin until his enormities 
 would make a devil pale, if it were possible ; but this can- 
 not even endanger his salvation; his price has been paid, 
 and saved he must be; he is deprived of the ability to 
 keep himself from salvation! And now the question 
 arises, w^hy this difference? And you are told it is the 
 good pleasure of God! Hold, I beseech you! Does not 
 your whole nature rise up against such a sentiment? Is 
 there not an involuntary shudder at the bare idea ? Does 
 not your reason, and all that is human in you, revolt at it ? 
 
J 52 THE ATONEMENT, [CHAP. IV. 
 
 But is not this sentiment calculated, inevitably, to pro- 
 duce licentiousness, recklessness, and despair? What else 
 can be its legitimate fruits? It comes to all men, elect 
 and non-elect, with the first lesson: You are impotent — 
 you cannot do any thing toward achieving salvation, until 
 you are regenerated — you cannot even put forth a virtuous 
 desire, until this work is accomplished. This being so, the 
 sinner must wait for regeneration ; for he cannot stir till he 
 is regenerated. But then follows the second lesson: If 
 you are not of the elect, you cannot be regenerated; for 
 Christ has died for none but the elect, and no man can be 
 regenerated for whom Christ did not die; but if you are 
 of the elect, you cannot avoid being regenerated, because 
 all for whom Christ died must be regenerated, or effectu- 
 ally called; and this by irresistible, unsolicited grace. At 
 this point, the sinner perceives that the whole matter is 
 infallibly fixed — that his agency i^ entirely excluded: if 
 elect, the work must be done : if not elect, it is impossible ; 
 and nor>' ensues, as a necessary consequence, hopeless in- 
 action or reckless licentiousness. With these truths in his 
 mind, what can be said to a sinner as an inducement to 
 attend to his salvation? or, rather, is it not all sheer folly 
 to address him at all on that subject ? 
 
 Do you exhort him to forsake sin ? He says, " I cannot." 
 To repent? "I cannot, until regenerated. This is God's 
 work, and not mine." Do you warn him of danger, and 
 exhort him to flee ? He smiles at your childish folly, and 
 answers you, "It is all fixed without my agency." Thus 
 the whole man is neutralized, and hopeless recklessness 
 superinduced. 
 
 6. But what has now been objected had respect alone 
 to this aspect of the subject: that the salvation of those 
 for whom Christ made atonement, is infallibly certain and 
 unconditional on their part. I now object, further, to the 
 ground upon which salvation is declared. It has two parts : 
 
CHAF. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 153 
 
 1. Christ has absolutely paid the debt of liis people, 
 and released them from the obligation. In other words, 
 he took their sins upon himself, and suflfered their penalty 
 in such a way that they cannot be required to suffer them- 
 selves; so that they can commit no sin but what Christ 
 has fully satisfied for it. If this be true, of course the 
 elect must unconditionally escape punishment, because 
 their punishment has already been inflicted upon their 
 substitute, and Divine justice is fully and entirely satisfied. 
 2. As the elect are thus brought into the enjoyment of 
 unconditional salvation, so far as deliverance from punish- 
 ment is concerned, so, in the second place, they are, by a 
 similar process, made completely righteous; namely, as 
 Christ suffered for them, so, also, he obeyed for them, and 
 his perfect righteousness is imputed to them. He obeyed 
 perfectly, and fulfilled all righteousness, and this is imputed 
 to them, or it is accounted precisely the same as though 
 they had obeyed themselves; and, therefore, they are ac- 
 counted worthy of life, as being righteous in Christ. Thus 
 the elect are brought into the enjoyment of unconditional 
 salvation, by having their sins imputed to Christ, and his 
 righteousness imputed to them. 
 
 But will it be said, that this imputation does not savingly 
 take place without faith, and, therefore, that faith is a con- 
 dition of salvation — a condition without which the elect 
 are not saved — it is only when they believe that Christ's 
 righteousness is imputed to them? But look, for a mo- 
 ment, at this sheer sophistry and deception — for the lan- 
 guage certainly does mislead. 
 
 The doctrine is, that the salvation of these persons — the 
 elect — is first determined in the immutable decree of God ; 
 then Christ, to secure it, satisfies and obeys for tliem, 
 which gives them an unconditional title to life ; and then 
 Ite irresistibly regenerates them, and this regeneration ncccs- 
 Harily produces faith. And now shall it be pretended that 
 
t64: THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 this faith, which is itself a necessary effect of irresistible 
 regeneration, is a condition of salvation ! It must, at least, 
 be admitted, that, if it is a condition, the elect is entirely 
 passive in complying vfiih. it; and so his salvation, de- 
 pendent as it is upon this condition, is not dependent upon 
 him, in any sense — upon any thing he can do, or refuse to 
 do ; and so, of course, he has nothing to do but to submit 
 as a passive subject throughout; and this he cannot help 
 but do. To talk about conditions of salvation in such an 
 arrangement — about salvation depending upon faith, must, 
 in all candor, seem like a nonsensical abuse of language. 
 Much more so, to appeal to the sinner to believe, in order 
 that he may be saved, warning him that, if he does not, he 
 must be damned, thus seeming to imply that he has power 
 to perform a condition by which he may be saved, when 
 faith is no more in his power than is the annihilation of the 
 universe ! 
 
 But, further, if Christ has absolutely paid the debt for 
 his people, so that nothing more is necessary to acquit 
 them from punishment — if the punishment has been in- 
 flicted, and justice satisfied, without any thing further, 
 then it is manifest nothing more can be requisite to free 
 them from punishment; and so their sins cannot be pun- 
 ished, and they cannot, therefore, be in any peril when 
 they sin. 
 
 v. But if this be true, then it is certain that no motive 
 can be drawn from eternity to enforce virtue, or restrain 
 from vice. None can be drawn for the reprobate ; for his 
 destiny is fixed ; damned he must be, and his sins cannot 
 make it any more certain. None to the elect; for their 
 destiny is also fixed, and no sin, possible to them, can 
 unsettle it. Well, say that I do not know which I am, 
 elect or reprobate; or I do know, it is all the same. 
 Eternity, as it respects destiny, can bring no motive to 
 bear on m}- conduct, because conduct cannot affect my 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 155 
 
 unconditional salvation or damnation. If Chnst died for 
 me, no sin I can commit can keep me out of heaven. If 
 he did not die for me, nothing that I can do can get me 
 in ; and hence, in either case, my conduct is entirely unim- 
 portant. Will this doctrine do to preach? Is this the 
 doctrine of the Bible? Is it consistent with our views of 
 moral government? What would be thought of a man 
 who should preach it ? Yet such are the unavoidable con-, 
 sequences of Calvinism ! 
 
 8. If this be true, then particularly is it impossible for 
 the elect, after they have once received the gift of faith, 
 ever to become guilty ; and yet Calvinists believe that even 
 the elect, after regeneration, and pardon, and adoption, may 
 fall into grievous sins, nay, must continue to sin as long as 
 they live. But now observe the consequence I charge here : 
 if it is true that faith secures the imputation of both Christ's 
 suffering and obedience to the beheving soul, and if this 
 imputation is consequent upon faith — and all this Calvinists 
 believe — then I insist that an}^ sin, committed by the be- 
 liever, cannot either involve him in guilt or condemnation. 
 Not condemnation, for the satisfaction of Christ is imputed : 
 not guilt, for the imputation of Christ's perfect righteous- 
 ness makes him completely righteous, and he cannot, there- 
 fore, have any guilt : so that whatever sin the elect commit, 
 after they have been regenerated and united to Christ by 
 faith, does not involve them in guilt, because, by virtue of 
 their faith, their sins have all been taken from them, and 
 imputed to Christ, and his righteousness has been imputed 
 to them, so that they cannot be less than complete in his 
 righteousness. Whether they sin, therefore, or be holy, it 
 is all one — whether they fall away into grievous delin- 
 quencies, such as would shame even the reprobates, as 
 Calvinists believe they may, or continue faithful, it is no 
 diflference — the question of their final salvation is neither 
 rendered doubtful thereby, nor is the fact of their perfect 
 
156 THE ATONEMENT. [ciIAP. IV. 
 
 righteousness; for both are infallibly secured b}' virtue of 
 their union with Christ. 
 
 9. Finally: I object to the whole Calvinian view of the 
 atonement as dishonorable to that transaction, and its author. 
 It renders it a mere commercial transaction — a thing of 
 bargain and sale — so many souls given for so much blood — 
 so many sins remitted at so much price. The Father agrees 
 •to give the Son so many souls at so much price. The Son 
 agrees to suffer such a quantum for the forgiveness of so 
 many sinners. In the language of another : ** This hypothesis 
 measures the atonement, not only by the number of the 
 elect, but by the intensity and degree of the suffering to be 
 endured for their sin. It adjusts the dimensions of the 
 atonement to a nice mathematical point, and poises its 
 infinite weight of glory even to the small dust of a balance. 
 I need not say that the hand which stretches such lines, 
 and holds such scales, must be a bold one. Such a calcu- 
 lation represents the Son of God as giving so much suffering 
 for so much value received in the souls given to him ; and 
 represents the Father as dispensing so many favors and 
 blessings for so much value received in obedience and suf- 
 ferings. This is the commercial atonement, which sums up 
 the worth of a stupendous moral transaction by arithmetic, 
 and, with its little span, limits what is infinite." Upon this 
 view of the atonement, it was once wittily and truthfully 
 remarked : " God must have loved the devil much more 
 than his Son, for he gave him the larger portion of the 
 human race without any price, charging his Son full price 
 for the meagre share he allotted to him." 
 
 Further : if this be true, I cannot see any mercy or grace 
 in the Father; and, certainly, there is no such thing as for- 
 giveness. The punishment is fully inflicted, not a particle 
 abated, not, indeed, upon the culprit himself, but upon his 
 substitute. But where, then, is forgiveness ? How are the 
 elect oardoned? Has not their debt been paid to the 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. 157 
 
 utmost farthing ? What remains to be pardoned ? Is there 
 any great clemency in reUnquishing a claim when it has 
 been fully liquidated — paid to the utmost farthing? Is 
 such the mercy of our Lord ? The atonement, regarded in 
 this light, can be nothing short of a stupendous slander of 
 the character of God. So it seems to me. 
 
 Such are a part of the objections we bring against the 
 Calvinian view of the atonement. It may be proper, briefly, 
 to recapitulate here. The views of the atonement objected 
 to are : First. That it is limited to part of the race. Second. 
 All for whom it was made must be infallibly saved. Third. 
 It consists in actually suffering and obeying for those for 
 whom it was designed. To these views we have objected. 
 
 1 . The doctrine of a limited atonement has no foundation 
 in the Scriptures. 
 
 2. It is directly contrary to the Scriptures, which teach : 
 (1.) That Christ died for all. 
 
 (2.) Which contrast the extent of the benefits of Christ's 
 death with the extent of the evils of Adam's sin. 
 
 (3.) W^hich represent those who are lost as purchased 
 by Christ. 
 
 (4.) Which offer the benefits of Christ's death to all. 
 
 (5.) Which require all men to believe in and receive 
 Ohrist. 
 
 (6.) Which make the sinner's damnation a result of his 
 •ejection of Christ. 
 
 (7.) Which teach that those who are finally lost might 
 aave been saved. 
 
 (8.) Which represent God as a being of universal love. 
 
 (9.) As willing the salvation of those who may come 
 short. 
 
 (10.) As impartial, etc. It will be perceived in a moment, 
 liow all such Scriptures bear against a limited atonement. 
 
 3. It is adverse to all our conceptions of God, converting 
 him rather into a monster of cruelty, than the parent of all. 
 
158 THE ATONEMENT. [CHAP. IV. 
 
 4. It renders it impossible that a large part of the human 
 race ever could be saved. 
 
 5. It renders it equally impossible for a large part of our 
 race to avoid sin. 
 
 G. It destroys the obligation to do right, and subverts 
 the obligation to virtue. 
 
 7. It renders all punishments for sin unjust and tyrannical. 
 
 8. It renders all general invitations to all men to come to 
 Christ, insincere and hypocritical. 
 
 9. It renders unbelief, on the part of the reprobates, 
 no sin. 
 
 10. It would make belief, on their part, a sin. 
 
 11. It renders the damnation of reprobates a damnation 
 for not believing a lie. 
 
 12. It commissions all ministers to preach a lie, and 
 makes God the Father and the Son party to it. 
 
 13. It renders the requisition upon all men to repent 
 useless and insincere. 
 
 14. It makes the damnation of men of the will of God, 
 falsifying his own word. 
 
 15. It renders the atonement, in its nature, an eternal curse. 
 
 16. It renders it certain that many men were created 
 with an absolute necessity of damnation. 
 
 1*7. It renders the strife between the devil and Christ a 
 stupendous folly. 
 
 18. It is liable to all the objections, additionally, that 
 were brought against election and reprobation. 
 
 19. It renders it unnecessary and impossible for tne elect 
 to do any thing in order to their salvation. 
 
 20. It makes it impossible for them to peril their salva- 
 tion. They cannot avoid salvation. 
 
 21. It imputes the obedience and suffering of Christ to 
 believers in a manner unknown in the Scriptures. 
 
 22. It destroys all the motives, drawn from eternal des- 
 tiny, to influence human conduct. 
 
CHAP. IV.] THE ATONEMENT. l59 
 
 23. It renders it impossible for the elect ever to become 
 guilty, after regeneration. 
 
 24. It dishonors and degrades the atonement into a mere 
 commercial transaction — a thing of barter and sale. 
 
 To this list of objections many more might be added, 
 any one of which is sufficient alone to damn the system 
 embarrassed with it and its consequences, to unspeakable 
 and irreparable infamy. 
 
 And, now, may we again appeal to our Calvinistic friends 
 to examine the grounds, and be not angry with us because 
 of our plainness of speech? We have no contention but 
 for the truth. Let us look well to it, that we be not found, 
 m our pride, clinging to prejudice, and rejecting truth, and 
 the God of truth. That we have objected many things 
 against you which you do not believe, we know perfectly- 
 well ; but we show you that these consequences flow from 
 your premises. Now, what will you do? You know the 
 consequences cannot be escaped. Can they ? How ? Will 
 you, then, embrace consequences and all? How can you 
 do this ? But if not, will you discard the premises ? One 
 you must do, or, in the eyes of all reasonable men, of God 
 himself, be found guilty of gross, may I not say ? criminal 
 inconsistency. Why cling to errors so unlovely as those of 
 Calvinism ? What in your nature, in reason, in religion, in 
 God, does not turn away from the horrid compound with 
 lothing, with disgust? 
 
160 EFFECTUAL CALLING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 EFFECTUAL CALLING 
 
 In harmony with the doctrine of election and reproba- 
 tion, and of a limited atonement, and the unconditional 
 salvation of all those for whom the atonement was made, 
 is the doctrine of effectual calling and its cognates, 
 which we shall now proceed to notice. Upon this point 
 Calvinists deliver themselves with unusual freedom and 
 plenitude. A selection from them will set the matter in a 
 proper light. 
 
 " All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and 
 those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted 
 time, effectually to call, by his word and Spirit, out of that 
 state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grac« 
 and salvation by Jesus Christ ; enlightening their minds, spir- 
 itually and savingly, to understand the things of God ; taking 
 away their heai-t of stone, and giving unto them a heart of 
 flesh ; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, de- 
 termining them to that which is good, and effectually draw- 
 ing them to Jesus Christ ; yet so as they come most freely, 
 being made willing by this grace. This eff'ectual call is of 
 God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all 
 foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until being 
 quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby 
 enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace 
 ofi*ered and conveyed in it." (Confession of Faith, chap, x, 
 sec. i and ii.) 
 
 " What is effectual calling ? 
 
 " Effectual calling is the work of God's almighty power 
 and grace, whereby, out of his free and especial love to his 
 elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto, he 
 doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them unto Jesus 
 Clirist by his word and Spirit, savingly enlightening theL-* 
 
OHAr. v.] EFFECTUAL CALLING. 161 
 
 minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so 
 as they, although in themselves dead in sin, are hereby 
 made wiUing and able freely to answer this call, and to 
 accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein. 
 " Are the elect only effectually called ? 
 "All the elect, and they 07ili/, are effectually called, 
 although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by 
 the ministry of the word, and have common operations of 
 the Spirit, who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the 
 grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do 
 never truly come to Jesus Christ." (Larger Catechism, 
 ques. 67 and 08.) 
 
 The expositor of the Confession, in his comments upon 
 the sections above, remarks, " That in this calling the ope- 
 rations of the Holy Spirit are irrevocable." We admit that 
 there are common operations of the Spirit, which do not 
 issue in'the conversion of the sinner; but we maintain that 
 the special operations of the Spirit overcome all opposition, 
 and effectually determine the sinner to embrace Jesus Christ 
 as he is offered in the Gospel. If the special operations of 
 the Spirit were not invincible, but might be effectually re- 
 sisted, then it would be uncertain whether any would believe 
 or not, and consequently possible, that all which Christ had 
 done and suffered in the work of redemption might have 
 been done and suffered in vain. 
 
 "That in this calling the sinner is altogether passive, 
 until he is quickened and renewed by the Holy Ghost." 
 (P. 143.) 
 
 " We are made partakers of the benefits which Christ 
 hath procured, by the application of them to us, which is 
 the Avork especially of God the Holy Ghost." 
 
 *' Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually commu- 
 nicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it." 
 (Larger Catechism, ques. 58 and 59.) 
 
 «'Iii retjeneration we are passive, and receive from 
 14 
 
162 EFFECTUAL CALLING. [cHAP. V, 
 
 God: it is an irresistible, or, rather, an invincible work," 
 (Buck.) 
 
 " The power of God, exerted in regeneration and conver- 
 sion of sinners, is invincible. Those who speak of irresist- 
 ible grace, mean that it cannot finally be resisted; that it 
 will overcome all the efforts of corrupt nature to counteract 
 its design; and that it will ultimately render sinners obe- 
 dient to the faith. Man must submit in the end to the 
 power of God; and this will be more evident if we con- 
 sider that his power is not only sufficient to compel the 
 most refractory to yield, although with the greatest reluct- 
 ance, but that it can take away the spirit of opposition, 
 and so influence the hearts of men, that this submission 
 shall be voluntary. Were we to say that the grace of God 
 is not invincible, we should he under the necessity of adopting 
 tJie opinion, which ive have already proved to be unscriptural, 
 that there is in man a poiver to comply or not to comply with 
 the call of the Gospel. We should take the work of con- 
 ■sersion out of the hand of God, and commit it to man 
 himself. After God had done all that he could do for our 
 salvation, it would depend upon ourselves whether the 
 intended effect should follow." (Dick.) 
 
 ** According to the Scriptures, regeneration is a change, 
 effected by Divine grace, in the state of the soul — the super- 
 natural renovation of its faculties — the infusion of a principle 
 of spiritual life. It is evident that if this is a just defini- 
 tion, the sinner is passive." (lb.) 
 
 " In opposition to all the modifications of error upon this 
 point, we affirm that conversion is effected by the almighty 
 grace of God ; that, although man does not concur in it, he 
 is, in the first instance, passive, and his concurrence is the 
 consequence of supernatural power communicated to him ; 
 and that he does not come to God till he is effectually 
 called, by the operation of the Holy Spirit in his soul." 
 
 (lb.) 
 
(MIA p. V.J EFFECTUAL CALLING. 163 
 
 "The first immediate fruit of eternal election, and the 
 principal act of God, by which appointed salvation is 
 applied, is effectual calling. And this calling is that act 
 by which those who are chosen by God, and redeemed 
 by Christ, are sweetly invited and effectually brought from 
 a state of sin to a state of communion with God in Christ, 
 both externally and internally." (Witsius, book iii, chap, v, 
 sec. i.) 
 
 "But this call is given partly externally, by a persuasive 
 power called moral suasion; partly internally, by a real, 
 supernatm-al efficacy, which changes the heart. The ex- 
 ternal call is, in some measure, published by the word 
 of nature; but more fully by that of supernatural revela- 
 tion, without which every word of nature would be insuffi- 
 cient and ineffectual. The internal comes from the power 
 of the Holy Spirit, working inwardly on the heart; and 
 without this, every external, revealed word, though objec- 
 tively very sufficient, as it clearly discovers every thing to 
 be known, believed, and done, yet is subjectively ineffectual, 
 nor will ever bring any person to the communion of Christ." 
 (lb., sec. vii.) 
 
 "By that same word, whereby the elect are called to 
 communion with God and his Christ, they are also regen- 
 erated to a far more excellent life." (lb., chap, iv, sec. i.) 
 
 " Ilegeneration is that supernatural act of God whereby 
 a new and divine life is infused into the elect person spirit- 
 ually dead, and that from the incorruptible seed of the 
 word of God, made fruitful by the infinite power of the 
 Spirit." (lb., sec. iv.) 
 
 "If we consider this first principle of life, there is not 
 the least doubt but regeneration is accomplished in a mo- 
 ment ; for there is no delay in the transition from death to 
 life. No person can be regenerated so long as he is in the 
 state of spiritual death ; but in the instant he is, he begins 
 to live — he is born again. Wherefore, no intermediate stato 
 
IC4 EFFECTUAL CALLING. [cHAP. V. 
 
 between the regenerate and unregenerate can be imagined^ 
 so much as in thought." (lb., sec. viii.) 
 
 " Hence, it appears, there are no preparations antecedent 
 to the first beginning of regeneration; because, previous to 
 tliat, nothing but mere death, in the highest degree, is to 
 be found in the person to be regenerated. And, indeed, 
 the Scripture represents man's conversion by such simih- 
 tudes as show that all preparations are entirely excluded." 
 (lb., chap, vi, sec. ix.) 
 
 "You will say, then, are there no preparatory disposi- 
 tions to the first regeneration? I confessedly answer, 
 there are none — agree with Fulgentius. With respect to 
 the birth of a child, the work of God is previous to any 
 will of the person that comes into the world; so in the 
 spiritual birth, whereby we begin to put oflf the old man." 
 (lb., sec. xiii.) 
 
 "And this is that regeneration which is so much de- 
 clared in the Scriptures — a new creation — a resurrectioD 
 from the dead — a giving of life, which God, without us, 
 worketh in us. And this is by no means effected by the 
 doctrine alone sounding without, by moral suasion, or by 
 such a mode of working, that, after the operation of God, it 
 should remain in the power of man to he regenerated or not 
 regenerated, converted or not converted, but is manifestly an 
 operation supernatural, at the same time most powerful, 
 and most sweet, wonderful, secret, and infallible in its 
 power, according to the Scriptures, not less than or in- 
 ferior to creation or the resurrection of the dead; so that 
 all those, in whose hearts God works in this admirable 
 manner, are certainly, infallibly, and efficaciously regen- 
 erated, and, in fact, believe. And thus their will, being 
 now renewed, is not only influenced and moved by God, 
 but, being acted on by God, itself acts and moves." 
 (Synod of Dort, chap, iii, sec. xii.) 
 
 " The power of God exerted in regeneration is invincible. 
 
CEIAP. v.] EFFECTUAL CALLING. 165 
 
 We do not deny that the grace of God may be re- 
 sisted, not only by the finally impenitent, but by those 
 who ultimately yield to it; but, in the end, man must 
 yield to the power of divine grace; because his power is 
 sufficient to subdue the most stubborn will, to remove all 
 opposition, and to influence the hearts of men, that they, 
 at last, yield voluntary submission, without compulsion or 
 force exerted upon their minds. In regeneration, in the 
 moment of the act, the soul is passive." (HelfFenstein.) 
 
 "As the child is passive in generation, so is the child of 
 God in regeneration." (Bosten.) 
 
 "Regeneration is an irresistible, or, rather, an invincible 
 work of grace." (Buck's Theological Dictionary — Regen- 
 eration.) 
 
 " In regeneration we are passive, and receive from God." 
 
 (lb) 
 
 Without multiplying authorities, for the above are suffi- 
 cient for all our purposes, we shall now proceed to deduce 
 a statement of doctrine, and then set forth our objections. 
 
 And, from the above, we derive as the faith of Cahnn- 
 ists upon the subjects of effectual calling, irresistible grace, 
 and regeneration — (these subjects were blended, because, 
 in the Calvinian system, they constitute essentially but one 
 branch of doctrine, as the above quotations abundantly 
 show. Whatever may be their shades of difference and 
 divers ramifications, they spring from one identical principle 
 and its cognates — to all intents and purposes they are 
 the same :) 
 
 1. That, up to the moment of effectual calling — regen- 
 eration — a man cannot cease from sin; he has not the 
 power to do so. 
 
 2. None but the elect ever are effectually called — re- 
 generated. 
 
 3. When the elect are effectually called, they cannot 
 help but yield ; they have no power to resist. 
 
166 EFFECTUAL CALLING. [cHAP. V. 
 
 4. This effectual call is sent upon the elect without any 
 conditions or preparation on their part. 
 
 Now, to the doctrine thus summed up — and no Calvinisi 
 dare dispute any point included in it — I shall proceed to 
 alledge a number of objections; and it will be with the 
 good sense and candor of my readers, to decide whether 
 they constitute sufficient reasons for discarding the doctrine. 
 
 1. I object to this doctrine, that it is anti-scriptural, 
 nowhere taught in the word of God, and contradictory to 
 much that is therein tauofht: as that salvation is condi- 
 tional — that all may seek and fiiid —that they are criminal 
 who do not seek — that many are lost who might have been 
 saved — that the Spirit may be resisted — that repentance 
 and faith precede regeneration — indeed, the doctrine is in 
 palpable conflict with the whole tenor of revelation. This 
 is one objection. 
 
 2. But, further, I object, that if regeneration is the work 
 of irresistible grace, wrought without previous conditions, 
 then they who are not regenerated, are not to be condemned 
 for remaining unregenerate. It is attributable to no fault 
 in them, and so cannot render them blameworthy, because 
 it is a matter with which they have nothing whatever to do. 
 It is God's work, and not theirs in any sense; they are 
 passive entirely, from beginning to end; and so, if there be 
 any wrong in their remaining unregenerate, the wrong is 
 not in them, because it is not by their consent. 
 
 But if it be said the wrong is not in their remaining 
 unregenerate, but in their being so in the first instance, 
 then, I reply, neither are they to blame for this, because it, 
 also, was entirely without their consent. They were born 
 corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for this ; they cannot escape 
 from corruption, and so are not guilty for remaining in it : 
 and, therefore, they have no guilt whatever because of their 
 corruption. From this reasoning there is no escape, but an 
 assumption that men are absolutely and damnably guilty 
 
CHAP, v.] EFFECTUAL CALLING. * 167 
 
 for that over which they have not now, and never did have, 
 any control. Beheve this who can! but let my tongue 
 cleave to the roof of my mouth before I can so calumniate 
 the adorable Jehovah ! 
 
 3. If the doctrine be true, men are not to be condemned 
 for actual sin, unless they are condemnable for not avoiding 
 that which they never had power to avoid. For they were 
 brought into the world with a corrupt nature, without any 
 consent of theirs, unless they consented before they had an 
 existence; and being thus born, they never could cease 
 from sin without regeneration ; and they never had power 
 to promote or secure regeneration, and so are not to be 
 condemned for the sins they commit prior to regeneration, 
 unless they are to be condemned for an absolute impossibility. 
 
 4. If this doctrine be true, then they who are not regen- 
 erate not only are not to be condemned for not being 
 regenerate, and for actual sins committed prior to regenera- 
 tion, but, also, they cannot be required to be holy in heart 
 or in life, unless it is assumed that men may justly be 
 required to do what they never had, and have not, the 
 power to do. If they do not do right, they violate no 
 requirement, but a requirement to perform an impossibility, 
 which is the requirement of an abhorrent despot, and not 
 of the glorious Jehovah. 
 
 5. If this doctrine be true, there can be no punishment 
 for either depravity or sin, unless men are punishable for 
 not performing impossibilities. If men are finally punished 
 with eternal torments, then they are punished without any 
 cause on their part, but simply that they did not do what it 
 was eternally impossible for them to do. They are punished 
 for impenitence and unbelief; but impenitence and unbelief - 
 are the unavoidable fruit of a corrupt nature; from this 
 corruption there is no deliverance but by regeneration; 
 man has no power to regenerate himself, and he can do 
 
168 EFFECTUAL CALLING. [cHAP. V 
 
 notliing to induce God to regenerate him : he is, therefore, 
 damned in hell for ever, for that over which he had no 
 more control than the angel Gabriel. Think of hell ! tlien 
 think of such a fate ! Can God be chargeable with such a 
 government and conduct as this? 
 
 6. If the doctrine be true, then men cannot be required 
 to do any thing to promote their salvation ; for their salva- 
 tion is not susceptible of being promoted, as it is uncon- 
 ditional. In salvation man is not a co-agent, but a mere 
 passive subject. Until the work is commenced by irresistible 
 regeneration, he can do nothing but sin. When regenera- 
 tion takes place, all the rest follows as a necessary effect or 
 unavoidable fruit. 
 
 v. They cannot, with any propriet}^ be invited or exhorted 
 to repent and seek God; for the thing is impossible; and 
 to invite or exhort men to perform an impossibility, is tri- 
 fling — is nonsense. A Calvinistic minister, who believes that 
 up to the moment of regeneration a man cannot repent and 
 turn to God — and who, also, believes that regeneration is a 
 gift of God without conditions, and, also, that when regen- 
 eration is given, men must repent — and yet urges, and in- 
 vites, and implores men to repent and turn to God, must be 
 accounted guilty of the strangest inconsistency, to say the 
 least of it. 
 
 8. They cannot, with any propriety, be required to do 
 one thing rather than another, before regeneration, only as 
 one sin is preferable to another ; for whatever they do must 
 be sinful. Nothing that a man can do before regeneration 
 is good ; it is all sin. If he prays for the forgiveness of his 
 sins, it only increases them. If he observes the Sabbath, 
 if he reads the Scriptures, if he goes to the house of God, 
 if he fasts, and mourns, and humbles himself "before God, it 
 is all sin. But, it is said, a man cannot do these things until 
 regenerated: but that is precisely my proposition; he can 
 
CHAP, v.] EFFECTUAL CALLING. 160 
 
 do nothing but sin, and cannot turn aAvay from it any more 
 than he can create a universe — cannot even try. Why, 
 (hen, ask him or labor with him upon the subject? 
 
 9. If this be true, then it must be that God prefers that 
 the elect should commit a great deal of sin before they are 
 regenerated. For their regeneration is his work; he can 
 do it one time as well as another; for it is by irresistible 
 grace, and against the sinner's disposition, whenever it is 
 done ; and that he leaves them unregenerate a long term of 
 years, must be because, on the whole, he prefers that during 
 this period they should be unregenerate and sinful, rather 
 than regenerafe and holy. 
 
 10. Yea, more: if this doctrine be true, God must prefer 
 all the impenitence, and unbelief, and sin, that is in the 
 world. For if regeneration is his work alone, independ- 
 ent of all conditions, and if regeneration would produce 
 hohness, then the reason why the world remains unre- 
 generate and unholy must be, that, on the whole, God 
 prefers it. He prefers that it should be as it is, or he would 
 make it otherwise. There is no other reason but his prefer- 
 ence; for a sufficient atonement has been made to remove 
 all impediments out of the way, so far as Divine justice is 
 concerned; and in the creature there is nothing but what 
 might be overcome by irresistible grace. That such grace 
 is not exerted, is of the good pleasure of God alone ; and 
 this good pleasure must arise from the fact, that, in view 
 of all things, God prefers the final impenitence and unhoh 
 ness of some persons to their hohness, and their eternal 
 d )struction to their everlasting salvation. 
 
 11. If this doctrine be true, man is not a free agent in 
 consenting to salvation, nor yet in refusing to consent ; be- 
 cause in the former case the will is in-esistibly coerced to its 
 choice ; in the latter it has no ability to make a contrary 
 election. In both cases it acts under an irresistible agency. 
 For if the soul, under the influence of the eflfectual call 
 
 15 
 
170 EFFECTUAL CALLING. [CHAP. V. 
 
 retains its freedom, it has power to resist; but then the call 
 would not be irresistible ; but if it has no power to resist, 
 but must necessarily choose, then it is not free. And if 
 without the effectual call it might choose life, then without 
 the effectual call it might be saved; but if it has not the 
 power, then it is not free. 
 
 12. I object to this doctrine, because it antagonizes the 
 doctrine of salvation by faith, and makes faith an involuntary 
 exercise — these both. Is not regeneration salvation from 
 depravity ? and is it not the work of salvation commenced 
 m the soul ? If so, and if regeneration precedes faith, is it 
 not inevitable that faith is not a condition fo salvation to 
 this extent? And if faith is a necessary effect of regen- 
 eration, can it be a voluntary exercise ? And if it is not a 
 voluntary exercise, can it, with any propriety, be called a 
 (iondition of any thing which follows after it? And, par- 
 ticularly, can men be exhorted to its exercise, as though it 
 were a condition to which they are competent ? 
 
 Can a regenerate person be lost? If not, regeneration 
 itself infallibly secures salvation, with all that is included 
 therein. And if it does secure salvation, how can any thing 
 which comes after it be called a condition of salvation? 
 Must not every thing following after rather be said to be 
 included in salvation? 
 
 13. I object to this doctrine, further, that it not only 
 makes salvation an involuntary and unconditional work, but 
 it also does away with repentance entirely. Look at it 
 soberly, and see if it is not a shocking misrepresentation, 
 not only of the particular teachings and general tone of the 
 Bible, but, also, of all experience. There is a man who, up 
 to this moment, is a sinner ; and now, without any convic- 
 tion or turning of heart to God, or any use of means — while 
 his heart is proud, and stubborn, and sinful as ever, he is 
 in one instant, by irresistible grace, born of God; in the 
 i.'j.me instant he is justifi-d; but preceding his justification 
 
JHAP. v.] EFFECTUAL CALLING. 171 
 
 and succeeding his regeneration, he exercises faith and 
 repentance ! Now, I ask, in the name of reason and 
 rehgion, is this so? Will the world furnish one solitary 
 witness to an experience of this kind ? 
 
 14, According to this doctrine, a Christian is no more to 
 be esteemed for his virtues, than a sinner for his sins ; and 
 the latter is no more to be censured than the former; 
 because they are both passive, and only passive, with 
 respect alike to their sins and virtues: the only difference 
 between them is produced by irresistible fate. Indeed, the 
 whole system of Calvinism, in its peculiar tenets, inevitably 
 destroys both the accountability of man, and the distinc- 
 tions between vice and virtue. If one man is irresistibly 
 and invincibly drawn to a holy life, and another man is 
 equally irresistibly drawn to an unholy and sinful conduct, 
 and this without any thing under their control, it must be 
 manifest, that, though there is a difference, it may be both 
 in the character and conduct of the individuals ; yet they 
 are neither commendable nor censurable, or, indeed, in any 
 sense responsible for the difference. 
 
 Yea, further, does not Calvinism also teach, not only 
 that men are entirely passive in their states and actions, 
 but that, in their sins as much as in their most holy exer- 
 cises, they actually perform the will of God. The will of 
 God, according to their teaching, cannot in any thing be 
 frustrated. Nothing comes to pass but that he willed it. 
 The devil does his will as much as the archangel. Where 
 is the difference? In what is the one more appro vable or 
 censurable than the other? Is this one to be damned? 
 Why ? Did he not do the will of God ? Did he do any 
 thing, more or less, than, in the will of God, was purposed 
 before the foundation of the world? Is he damned for 
 doing the will of God ! He is damned for sinning ; but 
 that very sin was the will of God? God willed him to 
 do, he but complied — accomplished what his Maker wished 
 
1Y2 EFFECTUAL CALLING. [CHAP. '^. 
 
 Ilim to do — what it was not only impossible he should 
 avoid, but what, if he had avoided, would have been a 
 breach of his Maker's will — the damnable sin ! 0, sir, what 
 dreadful work this kind of stuff makes with the character 
 and reputation of God ! Do you find no difficulties upon 
 these points? Then must you be blind indeed! Consult 
 your own experience — interrogate your consciousness ; it 
 will teach you better. You will find, beyond any power to 
 convince you to the contrarj^, that you believe that a change 
 in your character and life was not wrought without your 
 consent — that your consent was not produced by irresistible 
 power. You will find that your recollection of repentance 
 is, that you r( pented long and deeply, with tears and 
 sorrow, before you found forgiveness — that this repentance 
 was attended with a distressing sense of both unpurged 
 corruption and unremoved condemnation. If any man had 
 asked you, then, whether your vile nature was changed — 
 regenerated — or not, what would have been your answer? 
 That you were not only unpardoned, but vile ! A change 
 indeed had been wrought — but not the change of nature — 
 making you a child of God. Such is the testimony of your 
 experience: every step is fresh in your memory; you can 
 never forget it. By some instrument, it matters not what, 
 where, or when, your mind was arrested: truth flashed 
 upon your guilty conscience ; you saAV and admitted it. A 
 simple conviction of your utter sinfulness was the result. 
 You pondered what to do. A struggle, and you deter- 
 mined to seek for life. What next? You now began 
 seriously to reflect — you betook yourself to the Bible, or 
 to some religious friend — you prayed. Your sense of guilt 
 and wretchedness increased. How bitter now was the 
 mingled cup of your sorrow ! You repented before God, 
 did you not ? You struggled on, through doubts and fears. 
 now ready to lay hold by faith, then sinking into deej) 
 despair! At last, in the utmost extremity, forgetting all, 
 
CilAP. V.J EFFECTUAL CALLING. 1*73 
 
 by a mighty exertion, you embraced the atoning sacrifice — 
 you beheved. Do you not recollect it? Was it not so? 
 Then came rest! Your nature was changed. You saw 
 it — you felt it — you realized it; no earthly power could 
 convince you to the contrary ; believing you were a new 
 man in Christ Jesus, and had now no condemnation. I 
 appeal to every Christian, wa-s it not so? Your experi- 
 ence, then, as well as God's word, and the voice of reason, 
 are against the dogma we here oppose. 
 
 Much more might be said, to show the danger of the 
 error under examination — how it destroys all sense of obli- 
 gation — how it contents the sinner in his sins — how it 
 neutralizes all efifort — ^how it shields the conscience from all 
 appeals and exhortations ; but all this must be present to 
 the reflecting and considerate reader. In view of them, let 
 him "hesitate ; nay, let him promptly throw from him an un- 
 supported dogma, fraught with such deadly influences. Let 
 no cherished prejudices — no long attachments, cause him 
 to deal compassionately with the dangerous delusion. It 
 deserves no mercy ; let it find none. Let the mind always 
 contemplate it naked ; its deformities will make it sufficiently 
 detestable. It is only when it is cloaked and masked that 
 it has attractions; when seen in its native and real char- 
 acter, with its consorts and relatives, it Avill be sufficiently 
 hideous ; no mind will admit it. It will stand, without, with 
 its kindred errors, equally execrated by reason and religion, 
 by the vohs of God, and the instinct of mankind. Dear 
 reader; may we be guided by the infinite Spirit into all 
 truth ! 
 
174 rERSEVERANCE. [CHAP. VI. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 PERSEVERANCE. 
 
 In this chapter we shall treat of the perseverance of 
 the saints — a subject of scarcely inferior importance to 
 those already considered. It falls in at this point natu- 
 rally, and forms an indispensable part of this most won- 
 derful system; for, certainly, whatever else may be said 
 of Calvinism, it must be admitted that it is a complete 
 S3'Stem. Starting out with the radical principle, that all 
 events are jQxed by eternal decree, it infers that those who 
 will be finally saved must be so decreed to salvation — then 
 the means must be fixed — then they must operate infal- 
 libly — then they must accomplish the end ; the elect must 
 be kept to the end. 
 
 " They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, efi'ect- 
 ually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally 
 nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall cer- 
 tainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. 
 
 "This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their 
 own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of 
 election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of 
 God the Father, upon the efficacy of the merits and inter- 
 cession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit and of 
 the seed of God within them, and the nature of the cove- 
 nant of grace; from all which ariseth, also, the certainty 
 and infallibility thereof. 
 
 "Nevertheless, they may, through the temptation of 
 Satan and the world, the pre valency of corruption re- 
 maininsr in them, and the nej^lect of the means of their 
 preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time con- 
 tinue therein; whereby they incur God's displeasure, and 
 grieve his Holy Spirit, and come to be deprived of some 
 measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts 
 
CHAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. iVo 
 
 hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scan- 
 dahze others, and bring temporal judgments upon them- 
 selves." (Confession of Faith, chap, xvii, sec. i-iii.) 
 
 " The perseverance of the saints is one of the articles by 
 whicli the creed of the followers of Calvin is distinguished 
 from that of the followers of Arminius. The latter hold, 
 that true believers may fall into sins inconsistent with a 
 state of grace, and may continue in apostasy to the end 
 of life; and, consequently, may finally fall into perdition. 
 In opposition to this tenet, our Confession affirms, that true 
 believers can neither totally nor finally fall away from 
 a state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein tc 
 the end, and be eternally saved. We affirm, that the total 
 apostasy of believers is impossible, not in the nature of 
 things, but by the Divine constitution; and, consequently, 
 that no man, who has been once received into the Divine 
 favor, can be ultimately deprived of salvation." (Expositor 
 of the Confession, p. 198,) 
 
 "As the grace of God, which is conceived to derive its 
 efficacy from his power of fulfilling his purpose in those 
 for whom it is destined, overcomes all the opposition with 
 which it is at first received, so it continues to be exerted 
 amidst all the frailty and corruption which adhere to 
 human nature in a present state. It is not exerted to 
 such a degree as to preserve any man from every kind 
 of sin ; for God is pleased to teach Christians humility, by 
 keeping up the remembrance of that state out of which 
 they were delivered, and to quicken their aspirations after 
 higher degrees of goodness, by lea\ang them to struggle 
 frith temptation, and to feel manifold infirmities. But, 
 although no man is enabled, in this life, to attain to per- 
 fection, the grace of God preserves those to whom it is 
 given from drawing back to perdition. The doctrine of 
 the perseverance of the saints flows necessarily from that 
 decree by which they were, from eternity, chosen to 
 
176 PERSEVERANCE. [ciIAP. VI. 
 
 salvation, and from the manner in which, according to the 
 Calvinistic system, the decree was executed; and all tjie 
 principles of the system must be renounced, before we can 
 believe that any of those for whom Christ died, and who, 
 consequently, became partakers of his grace, can fall from 
 that grace, either finally — by which is meant, they shall 
 not, in the end, be saved—or totally — by which is meant, 
 that they shall, at any period of their lives, commit sins so 
 heinous and presumptuous, and persist in them so obsti- 
 nately, as, at that period, to forfeit entirely the Divine 
 favor." (Hill, p. 640.) 
 
 " Upon this subject professed Christians are divided in 
 sentiment, as, indeed, they are upon every article of faith. 
 The doctrine of our Church, in which I believe all the 
 reformed Churches concurred, is expressed in the following 
 words: 'They whom God hath accepted in the 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.'" (Dick, vol. ii, p. 283.) 
 
 "We assert, then, that true believers cannot fall totally 
 or finally from grace. It may seem that the use of both 
 these words is unnecessary; because^ if they cannot fall 
 totally, it follows that they cannot fall finally; but thej 
 are intended to oppose the doctrine of Arminians, whc 
 afiirm, that although a saint may fall totally from grace, 
 he may be restored by repentance ; but, since this is uncer- 
 tain, and does not always take place, he may, also, fall 
 finally, and die in his sins. Now we aflirm, that the total 
 apostasy of believers is impossible, not in the nature of 
 thmgs, but by the Divine constitution; and, consequently, 
 that no man, who has been once received into the Divine 
 favor, can be ultimately deprived of salvation." (lb., 
 vol. ii, p. 284.) 
 
 " God doth continue to forgive the sins of those who are 
 
CHAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. 177 
 
 justified ; and, although they can never fall from the state 
 of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's 
 fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his counte- 
 nance restored unto them until they humble themselves, 
 confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and 
 repentance." (Confession of Faith, chap, xii, sec. 5.) 
 
 "As justification is an act completed at once, so those 
 who are justified cannot come into condemnation. The 
 sins which they afterward commit, cannot revoke the pardon 
 which God has graciously given them ; but they may sub- 
 ject them to his fatherly displeasure and temporary chastise- 
 ment. Here we must revert to the well-known distinction 
 between judicial and fatherly forgiveness. Though God, 
 in the capacity of a judge^ pardons all the sins of believers 
 in the most free and unconditional manner, in the day of 
 their justification, yet that forgiveness, which, as a father, 
 he bestows upon his justified and adopted children, is not 
 in general vouchsafed, without suitable preparation on their 
 part for receiving and improving the privilege [!!] " (Ex- 
 positor of the Confession, p. 158.) 
 
 "May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, 
 and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, 
 fall aAvay from the state of grace ? 
 
 " True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of 
 God, and his decree and covenant to give them perse- 
 verance, their inseparable union with Christ, his continual 
 intercession for them, and the Spirit and seed of God 
 abiding in them, can neither totally nor finally fall away 
 from the state of grace, but are kept by the power of God 
 through faith unto salvation." (Larger Catechism, ques. 79.) 
 
 If it should be objected to this statement, that, although 
 Calvinists believe in the necessity of the salvation of those 
 for whom Christ died, yet they believe it is conditional, or 
 is made to depend upon the faith of the believer, I reply, 
 it is admitted that Calvinists teach that faith is a condition 
 
178 I'ERSEVERANCE. [CHAP. VI. 
 
 of H.'-ilvation ; but now observe, they teach that it is irre- 
 Bistiblv communicated — if it is a condition, it is not a con- 
 dition dependent, in any sense, upon the behever himself, 
 but is an effect wrought in him without his consent. 
 
 "The covenant of redemption secures the continuance 
 and growth of the principle of grace, until the believer 
 shall be perfected in heaven. In this life he never utterly 
 falls for one moment from grace." (Ely's Contrast, p. 274.) 
 
 *'The hohness of the Christian continues to the end.'* 
 (Dwight.) Upon this proposition, Dr. Dwight delivers one 
 of his most labored sermons, to prove the necessary final 
 perseverance of the saints. 
 
 Upon this point it will scarcely be necessary for me to 
 adduce a larger number of quotations. Those already 
 given are full and authoritative. This, indeed, is a poini 
 where less reference to authority is required than almost 
 any other of the Calvinian creed ; here they all harmonize. 
 The final perseverance of the saints, with them, is a frankly- 
 avowed and cherished sentiment. To rob them of this, 
 would be to rob them of one of their gods. If their view of 
 election is true, this is consequentially true ; if their doc- 
 trine of the atonement is true, this cannot be false ; if their 
 doctrine of effectual grace is true, this must follow. So that 
 they are, at least, consistent with themselves in believing 
 and teaching it; they could not do otherwise. It is an 
 integral part of the same great system of fatalism and in'C- 
 sponsibility, which has been examined in this book. 
 
 The doctrine, as taught in the above quotations, may 
 thus be stated : 
 
 1. Persons once regenerated may fall into grievous sins, 
 and continue therein for a time indefinite. 
 
 2. They cannot totally fall away, but, however sinful they 
 may become, will continue to be children of God. 
 
 3. They cannot finally perish, but must necessarily come 
 to eternal life. 
 
CUAP. VI. J PERSEVERANCE. 179 
 
 Such is the doctrine of the Presbyterian Church, as 
 taught by their Confession of Faith and standard authors, 
 To it -vve find many and, to us, insuperable objections. 
 Read and judge for yourselves. 
 
 1. And first, we object, the doctrine is without warrant 
 from the word of God. It is admitted that passages are 
 found in the Scriptures, which, disconnected from their rela- 
 tions, might alloiv of a construction partly favorable to a 
 doctrine resembling the above. But no passage clearly 
 teaches it ; none necessarily infers it ; no principle of reve- 
 lation sanctions it; if it could be true, its truth never can 
 be derived from the Bible. This, then, is our first ground 
 of objection, and to a Christian it is sufiicient; he need go 
 no further; here he will be content to put an end to his 
 inquiries. It is not of the Bible, it cannot, therefore, be 
 received, will be his reasoning. 
 
 2. But second, I object further, and as growing out of 
 the foregoing, not only is this doctrine not taught in the 
 Bible, but, what is more fatal to it, the Bible teaches that it is 
 false, by teaching that precisely what it denies is the truth. 
 It is to be discarded not alone because the Bible does not 
 teach it, but because the Bible asserts its falsehood. Rev- 
 elation is not silent upon the point, but it is expressly, fully, 
 unmistakably against the assumption. The doctrine itself 
 is false, or the Bible. I cannot better express this objec- 
 tion than in the following language of Mr. Wesley, in his 
 tiact on Perseverance. He thus presents the Scripture 
 argument : 
 
 " For thus saith the Lord : * When the righteous turneth 
 away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, in 
 his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he 
 hath sinned, in them shall he die.' (Ezek. xviii, 24.) 
 
 " That this is to be understood of eternal death appears 
 from the twenty-sixth verse : * When a righteous man turneth 
 away from his righteousness and committeth iniquity, and 
 
180 PERSEVERANCE. [cHAP. VI. 
 
 di<?tli in them, [here is temporal death,] for liis iniquity 
 that he hath done he shall die.' [Here is death eternal J 
 
 "It appears, farther, from the whole scope of the chap- 
 ter, which is to prove, ' the soul that sinneth, it shall die ' 
 (V. 4.) 
 
 " If you say, * The soul here means the body,' I answer, 
 that will die whether you sin or no. 
 
 " Again, thus saith the Lord : ' When I shall say to the 
 righteous, that he shall surely live, if he trust to his own 
 righteousness, [yea, or to that promise as absolute and un- 
 conditional,] and commit iniquity, all his righteousness 
 shall not be remembered ; but for the iniquity that he hath 
 committed shall he die.' (Chap, xxxiii, 13.) 
 
 " Again : * When the righteous turneth from his righteous- 
 ness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby." 
 (V.18.) 
 
 " Therefore, one who is holy and righteous in the judg- 
 ment of God himself, may yet so fall as to perish everlast- 
 ingly. 
 
 " But how is this consistent with what God declared 
 elsewhere ? * If his children forsake my law, and walk not 
 in my judgments, I will visit their offenses with the rod, 
 and their sin with scourges. Nevertheless, my loving 
 kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my 
 truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the 
 thing that is gone out of my lips. I have sworn once by 
 my holiness, that I will not fail David.' (Psalm Ixxxix, 
 30-35.) 
 
 " I answer, there is no manner of inconsistency between 
 one declaration and the other. The prophet declares the 
 just judgment of God against every righteous man who 
 falls from his righteousness. The Psalmist declares the old 
 loving kindnesses which God sware unto David in his truth. 
 *I have found,' saith he, 'David, my servant; with ray 
 holy oil have I anointed liim. My hand shall hold him 
 
CilAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. 181 
 
 fiist, and my ai'in shall strengthen him. His seed, also, 
 will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days 
 of heaven.' (V. 20, 21, 29.) It follows : ' But if his children 
 forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, neverthe- 
 less, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, 
 nor suffer my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break. 
 1 will not fail David. His seed shall endure for ever, and 
 his throne as the sun before me.' (V. 30, &c.) 
 
 " May not every man see, that the covenant here spoken 
 of relates wholly to David and his seed or children? 
 Where, then, is the inconsistency, between the most abso- 
 lute promise made to a particular family, and that solemn 
 account, which God has here given, of his way of dealing 
 with all mankind? 
 
 *' Beside, the very covenant mentioned in these words, is 
 not absolute, but conditional. The condition of repentance, 
 in case of forsaking God's law, was implied, though not 
 expressed; and so strongly implied, that, this condition 
 failing — not being performed, God did also fail David. He 
 did 'alter the thing that had gone out of his lips,' and 
 yet without any impeachment of his truth. He ' abhorred 
 and forsook his anointed,' (v. 38,) the seed of David, whose 
 th.one, if they had repented, should have been *as the 
 days of heaven.' He did ' break the covenant of his 
 servant, and cast his crown to the ground.' (V. 39.) So 
 vainly are these words of the Psalmist brought to contradict 
 the plain, full testimony of the prophet! 
 
 " Nor is there any contradiction between this testimony of 
 God by Ezekiel, and those words which he spake by Jere- 
 miah : ' I have loved thee with an everlasting love ; there- 
 fore, with loving kindness have I drawn thee.' For do 
 these words assert, that no righteous man ever turns from 
 his righteousness? No such thing. They do not touch 
 the question, but simply declare God's love to the Jewish 
 (/hurch. To see this in the clearest hght, you need only 
 
182 PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP. VI. 
 
 read over the whole sentence: 'At the same time, saitb 
 rhe Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, 
 and they shall be my people. Thus saith the Lord, The 
 people which were left of the sword found grace in the 
 wilderness ; even Israel, when I caused him to rest. The 
 Lord hath appeared of old unto me,' saith the prophet, 
 speaking in the person of Israel, * saying, I have loved 
 thee with an everlasting love ; therefore, with loving kind- 
 ness have I drawn thee. Again I will build thee, and thou 
 shalt be built, virgin of Israel.' (Chap, xxxi, 1-4.) 
 
 " Suffer me here to observe, once for all, a fallacy which 
 is constantly used by almost all writers on this point. They 
 perpetually beg the question, by applying to particular 
 persons assertions or prophecies which relate only to the 
 Church in general, and some of them only to the Jewish 
 Church and nation, as distinguished from all other people. 
 
 " If you say, ' But it was particularly revealed to me, that 
 God had loved me with an everlasting love,' I answer, 
 suppose it was — which might bear a dispute — it proves no 
 more, at t]ie most, than that you, in particular, shall perse- 
 vere; but does not affect the general question, whether 
 others shall, or shall not. 
 
 " Secondly. One who is endued with the faith that 
 purifies the heart — that produces a good conscience, may, 
 nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 " For thus saith the inspired apostle : ' War a good war- 
 fare; holding faith and a good conscience; which some 
 having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck.* 
 (1 Tim. i, 18, 19.) 
 
 " Observe, 1. These men [such as Hymeneus and Alex- 
 ander] had once the faith that purifies the heart — that 
 produces a good conscience ; which they once had, or they 
 could not have * put it away.' 
 
 " Observe, 2. They 'made shipwreck' of the faith, which 
 necessarily implies the total and final loss of it; for a 
 
CHAP. VI. J PERSEVERANCE. 183 
 
 vessel once wrecked can never be recovered; it is totally 
 and finally lost. 
 
 "And the Apostle himself, in his second Epistle to 
 Timothy, mentions one of these two as irrecoverably lost, 
 * Alexander,' says he, ' did me much evil : the Lord shall 
 reward him according to his works.' (2 Tim. iv, 14.) 
 Therefore, one who is endued with the faith that purifies 
 the heart — that produces a good conscience, may, never- 
 theless, so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 " * But how can this be reconciled with the words of our 
 Lord, "He that beheveth shall be saved?" ' 
 
 " Do you think these words mean, ' He that believes,' at 
 this moment, ' shall ' certainly and inevitably * be saved V 
 
 " If this interpretation be good, then, by all the rules of 
 speech, the other part of the sentence must mean, 'He* 
 that does 'not believe,' at this moment, 'shall' certainly 
 and inevitably ' be damned.' 
 
 "Therefore, that interpretation cannot be good. The 
 plain meaning, then, of the whole sentence is, 'He that 
 beheveth,' if he continue in faith, ' shall be saved ; he 
 that believeth not,' if he continue in unbelief, 'shall be 
 damned.' 
 
 " ' But does not Christ say elsewhere, " He that beheveth 
 hath everlasting life?" (John iii, 36,) and, "He that be- 
 lieveth on Him that sent me hath everlasting hfe, and shall 
 not come into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto 
 life?'" (John v, 24.) 
 
 "I answer, 1. The love of God is everlasting life. It is, 
 in substance, the life of heaven. Kow, every one that be- 
 lieves, loves God, and, therefore, 'hath everlasting life.' 
 
 " 2. Every one that believes, 'is,' therefore, 'passed from 
 death' — spiritual death—' unto life,' and, 
 
 " 3. ' Shall not come into condemnation,' if he endureth 
 in the faith unto the end ; according to our Lord's own 
 words, ' He that endureth to the end shall be saved ; ' and, 
 
1S4 PERSEVERANCE. [cHAP. VI. 
 
 • Veril}', I say imto you. If a man keep my saying, lie shall 
 never see death.' (John viii, 51.) 
 
 " Thh-dly. Those who are grafted into the good olivo 
 tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may, nevertheless, so 
 fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 " For thus saith the apostle : ' Some of the branches are 
 broken off, and thou art grafted in among them, and with 
 them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree. 
 Be not high-minded, but fear: if God spared not the 
 natural branches, take heed lest he spare not thee. Behold 
 the goodness and severity of God ! On them which fell 
 severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his 
 goodness ; otherwise thou shalt be cut off.' (Rom. xi. 
 17. 20-22.) 
 
 "We may observe here, 1. The persons spoken to were 
 actually grafted into the olive tree. 
 
 " 2. This olive tree is not barely the outward, visible 
 Church, but the invisible, consisting of holy believers. So 
 the text : * If the first fruit be holy, the lump is holy ; and 
 if the root be holy, so are the branches.' (V. 16.) And, 
 
 * Because of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou 
 standest by faith,' 
 
 "3. These holy believers were still liable to be cut 
 off from the invisible Chuixh, into which they were then 
 grafted. 
 
 " 4. Here is not the least intimation of those who were 
 so cut off being ever grafted in again. 
 
 "Therefore, those who are grafted into the good olive 
 tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may, nevertheless, so 
 fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 " 'But how does this agree with the 29th verse, "The 
 gifts and calling of God are without repentance?'" 
 
 " The preceding verse shows : ' As touching the election, 
 [the unconditional election of the Jew^h nation,] they 
 are beloved for the fathers' sake:' f^r the sake of theii 
 
CHAP. VJ.J PERSEVERANCE. 186 
 
 forefathers. It follows, [in proof of this, that 'they are 
 beloved for their fathers' sake,' that God has still blessing 
 in store for the Jewish nation :] ' For the gifts and calling 
 of God are without repentance ;' for God doth not repent 
 of any blessings he hath given them, or any privileges he 
 hath called them to. The words here referred to were 
 originally spoken with a peculiar regard to these national 
 blessings. * God is not a man, that he should lie ; neither 
 the son of man, that he should repent.' (Num. xxiii, 19.) 
 
 " * But do you not hereby make God changeable ^ 
 Whereas, "with him is no variableness, neither shadow 
 of turning." ' (James i, IV.) By no means. God is un- 
 changeably holy; therefore, he always 'lovetli righteous- 
 ness and hateth iniquity.' He is unchangeably good; 
 therefore, he pardoneth all that 'repent and beheve the 
 Gospel.' And he is unchangeably just; therefore, he 
 'rewardeth every man according to his works.' But all 
 this hinders not his resisting, when they are proud, those 
 to whom he gave grace when they were humble. Nay, his 
 unchangeableness itself requires, that, if they grow high- 
 minded, God should cut them off — that there should be 
 a proportionable change in all the Divine dispensations 
 toward them. 
 
 " * But how then is God faithful ? ' I answer, in fulfilling 
 every promise which he hath made, to all to whom it is 
 made— all who fulfill the condition of that promise. More 
 particularly, 1. 'God is faithful' in that 'he will not suffer 
 you to be tempted above that you are able to bear.' 
 (1 Cor. X, 13.) 2. 'The Lord is faithful, to establish and 
 keep you from evil' — if you put your trust in him — from 
 all the evil which you might otherwise suffer, through 
 * unreasonable and wicked men.' (2 Thess. iii, 2, 3.) 
 3. 'Quench not the Spirit; hold fast that which is good;- 
 abstain from all appearance of evil; and your whole spirit, 
 soul, and body, shall be preserved blameless unto the 
 16 
 
186 PERSEVERANCE. JCHAP. VI. 
 
 coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that 
 calleth you, who also will do it.' (1 Thess. v, 19, &c.) 
 4. Be not disobedient unto the heavenly calling ; and ' God 
 is faithful, by whom ye were called, to confirm you unto 
 the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ.' (1 Cor. i, 8, 9.) Yet, notwithstanding all 
 this, unless you fulfill the condition, you cannot attain the 
 promise. 
 
 " ' Nay, but are not " all the promises, yea and amen?** * 
 They are firm as the pillars of heaven. Perform the condi- 
 tion, and the promise is sure. Believe, and thou shalt be 
 saved. 
 
 " ' But many promises are absolute and unconditional.' 
 In many, the condition is not expressed. But this does not 
 prove there is none implied. No promises can be expressed 
 in a more absolute form, than those above cited from the 
 eighty-ninth Psalm. And yet we have seen a condition 
 was implied even there, though none was expressed. 
 
 " 'But there is no condition, either expressed or implied, 
 in those words of St. Paul : "I am persuaded that neither 
 death, nor life, nor height, nor depth, nor any other crea- 
 ture, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, 
 which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." ' (Rom. viii, 38, 39.) 
 
 " Suppose there is not — which will bear a dispute — yet 
 what will this prove ? Just thus much : that the apostle 
 was, at that time, fully persuaded of his own perseverance. 
 And I doubt not but many behevers, at this day, have the 
 very same persuasion, termed in Scripture, * the full assur- 
 ance of hope.' But this does not prove that every believer 
 shall persevere, any more than that evc^y believer is thus 
 fully persuaded of his own perseverance. 
 
 " Those who are branches of the true vine, of whopi 
 Christ says, 'I am the vine, ye are the branches,' may, 
 nevertheless, so fall from God as to pe -i^h c\erlastingl}. 
 
 " For thus saith our blessed Lord bii7>s^U' * ^ am tiie 
 
CHAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. 187 
 
 true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every 
 branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it away. 1 
 am the vine ; ye are the branches. If a man abide not in 
 me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men 
 gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are 
 burned.' (John xv, 1-6.) 
 
 "Here we may observe, 1. The persons spoken of were, 
 in Christ, branches of the true vine. 2. Some of these 
 branches abide not in Christ, but the Father taketh them 
 away. 3. The branches which abide not are cast forth — 
 cast out from Christ and his Church. 4. They are not 
 only cast forth, but withered; consequently, never grafted 
 in again. Nay, 5. They are not only cast forth and 
 withered, but also cast into the fire. And, 6. They are 
 burned. It is not possible for words more strongly to 
 declare, that even those who are now branches in the true 
 vine, may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 " By this clear, indisputable declaration of our Lord, we 
 may interpret those which might be otherwise liable to 
 dispute; wherein it is certain, whatever he meant beside, 
 he did not mean to contradict liimself. For example: 
 *This is the Father's will, that of all which he hath given 
 me, I should lose nothing.' Most sure ; all that God hath 
 given him, or, as it is expressed in the next verse, 'every 
 one which believeth on him,' namely, to the end, he *will 
 raise up at the last day,' to reign with him for ever. 
 
 " Again : * I am the living bread : if any man eat of this 
 bread [by faith] he shall live for ever.' (John vi, 51.) True ; 
 if he continue to eat thereof. And who can doubt of it ? 
 
 "Again: *My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, 
 and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life: 
 and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them 
 out of my hand.' (John x, 27, 28.) 
 
 " In the preceding text the condition is only implied ; in 
 this, it is plainly expressed. They are mv sheep that hear 
 
188 PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP. VT. 
 
 my voice, that follow me in all holiness. And 'if ye do 
 those things, ye shall never fall.' None shall 'pluck you 
 out of my hands.' 
 
 "Again: 'Having loved his own which were in the 
 world, he loved them unto the end.' (John xiii, 1.) 'Hav- 
 ing loved his own,' namely, the apostles — as the very next 
 words, 'which were in the world,' evidently show — 'he 
 loved them unto the end' of his life, and manifested that 
 love to the last. 
 
 "Once more: 'Holy Father, keep through thine own 
 name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be 
 one, as we are one.' (John xvii, 11.) 
 
 "Great stress has been laid upon this text, and it has 
 been hence inferred, that all those whom the Father had 
 given him — a phrase frequently occurring in this chapter — 
 must infallibly persevere to the end. 
 
 "And yet, in the very next verse, our Lord himself de- 
 clares, that one of those whom the Father had given him, 
 did not persevere unto the end, but perished everlastingly. 
 
 " His own words are, ' Those that thou gavest me I have 
 kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.' 
 (John xvii, 12.) 
 
 "So one even of these was finally lost! — a demonstra- 
 tion that the phrase, 'those whom thou hast given me,' 
 signifies here, if not in most other places, too, the twelve 
 apostles, and them only. 
 
 " On this occasion, I cannot but observe another common 
 instance of begging the question — of taking for granted 
 what ought to be proved. It is usually laid down as an 
 indisputable truth, that whatever our Lord speaks to or 
 of his apostles, is to be applied to all believers. But this 
 cannot be allowed by any who impartially search the Scrip- 
 tures. They cannot allow, without clear and particular 
 proof, that any one of those texts which related primarily 
 to the apostles, as all men grant, belong to any but them. 
 
rUAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. ISD 
 
 " Those who so effectually know Christ, as by that knowl- 
 edge to hare escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet 
 fall back into those pollutions, and perish everlastingly. 
 
 "For thus saith the apostle Peter, *If after they have 
 escaped the pollutions of the world, through the knowl- 
 edge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, [the only pos- 
 sible way of escaping them,] they are again entangled 
 therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them 
 than the beginning. For it had been better for them not 
 to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they 
 have known it, to turn from the holy commandment de- 
 livered unto them.' (2 Peter ii, 20, 21.) 
 
 "That the knowledge of the way of righteousness, 
 which they had attained, was an inward, experimental 
 knowledge, is evident from that other expression — they 
 had ' escaped the pollutions of the world ;' an expression 
 parallel to that in the preceding chapter, verse 4, 'Having 
 escaped the corruption which is in the world.' And in 
 both chapters, this effect is ascribed to the same cause; 
 termed in the first, 'the knowledge of Him who hath 
 called us to glory and virtue ;' in the second, more explic- 
 itl}^ * the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.* 
 
 "And yet they lost that experimental knowledge of 
 Christ and the way of righteousness; they fell back into 
 the same pollutions they had escaped, and were 'again 
 entangled therein and overcome.' They 'turned from the 
 holy commandment dehvered to them,' so that their 'latter 
 end was worse than their beginning.' 
 
 "Therefore, those who so effectually know Christ, as by 
 that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the 
 world, may yet fall back into those pollutions, and perish 
 everlastingly. 
 
 " And this is perfectly consistent with St. Peter's words, 
 in the fiist chapter of his former epistle : ' Who are kept 
 by the power of God through Mih unto salvation.* 
 
19C PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP. VI. 
 
 Undoubtedly, so are all tliey who ever attain eternal salva- 
 tion. It is the power of God only, and not our own, by 
 which we are kept one day or one hour. 
 
 "Those who see the light of the glory of God in the 
 face of Jesus Christ, and who have been made partakers 
 of the Holy Ghost, of the witness, and the fruits of the 
 Spirit, may, nevertheless, so fall from God as to perish 
 everlastingly. 
 
 "For thus saith the inspired writer to the Hebrews: 
 'It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, 
 and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made 
 partakers of the Holy Ghost, if they fall away, to renew 
 them again to repentance; seeing they crucify to them- 
 selves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open 
 shame.' (Hebrews vi, 4, 6.) 
 
 "Must not every unprejudiced person see, the expres- 
 sions here used are so strong and clear, that they cannot, 
 without gross and palpable Avresting, be understood of any 
 but true believers ? 
 
 "They 'were once enlightened;' an expression familia, 
 with the apostle, and never by him applied to any but 
 believers. So: 'The God of our Lord Jesus Christ give 
 unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation: the eyes 
 of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may 
 know what is the hope of his calling, and what is the 
 exceeding greatness of his power, to us- ward that believe.' 
 (Ephesians i, 17-19.) So again: 'God, who commanded 
 the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our 
 hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of 
 God in the face of Jesus Christ.' (2 Corinthians iv, 6.) 
 This is the light which no unbelievers have. They aro 
 utter strangers to such enlightening. 'The God of this 
 world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, 
 lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine 
 unto them.' (V. 4.) 
 
CHAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. 191 
 
 "*They had tasted of the heavenly gift, [emphatically 
 so called,] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.' 
 So St. Peter likewise couples them together : * Be baptized 
 for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost,' (Acts ii, 38,) whereby the love of God 
 was shed abroad in their hearts, with all the other fruits 
 of the Spirit. Yea, it is remarkable that our Lord him- 
 self, in his grand commission to St. Paul, to which the 
 apostle probably alludes in these words, comprises all 
 these three particulars. *I send thee to open their eyes, 
 and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the 
 power of Satan unto God, [here contracted into that one 
 expression, ' they were enlightened,'] that they may receive 
 forgiveness of sins, ['the heavenly gift,'] and an inheritance 
 among them which are sanctified,' (Acts xxvi, 18,) which 
 are made * partakers of the Holy Ghost,' of all the sancti- 
 fying influences of the Spirit. 
 
 "The expression, 'They tasted of the heavenly gift,' 
 is taken from the Psalmist, 'Taste and see that the Lord 
 is good.' (Psalm xxxiv, 8.) As if he had said. Be ye as 
 assured of his love, as of any thing you see with your 
 eyes. And let the assurance thereof be sweet to your 
 soul, as honey is to your tongue. 
 
 "And yet those who had been thus 'enlightened,' had 
 * tasted' this *gift,' and been thus 'partakers of the Holy 
 Ghost,' so 'fell away' that it was 'impossible to renew 
 them again to repentance.' 
 
 "'But the apostle makes only a supposition: "If they 
 should fall away." ' 
 
 "I answer: the apostle makes no supposition at all. 
 There is no if in the original. The words are, ^Ahvvatov 
 tovf artaf ^oi'tiadivtaq, xai rtapaTiECSovta^, that is, in plain 
 English, 'It is impossible to renew again unto repentance 
 those who were once enlightened and have fallen away;* 
 therefore, they must perish everlastingly. 
 
192 PERSEVERANCE. [cHAP. VI. 
 
 " ' But if SO, then farewell all my comfort. ' 
 
 ''ITien your comfort depends on a poor foundation. My 
 comfort stands not on any opinion, either that a believer 
 can or cannot fall away — not on the remembrance of any 
 thing wrought in me yesterday, but on what is to-day — 
 on my present knowledge of God in Christ, reconcihng 
 me to himself — on my now beholding the light of the 
 glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, walking in the 
 light as he is in the light, and having fellowship with the 
 Father and with the Son. My comfort is, that through 
 grace I now believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that his 
 Spirit doth bear witness with my spirit that I am a child 
 of God. I take comfort in this, and this only, that I see 
 Jesus at the right hand of God — that I personally for 
 myself, and not for another, have a hope full of immor- 
 tality — that I feel the love of God shed abroad in ray 
 heart, being crucified to the world, and the world crucified 
 to me. My rejoicing is this, the testimony of my con- 
 science, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with 
 fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, I have my 
 conversation in the world. 
 
 "Go and find, if you can, a more solid joy, a more 
 blissful comfort, on this side heaven. But this comfort 
 is not shaken, be that opinion true or false, whether the 
 saints in general can or cannot fall. 
 
 "If you take up with any comfort short of this, you 
 lean on the staff of a broken reed, which not only will not 
 bear your weight, but will enter into your hand and pierce 
 you. 
 
 "Those who live by faith, may yet fall from God, and 
 perish everlastingly. 
 
 "For thus saith the same inspired writer, 'The just shall 
 live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall 
 have no pleasure in him.' (Hebrews x, 38.) 'The just 
 [the justified person] shall five by faith;' even now shall he 
 
CHAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. 103 
 
 live the life whicli is hid with Christ in God; and if he 
 endure unto the end, he shall live for ever. 'But if any 
 man draw back,' saith the Lord, 'my soul shall have no 
 pleasure in him;' that is, I will utterly cast him off; and, 
 accordingly, the drawing back here spoken of is termed, in 
 the verse immediately following, * drawing back to perdition.' 
 
 *"But the person supposed to draw back, is not the 
 same with him that is said to live by faith.' 
 
 " I answer, 1. Who is it, then ? Can any man draw back 
 from faith who never came to it ? But, 
 
 " 2. Had the text been fairly translated, there had been 
 no pretense for this objection. For the original runs 
 thus : *0 Stxatoj ix Tti^ttdi ^i^aetat,' xai iav VTio^el^rj'tai. If 
 o Sfcxatoj, 'the just man that lives by faith [so the expres- 
 sion necessarily implie. , there being no other nominative 
 of the verb] draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure 
 in him.' 
 
 "'But the apostle adds: "We are not of them who 
 draw back unto perdition."' And what will you mfer 
 from thence? This is so far from contradicting what has 
 been observed before, that it manifestly confirms it. It is 
 a farther proof that there are those 'who draw back unto 
 perdition,' although the apostle was not of that number. 
 Therefore, those who live by faith, may yet fall from God 
 and perish everlastingly. 
 
 "'But does not God say to every one that lives by faith, 
 "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee?'" 
 
 " The whole sentence runs thus : ' Let your conversation 
 be without covetousness, and be content with such things 
 as ye have ; for He hath said, I will never leave thee nor 
 forsake thee.' True, provided 'your conversation be with- 
 out covetousness,' and ye 'be content with such things as 
 ye have.' Then you may f boldly say, the Lord is my 
 helper, and I will not fear Tfhat man shall do unto rne.' 
 
 ♦'Po you not see, 1. That this promise, as here recited, 
 '17 ■ ' 
 
194 PERSEVERANCE. [cHAP. VI. 
 
 relates wholly to temporal things? 2. That, even tlius 
 taken, it is not absolute, but conditional? And, 3. That the 
 condition is expressly mentioned in the very same sentence ? 
 
 "Those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, 
 may so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 "For thus again saith the apostle: 'If we sin willfully, 
 after we haie received the knowledge of the truth, there 
 remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful 
 looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall 
 devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law, died 
 without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much 
 sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath 
 trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the 
 blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an un- 
 holy thing !' (Hebrews x, 26 - 29.) 
 
 "It is undeniably plain, 1. That the person mentioned 
 here, was once sanctified by the blood of the covenant. 
 2. That he afterward, by known, willful sin, trod under foot 
 the Son of God. And, 3. That he hereby incun-ed a sorer 
 punishment than death, namely, death everlasting. 
 
 " Therefore, those who are sanctified by the blood of the 
 covenant, may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 "'What! Can the blood of Christ burn in hell? or can 
 the purchase of the blood of Christ go thither ? ' 
 
 " I answer, 1 . The blood of Christ cannot bum in hell, 
 no more than it can be spilled on the earth. The heavens 
 must contain both his flesh and blood until tlie restitution 
 of all things. But, 
 
 " 2. If the oracles of God are true, one who was purchased 
 by the blood of Christ, may go thither. For he that was 
 sanctified by the blood of Christ, was purchased by the 
 blood of Christ. But one who was sanctified by the blood 
 of Christ, may, nevertheless, go to hell ; may fall under thai 
 fiery indignation which shall for ever devour the adversaries, 
 
 "'Can a child of God, then, go to hell? or can a mat) 
 
CHAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. 196 
 
 be a child of God to-day, and a child of the devil to- 
 morrow? If God is our Father once, is he not our Father 
 always?' 
 
 "I answer, 1. A child of God, that is, a true believer — 
 for he that believeth is born of God — while he continues a 
 true behever, cannot go to hell. But, 2. If a believer 
 make shipwreck of the faith, he is no longer a child of God ; 
 and then he may go to hell, yea, and certainly will, if he 
 continues in unbelief. 3. If a believer may make ship- 
 wreck of the faith, then a man that believes now, may be 
 an unbeliever some time hence; yea, very possibly, to- 
 morrow; but, if so, he who is a child of God to-day, may 
 be a child of the devil to-morrow. For, 4. God is the 
 Father of them that believe, so long as they believe. But 
 the devil is the father of them that believe not, whether 
 they did once believe or no. 
 
 " The sum of all this is : if the Scriptures are true, those 
 who are holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself — 
 those who are endued with the faith that purifies the heart, 
 that produces a good conscience — those who are grafted 
 into the good olive tree, the spiritual, invisible Church — 
 those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ 
 says, ' I am the vine, ye are the branches ' — those who so 
 effectually know Christ, as by that knowledge to have 
 escaped the pollutions of the world-^those who see the 
 light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and 
 who have been made partakers of the Hply Ghost, of the 
 witness, and of the fruits of the Spirit — those who live by 
 faith in the Son of God — those who are sanctified by the 
 blood of the covenant, may, neyjertheless, so fall from God 
 as to perish everlastingly. 
 
 "Therefore, let him that standeth take heed lest he fall." 
 
 I have thus at length presented the argument of Mr. 
 Wesley on this point, because of its Scriptural weight and 
 iipportance. It is sufficient. No candid, unprejudiced 
 
1 96 PERSEVERANCE. [CHAP. VI. 
 
 reader, it seems to me, can arise from its study without 
 conviction of its truth. But though sufficient, I must ask 
 attention to one or two additional considerations, bearing 
 against the doctrine under examination. Logical conse- 
 quences are fatal to it ; among many instances we select the 
 following : 
 
 1. If the doctrine be true, after conversion a man is no 
 lono-er a free agent. In this, as in all respects with the fate 
 and absurdity of the system, he is brought under a neces- 
 sity which he has no power to avoid. He cannot fall away 
 from salvation. It will not do for Calvinists to modify the 
 doctrine by saying he will not; its distinct assumption 
 is, he cannot; he has no sufficient power. Let us look 
 closely at this. Either a man, after conversion, can fall 
 into vicious practices and sins, or he cannot. If he cannot, 
 he is not a free agent in a state of trial. If he can, then 
 he may be lost — finally perish ; or if he does not finally 
 perish, he must either be saved in his sins, or he must be 
 saved from his sins. The former alternative no one em- 
 braces; but if he must be saved from his sins — and this 
 depends upon repentance and faith — the man is not a free 
 agent in these exercises, because he is under an absolute 
 necessity, his salvation being unavoidable; whatever is: 
 necessary thereto is, also, unavoidable; and being so, the 
 man is no longer free, unless a man may, at the same time, 
 be free not to do, and yet under an unavoidable necessity to 
 do, a given thing. Thus it appears that the doctrine of 
 fate or absolute necessity legitimately results. 
 
 2. I object, it renders the condition of saints in this life 
 more secure than that of the angels in heaven, and of our 
 first parents in paradise. They, notwithstanding their purity 
 and the favor of an approving Creator, had power to fall 
 and perish. Can it be presumed that frail mortals in this 
 state of trial may not? or, if so, why not? Is the faith- 
 fulness and immutability of God plead ? In what sense do 
 
CHAP. VI.] TERSEVERANCE. 197 
 
 these secure believers more infallibly than the angels of 
 heaven — than Adam in a state of innocence. 
 
 3. If this doctrine is true, it is no difference what a man 
 does after conversion ; he cannot peril his soul — cannot even 
 render his salvation doubtful. Thus it inculcates recklessness 
 and licenses crime. Taken in connection with the doctrine 
 of pre-irresistible regeneration, it must unsettle all ideas of 
 responsibility, and do away with every motive to a holy 
 life. For, first, the man cannot avoid being regenerated ; it 
 is operated upon him, or in him, by irresistible power, and 
 then, being regenerated, he may become during life a devil 
 in sin, but he cannot miss of heaven. Now, what sheer 
 licentiousness is here! what more is requisite to induce 
 unlimited and incurable recklessness? The man is in no 
 danger — it is all one ; let him indulge to the utmost excess ; 
 he is safe, and cannot be less so. Is this Christianity ? Is 
 this iniquitous teaching to be palmed upon the world as 
 God's truth? 
 
 4. I object, further, if the doctrine of final perseverance 
 be true, then sin is not so abhorrent in a Christian as it is 
 in a sinner — is not attended with the same consequences. 
 The sins into which a believer may fall are accounted 
 sufficient to damn a sinner, but are not sufficient to make 
 a whit uncertain the salvation of the believer, if committed 
 by him. What strange theology ! Is it not a principle, 
 and a true one, that where much is given much will be 
 required? the greater the obligation, the greater the guilt 
 of delmquency ? But in this case the principle is reversed. 
 A man, because he has been made the subject of distin- 
 guishing grace, may now sin most aggravatedly, but he will 
 only be loved the more ; the greater his crimes, the greater 
 the love manifested in his continual pardon. Is not this 
 teaching that we may sin that grace may abound? 
 
 5. The doctrine is not analogous to, or resultant from, or 
 in harmony with, the doctrine of Christianity. This lias 
 
198 PERSEVERANCE. [cHAP. VI. 
 
 been shown abundantly in the refutation of cognate errors. 
 The grounds upon which it is based are false, and tlie 
 superstructure stands upon emptiness. As conclusions 
 drawn from false premises are worthless and void, so this 
 doctrine vanishes with its foundations, which have been 
 demonstrated to be false. The idea of perseverance, is 
 dependent upon the doctrines of election, commercial atone- 
 ment, sovereign and irresistible grace. No one can think 
 of it separate and apart from these. These being destroyed, 
 therefore, to dream of this is equivalent with supposing a 
 cause without an effect, or a sequence without a premise. 
 
 6. It is contrary to the known conviction and conscious- 
 ness of, I venture to say, all Christians. There may be a 
 sense of security in the minds of believers, greater in some 
 than in others; but it is believed that honest and careful 
 scrutiny into the subject, will show that believers universally 
 feel, whatever may be their attainments in grace, that there 
 is a possibility of their coming short of salvation— that they 
 yet have the fearful power to keep themselves out of eternal 
 life. Is not this so? I appeal to the consciousness of 
 every one who may chance to read these pages. Do you 
 not feel the certainty of such a power and possibility? 
 Nay, is there not an undefined uneasiness lest you may 
 come short; and if not this, a sense of the necessity of 
 much diligence, that you may at last enter into life ? Does 
 not God, in his own word, appeal to such a possibility, to 
 stimulate his children to constant and needful exertion ? Is 
 this consciousness false? Is our heavenly Father trifling 
 with us, in his admonitions, exhortations, and expostulations, 
 addressed to us in view of such imminent liability ? 
 
 7. I object, that it is contrary to probabihty, if not cer- 
 tainty, with respect to individuals whose history is given in 
 the Scriptures, who at one time were recognized as children 
 of God, and whose final damnation is unquestionable. It 
 is, also, contrary to probability with respect to many persons 
 
OUAP. VI.] PERSEVERANCE. 199 
 
 known in every age of the Church ; some of whom, 
 I doubt not, will be readily called up to the recollection of 
 my readers — persons who, at one time, gave most indu- 
 bitable evidence of genuine repentance and conversion, and 
 who for many years brought forth all the fruits of a real 
 Christian life, such as it is admitted could not exist without 
 the influence of grace, yet, after all, fell into the most 
 dreadful sins, and died in the very midst of their iniquities, 
 gloating in their shame, and who must have finally perished 
 or entered into life with their sins, or have been made holy 
 after death ! 
 
 Such are some of the objections we urge against the 
 doctrine under examination. It is without warrant from 
 the Bible. It is contrary to the explicit statements of the 
 Bible. It is opposed to its facts, principles, and implica- 
 tions. It is inharmonious and discordant with its doctrines. 
 Its logical consequences are antagonistic to the reason and 
 nature of man, to the genius of religion, and to the con- 
 sciousness of our species. It is a dangerous doctrine, 
 productive of recklessness, licentiousness, and crime, as its 
 legitimate offspring. All this is objectionable to it, without 
 a single redeeming or apologetic circumstance. To embrace 
 It, is to act in advance of, if not to abandon, common sense ; 
 and to be influenced by it, is to endanger all the interests 
 of sound virtue and true religion, theoretical and practical, 
 so far as these are under the guardianship of Christianity. 
 
200 THE HEATHEN WORLD. [CHAP. VII. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE HEATHEN WORLD. 
 
 The Calvinistic view of the heathen world, as it is peculiar 
 in itself, and most appalling in its consequences, deserves a 
 brief separate notice. It is thus stated in the Confession 
 of Faith : 
 
 " Others not elected, although they may be called by the 
 ministry of the word, and may have some common opera- 
 tions of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and, 
 therefore, cannot be saved. Much less can men, not pro- 
 fessing the Christian religion., he saved in any other way 
 whatsoever, he they never so diligent to frame their lives 
 according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion 
 they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may, 
 is very pernicious and to he detested^ (Chap, x, sec. 4.) 
 
 "Those cannot be saved who are totally destitute of 
 revelation. Though the invitation which nature gives to 
 seek God, be sufficient to render those without excuse who 
 do not comply with it, yet it is not sufficient, even objec- 
 tively, for salvation ; for it does not afford that lively hope 
 which maketh not ashamed, for this is only revealed by the 
 Gospel ; whence the Gentiles are said to have been without 
 hope in the world. It does not show the true way to the 
 enjoyment of God, which is no other than faith in Christ- 
 It does not sufficiently instruct us about the manner in whicl? 
 we ought to worship and please God, and do what is 
 acceptable to him. In short, this call by nature never did, 
 nor is it even possible that it ever can, bring any to the 
 saving knowledge of God; the Gospel alone is the power 
 of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. We are 
 persuaded there is no salvation without Christ; no commu- 
 nion of adult persons with Christ, but by faith in him ; no 
 faith in Christ without the knowledge of him ; no knowledge 
 
CHAP. VII.] THE HEATHEN WORLD. 201 
 
 but by the preaching of the Gospel ; no preaching of the 
 Gospel in the works of nature." (Expositor of the Con- 
 fession, p. 145.) 
 
 From this quotation I learn that the Presbyterian Church 
 believes in the reprobation, and inevitable damnation, of tlie 
 whole heathen world. This they have, as above quoted, 
 made an article of their creed. It is not to be wondered 
 at, that this horrible dogma has been kept as much as pos- 
 sible out of view — only introduced as necessity required 
 It is, however, sufficiently avowed, to inextricably convict 
 the system. Dr. Rice, I find, has committed himself to its 
 support. He says, "Vast multitudes have lived and died 
 in Pagan darkness. Now, of what avail is it to say, that 
 Christ designed, by his atonement, to save all men, when 
 the truth is, that to vast multitudes he has not given the 
 means of availing themselves of the provisions ?" This 
 quotation, if its meaning is at all discernible, teaches that 
 Christ did not die with a design to save all men, and that 
 ^he heathen world were among the number of those to be 
 excluded from the provisions of his atonement. They were 
 first excluded from the death of Christ ; and then, in proof 
 thereof, they were denied the means of making it available. 
 Thus they were reprobated to death, and the mear^s were 
 appointed to secure the end. I suppose there will be no 
 need that additional authorities be referred to, or quota- 
 tions increased. These are sufficient, and it remains simply 
 thai we offer our objections ; if, indeed, the doctrine is not 
 so horrible in itself, as to need no formal statement of its 
 consequences, to render it detestable to all. 
 
 I object to it, in general, that it is revolting to every 
 sensibility of the soul — to every feeling of humanity — to 
 all that is generous in rehgion and reason. Together with 
 other elements of the Calvinistic faith, it dishonors, it de- 
 monizes the God of the universe ! Look at it. The whole 
 lieathen world inevitably, necessarily damned ! Have you 
 
202 THE HEATHEN WORLD. [cHAP. VII 
 
 pondered this fearful proposition? What a wholesale 
 destruction is here ! Two-thirds of the human race damned 
 every thirty years, without the possibility of salvation, not 
 including the vast array of reprobates in Christian coun- 
 tries! Not less than seven hundred millions of souls 
 damned every generation! All reprobates! Behold that 
 dreadful column marching forward to the unavoidable doom ! 
 Twenty-one hundred millions — twilie the whole population 
 of the globe every hundred years — damned ! — consigned 
 to the vengeance of eternal fire, to endure the woes of 
 hell for ever! Behold them, as that column sinks away 
 into the mouth of the burning pit — but ever supplied with 
 new recruits at the further end, and thus moving on from 
 age to age — filling the insatiable jaws of the yawning gulf! 
 And, as you see that column move, and hear the roar of 
 the devouring abyss, into whose flaming jaws they plunge, 
 ask the question, why are all these damned ? And you 
 shall be answered by the Calvinist of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury — by Dr. Rice, whom you may imagine as standing upon 
 the verge of the devouring crater — it is the good pleasure of 
 God — they are reprobates! They are damned, not be- 
 cause they are heathen — this is their misfortune, not their 
 crime—but they are reprobates! If they are damned at 
 all, there- never was a time, since God passed his eternal 
 decree, when they might have been saved; for then their 
 doom was fixed, according to the good pleasure of God! 
 Do you ask for a reason for this appalling opinion? you 
 are met with the satisfactory reply, " Who art thou tliat 
 repliest against GodV 
 
 Add to this melancholy, dreadful procession, all the 
 descendants of Abraham, and all the reprobates in nomi- 
 nally Christian countries. Stay, until your vision takes in 
 the utmost of the slowly-moving column of souls. Behold 
 the cataract of immortal spirits, dashing on perpetually 
 down the steeps of the ever-yawning and insatiable abyss ! 
 
G«AP. VII.] THE HEATHEN WORLD. 203 
 
 Lo! that river, as it stretches away through ages and 
 generations — a river of immortal beings swallowed up in 
 hell ! And now, pause and consider again, Avho are these ? 
 what is that hell into which they plunge? and why are 
 they so damned? These are God's creatures, made and 
 fashioned by himself! That abyss into which they are 
 cast, is the place of eternal torment! Stop — take in the 
 thought, eternal. Eternal ! No end ! A million years are 
 gone — they suffer on ! As many millions of ages as there 
 are grains of sand in the solid globe have passed — they 
 suffer still ! And still, as many myriads more as atoms in 
 the universe, multiplied by every second that had passed 
 before — and now, their woe is just begun! Not a second, 
 compared with their eternal years, is passed! And now, 
 behold their woe — their death of deaths! To them there^ 
 is no hope ! No light will ever dawn upon their dungeon — 
 no mercy will ever speak peace to their troubled spirits! 
 Stay yet a moment — let us alight on yonder burning crag ! 
 And now, I ask, why these woes — why all these lost? I 
 hear the answer ; it comes from the Calvinists of the nine- 
 teenth century — it comes from Dr. Rice — they are repro- 
 bates — they were made for these flames! There never was 
 a time when they had power to escape them ! They dwell 
 amid these waves of eternal wrath, not for any avoidable 
 fault of theirs, but to the praise of God's glorious power ! 
 My spirit alternately shivers and burns at the horrid impu- 
 tation! What has God done, that his rational creatures 
 should so foully slander his adorable character? Pardon 
 me ; every power of my soul mutinies at the blasphemy. 
 
 Presbyterians, do you beheve this? It is in your Con- 
 fession, but is it in your hearts? Do you believe that God 
 IS such a being as this ? Such a sentiment, if it were true, 
 it seems to me, is sufficient to shroud the universe in endless 
 mourning, and pervade all intelligences with consternation 
 
204 THE HEATHEN WORLD. [cHAP. VII. 
 
 and dread. To state it, is to execrate it. Reason, liumanity, 
 religion, turn from it with disgust and detestation. 
 
 1. But, particularly, I object to this doctrine; it is 
 nowhere taught in the Scriptures. Net a single passage 
 can be found, warranting even its inference, upon correct 
 principles of interpretation. This, taken in connection with 
 its horrid import, renders its belief, if not a crime against 
 God, a reproach alike to humanity and Christianity. 
 
 2. I object to this doctrine, that it is absolutely con- 
 trary to express revelation — to its principles, and its direct 
 teaching. 
 
 (1.) It is contrary to the principle that is laid down in 
 the parable of the talents, " Where no law is, there is no 
 transgression." (Rom. iv, 15.) "Sin is not imputed where 
 there is no law." (Rom. v, 13.) 
 
 (2.) To express teaching. "For as many as have sinned 
 without law, shall, also, perish without law," &c. (Rom. 
 ii, 8.) 
 
 3. I object to the doctrine: if the whole heathen world 
 are inevitably and necessarily damned, then they are 
 damned without any fault of their own, or they are 
 punished unavoidably — they are placed in circumstances 
 where such damnation is the consequence of that over 
 which they have not, and never did have, any control. 
 
 Are they damned for being heathen ? But they are not 
 responsible for this. They certainly had no part in electing 
 whether they would be heathen or not. Is a man to be 
 damned because he has the misfortune to be born in one 
 region of the earth — not in another? Is such the law by 
 which men are finally to be judged — such the principle 
 upon which the momentous question of eternal destiny is 
 to be fixed ? 
 
 Are they to be damned because they have never been 
 favored with the light of revelation ? Are they responsible 
 
CHAl'. VII.] THE HEATHEN WORLD. 205 
 
 for this? Is it a sufficient reason for casting a man into 
 hell, that he never heard of the existence of a Bible? Is 
 this the ground upon which the God worshiped by Christians 
 determines the fate of his creatures? 
 
 Are they to be damned because they have not exercised 
 faith in the Son of God ? Could they exercise faith in a 
 being of whom they never heard? Had they power to 
 believe on one they never knew ? Is it sin in a man not to 
 believe in Jesus, if he never heard of any such being — 
 did not, and could not, know any thing respecting him ? 
 
 If for none of these, for what are the heathen all 
 necessarily damned ? Because they did not live up to the 
 light they had ? But can this be shown, that no heathen 
 over acted according to his best light? But when the con- 
 demnation of the heathen is placed upon the ground that 
 they willfully transgressed the law they have, it abandons 
 the whole Calvinian assumption of their unavoidable damna- 
 tion; for, if they willfully transgressed, they might have 
 obeyed; then they would have been saved, and so their 
 damnation is not unavoidable. 
 
 Is not the reason of their damnation, according to Cal- 
 vinism, simply this — they are reprobates ? Before they were 
 born, they were assigned their fate : not, indeed, from any 
 foresight of any thing in them; but because it was the 
 sovereign pleasure of God that they should be damned! 
 For some cause, sufficient to infinite Wisdom, but which he 
 has not thought necessary to reveal to the human race, he 
 saw that it would be best that they should be damned, and 
 he, therefore, made them to this end. But, that he might 
 seem to have an excuse for such monstrous cruelty, he first 
 caused the parents of these reprobates to become depraved, 
 and then, for this depravity, consigned them to destruction ; 
 but left them in the world long enough for them to manifest 
 their depravity, and then, for this outward manifestation, 
 executes upon them the vengeance of eternal fire. 
 
206 THE HEATHEN WORLD. [CUA.P. VII 
 
 And, that the outward manifestation might be infaUibly 
 secured, and so the excuse be certain, and the correspond- 
 ing punishment inflicted, he consigned them to heathenism — 
 a state, in which the Christian virtues were impossible, but 
 in which they might, nay, certainly would, work all manner 
 of uncleanness with greediness, and indulge in the utmost 
 excess of vice; and so heathenism would be the means to 
 justify damnation, as the end purposed of God from eter- 
 nity. What admirable machinery is this! How infinite 
 Malevolence arranged and contrived all, to the accomplish- 
 ment of the appalling aim and end! Eternal damnation 
 of an immortal and unoffending intelligence, the supreme, 
 ultimate object! To secure this, as a next step, the fall of 
 the first man, and so the corruption of his race. Then, all 
 being corrupt, the reprobation of a large number on account 
 thereof. Then, to justify the sentence of reprobation upon 
 these, their consignment to heathenism, that they might, 
 unavoidably, become personally vicious and sinful, that the 
 universe might suppose their damnation to be on account 
 of their sins, and so God escape the odium of cruelty, at 
 the same time that it was all fixed and executed according 
 to his will. Horrid ! horrid ! Heathenism, in order to pre 
 viously appointed damnation ! 
 
 4. If this doctrine be true, there is neither justice noi 
 goodness in God. We assert this awful consequence without 
 qualification — without timidity. With us^ no proposition 
 can be more certainly true than this. We must learn to 
 believe black is white, and white is black, when we can 
 believe that God is a just being, at the same time consigning 
 millions of beings to the flames of hell, for that over which 
 they never had, and never could have, any control — for 
 that which was absolutely unavoidable. When I can beheve 
 that a God of goodness is capable of such conduct, I shalj 
 be pi-epared to embrace any absurdity — any contradiction 
 however revolting. No language can express my horror — 
 
CHAP. VII. 1 THE HEATHEN WORLD. 207 
 
 my detestation of such a sentiment. Yet such is the ineA'i- 
 table consequences of the Calvinistic theory — a consequence, 
 hke a horrid ghost, haunting it at every turn. It flows 
 from reprobation — from hmited atonement — from the sin- 
 ner's inabihty — from the unavoidable damnation of the 
 heathen world. With each, with all of them, the justice 
 and goodness of God is in eternal conflict, if it is unjust and 
 unmerciful to damn a being for ever, for not performing im- 
 possibihties ; which, who, that has the feelings of humanity, 
 not to say the benevolence of a Christian, can doubt? If 
 this doctrine be true, why, then, shall I doubt the damnation 
 of idiots and infants? Is the one more repulsive than the 
 other? If a heathen may justly be damned for not having 
 faith in Christ, of whom he never heard, why may not my 
 innocent, unconscious babe be damned, by the same Moloch, 
 for a similar reason; the injustice, the fiendish cruelty, in 
 the one case would be no greater than in the other. 
 
 5. I object to this doctrine, that it claims our belief, 
 not only against evidence the most convincing — evidence 
 derived from the word and principles of revelation, as well 
 as from the reason and common sense of mankind — but, 
 also, without a shadow of proof to support it, derived 
 from any quarter. It ought not to be believed if there 
 were no evidence to the contrary, because there is none in 
 its support; but to ask for it the credence of reasonable 
 and Christian men, under these circumstances, when reason 
 and Christianity equally and absolutely condemn it, and 
 nothing supports it, can be little short of madness; it is 
 preposterous in the extreme. If there was conflicting evi- 
 dence — if any thing could be said in its favor — if any 
 solitary reason could be urged in its support — but to ask 
 of men to believe one of the most revolting and blas- 
 phemous dogmas that falsehood and fanaticism ever in- 
 vented, without any reason, and in opposition to the spon- 
 taneous judgment of the race, and to the word of God. 
 
208 THE HEATHEN WORLD. [CHAP. VEI. 
 
 and to the nature and fitness of things, is a species of bold- 
 ness which scarcely knows a parallel. 
 
 6. If this doctrine is true, involving, as it does, the 
 justice and goodness of God, and clothing him in the oppo- 
 site and dreaded character of cruelty and maliciousness, it 
 must unsettle the confidence of the universe in him, and 
 cause him only to be hated and lothed by every rational 
 being. Let such a sentiment once prevail — let the idea 
 obtain that the Almighty sways such a government, and is 
 actuated by such attributes, and heaven and hell will differ 
 but in name. Dismay and despair, mingled with rage and 
 detestation, will be the universal and only consciousness. 
 Angels will join their curses with devils, and mute nature, 
 if possible, would reverberate the merited anathema from 
 sphere to sphere. Such a conviction must whelm creation 
 in anarchy ; for it removes the only basis of order — confi- 
 dence in the great Parent and Sovereign of all, and persua- 
 sion that his government is established in justice and truth. 
 Let this be removed, and what remains but curses and 
 death? Who could reverence and love — who could adore 
 and worship such a God? None but devils and fiends, 
 who should recognize, in his hated and baleful character, 
 their own abhorred attributes infinitely surpassed. Thus, 
 the doctrine would unavoidably anarchize and subvert the 
 whole government of God. The fact itself would be en- 
 tirely competent to such a result, but, much more so, the 
 principles upon which it is founded, or from which it ema- 
 nated. Let any one be at the pains to study the philosophy 
 of his own nature — of his own mind — and he will not fail 
 to come to the game conclusion. He will see that such a 
 result is legitimate to such a cause with respect to himself, 
 and so wjth respect to all other beings similarly constituted. 
 
 But why shall I add reasons upon this point? Is it 
 possible that humanity can be so perverted as to require it? 
 Is it not so manifestly detestable, that, at its bare mentit^ 
 
CBAP. VII.] THE HEATHEN WORLD. 209 
 
 all nature spontaneously rises up to curse it? Where, in 
 the universe, will it find an argument — an advocate ? Let 
 it be stripped naked, and stand forth in its own true char- 
 acter — without meretricious drapery — without mask or vail 
 of any kind. And who shall come from heaven, or earth, 
 or hell, to plead its cause? Who but the father of lies, 
 who lives to blaspheme, and who might dare to assert even 
 this, as the very climax of his infernal blasphemies? But, 
 Presbyterians, you do not believe this. It is in your creed, 
 but you have abandoned it. I charge not the dreadful 
 blasphemy upon you ; if any of you still cling to it, it is 
 without understanding consequences. What I charge you 
 with is, inconsistency in holding on to and supporting such 
 a creed, and so propagating such sentiments. Be careful 
 how you do this ; you see — you cannot but see — the appall- 
 ing consequences. I have named them in candor, with all 
 plainness, but in love. Do consider them in the same spirit ; 
 do not take offense at their frightful and dreadful import; 
 but simply ask, are they true ? and then decide accordingly. 
 And will the Lord help you, and finally bring us where 
 truth will shine as the day, and error disappear for ever! 
 Infant Damnation. — It is deemed proper, in connection 
 with the foregoing, to say something on the subject of infant 
 damnation. This horrible doctrine has, from time imme- 
 morial, been charged upon Calvinists, and, certainly, not 
 without abundant evidence. But it is now so universally 
 disclaimed, that, we suppose, a reformation has been 
 wrought upon this point. This much good has come of 
 the manner in which our fathers exposed the horrors of the 
 system; and, as we delight to see error renounced, we 
 congratulate our friends on so much evidence of their con- 
 version. All dying infants belong to the elect! This is 
 what I suppose them now to believe. But I cannot, to save 
 me, tell how, or why, they believe this; unless it be to 
 escape the odium of avoTving an opposite sentiment. 
 
 18 
 
210 THE HEATHEN WOULD. [CHAP. VII. 
 
 But, now, what I want to bring out distinctly is this, 
 that, in renouncing the doctrine of infant damnation, they 
 have not relieved the system a particle. It still labors 
 under an odium, as horrid and detestable, as though it pro- 
 fessed the old dogma. Though it now believes that no 
 infants are damned, it still believes in what is precisely the 
 same ! Nay, it believes what is transcendently worse and 
 more horrible! Its difficulties are not diminished, they 
 still press it with unabated force. 
 
 They believe that those who shall finally perish, were 
 reprobated, from eternity, to destruction — that they were 
 passed by in the decree of election, and, as a consequence, 
 consigned to eternal damnation. Now, mark: this reproba- 
 tion took place long ages before! they were born. It excluded 
 them from heaven ; it consigned them to hell — irrevocably, 
 unchangeably ! This, millions of years before they had an 
 existence. As soon as they were conceived, they were 
 damned; when born, they were under irreversible sen- 
 tence — they were virtually destroyed ! 
 
 And, now, observe, further : the cause of this reprobation 
 and consequent damnation, was their simple, inherited cor- 
 ruption. It was what belonged to them in their concep- 
 tion — what was engendered in the woinb — what was given 
 to them when being was given to them. They were not 
 reprobated for what they would be and do, as foreseen of 
 God ; but he passed them by, or reprobated them, for their 
 inherited corruption alone, or what he saw them to be in 
 Adam. Thus they were reprobated without any actual 
 personal sin. That is, they were consigned to damnation 
 when they were not a span Zow^— unborn infants — and for 
 what belonged to them as such, without reference to what 
 they would be. Is not this infant damnation? Does it 
 not show that every reprobate was damned, in the purpose 
 of God, and inevitably, when, as yet, he was an unborn 
 mfant, and for what he was at that period ? What else i? 
 
CZIAF. VII.] THE HEATHEN WORLD. 212 
 
 infant damnation? Can any one tell me? In wl^at does 
 this differ from actually casting an infant, gasping its first 
 breath, into the eternal gulf? Eat this, as abundantly 
 shown, all Calvinists are bound to believe; they cannot 
 escape it. 
 
 But I have said this is worse, in connection with other 
 points of the system, than simple infant damnation. I re- 
 peat it. A moment's attention will show you the correct- 
 ness of the position. The doctrine is, that certain persons 
 were reprobated to certain and unavoidable damnation when 
 they were born — before it. Well, ; .ow, observe, further : 
 they believe that every actual sin will increase the torments 
 of the damned — that for every abuse of mercies enjoyed, 
 blessings offered, their punishment will be enhanced and 
 increased.. Look, for a moment, if you have the moral 
 nerve, at the compound horrors of the system, in the light 
 of these points. Every sin will magnify the torments of 
 the damned. Now, why were they permitted to live to 
 commit personal sins, and thus increase their torments? 
 Why ? Not that they might repent — not that they might 
 turn and live. This was eternally impossible. Why, then, 
 were they permitted to Hve? For this — read it with dis- 
 may — that they might have an opportunity to increase 
 their damnation a million-fold — that they might prepare 
 for themselves a deeper, hotter, more awful hell! It 
 would have been a mercy in God to have sent them to 
 hell when they breathed their first sweet breath upon a 
 mother's bosom! Monster of cruelty that he was, why 
 did he not then, send them out of life to a mitigated per- 
 dition? Why did he offer them mercies, when he knew 
 they could not accept them ? Why did he strive with them 
 early and late? Why did he invite them to life, when he 
 knew it was absolutely impossible for them to comply, and 
 when he also knew that for every such offer rejected then 
 damnation would be greatly magnified ? Why this ? Was 
 
212 THE HEATHEN WORLD, [cHAP. VII. 
 
 it not cruel in the extreme? Would it not have been an 
 act of transcendent generosity, Godlike compassion, to 
 have actually, as he did in his purpose, sent them ad to 
 hell in their infancy? Thus it appears, that the doctrine 
 of actual infant damnation would greatly reheve, instead of 
 increase the horrors of Calvinism. Is there any possible 
 escape from this conclusion? If there is, I cannot see 
 it. I wish I could. Dear reader, do not turn in anger 
 away from this fearful imputation. Ponder it; see if it 
 is not true. I know it is most dreadful and terrific. I 
 tremble to write it. When I reflect what it makes of the 
 character of God, I shudder! Ye angels, who dwell in 
 light, and see with open vision, is the God of your rap- 
 turous worship such a being as this? Nay, would not 
 such an imputation cover your heavens with dismay, and 
 fill your seraphic bosoms with consternation and dread? 
 Does not the universe, from the seraphim to the worm, 
 pronounce it false and blasphemous ? 
 
 Sovereignty of God. — This subject, though of sufficient 
 importance to claim a separate and distinct notice, must, 
 for the present, be disposed of by a brief notice, in con- 
 nection with the foregoing. 
 
 In Calvinism, all things are resolved into sovereignty. 
 No difficulty so great, but the sovereignty of God ex- 
 plains it. No absurdity, or contradiction, or blasphemy 
 so appalling, but here is its defense: "Even so. Father, 
 for so it seemeth good in thy sight." "Who art thou that 
 repliest against God?" "Shall the thing formed say 
 to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus ?" 
 
 That God is sovereign, no one disputes. That he has a 
 right to rule, and does rule in heaven and earth, is not even 
 questioned. But we protest, in the name of reason and 
 religion, and for the honor of God, against appeahng to 
 his sovereignty for the purpose of propagating slan- 
 ders against his character — against so understanding and 
 
CHAP. VII. I THE HEATHEN WORLD. 21d 
 
 construing it, as to bring it in conflict with liis justice and 
 other attributes of his nature. He has no rights incon- 
 sistenr, witli his own glorious nature — he has no sovereignty 
 that can act adversely to his glorious perfections. He is a 
 sovereign. But he is a sovereign God, not a sovereign 
 devil. His is not an irresponsible, blind, capricious sover- 
 eignty. His rights and his rule are not resolvable into 
 mere arbitrary acts of will. He rules in righteousness, 
 and wisdom, and truth. And what conflicts with thes**, 
 God claims no right to — he has no right to ; to say to the 
 contrary would be to dishonor him. The sovereignty of 
 God, therefore, never should be quoted in support of, or 
 excuse for, what is manifestly contrary to these. He has 
 no such sovereignty. When any thing is charged to 
 him which requires such a supposition, it is false and 
 slanderous to God. Here is where Calvinism commits one 
 of its greatest practical blunders — a misapprehension of 
 the nature of sovereignty ! It assumes that such and such 
 things are so — revealed in the Bible; and, it matters not 
 how homble the assumption, it holds itself under no obli- 
 gation to consider the consequences, however glaringly 
 false, and inconsistent, and dreadful. It is all referred 
 to God's sovereignty. It is all answered in a breath: 
 ''Even so, Father!" Shame on s ch trifling and profana- 
 tion of holy things! Suppose ye that the God of the 
 universe feels himself honored with such sacrifice? Does 
 he esteem such a defense — a defense which demonizes his 
 character to illustrate his sovereignty? No, no, it is a 
 mistake! God's sovereignty explains no principle that is 
 manifestly wrong — sanctions no fact that is inconsistent 
 with justice. "The Judge of the whole earth will do 
 right;" he cannot do wrong. His sovereignty gives him 
 no such power. 
 
914 THE WILL. [chap. VIII. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE WILL. 
 
 In the present chapter we call attention more particu- 
 larly to the Calvinian view of the will. This subject has 
 been involved in former chapters, but it is of such impor- 
 tance as to demand separate and distinct treatment. 
 ' What, then — it immediately becomes an important ques- 
 tion — is the Calvinistic view of the will, and of agency? 
 This will be better understood by reference to their ac- 
 knowledged standards. 
 
 " God hath endued the will of man with that natural 
 liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute ne- 
 cessity of nature, determined to good or evil. 
 
 " Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power 
 to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to 
 God ; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it. 
 
 " Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost 
 all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying 
 salvation; so as a natural man, being altogether averse 
 from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own 
 strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereto." 
 (Confession, chap, ix, sec. i, ii, iii.) 
 
 This chapter gives a very inadequate account of the 
 Calvinistic doctrine upon the point in question until its 
 terms are explained, and the views of authors are con- 
 sulted. It will be perfectly understood by the following 
 explanations. 
 
 In the Old and New Divinity Compared I read, " For if 
 God does not possess such absolute control over his crea- 
 tures, that he can govern them according to his pleasure, 
 how could he have decreed any thing unconditionally con 
 cerning them, since it might happen, that, in the exercise 
 
OHAF. VIII.l THE WILL. 215 
 
 of their free agency, they would act contrary to the Divine 
 purpose ? " 
 
 If this paragraph means any thing, it plainly means that 
 unconditional decrees and free agency are irreconcilable; 
 and, as all things are unconditionally decreed, according to 
 the system there can, of course, be no free agency. 
 
 Thomas Aquinas, quoted with approval by Witsius, says, 
 ** It is essential to the first principle, that it can act without 
 the assistance and influence of a prior agent ; so that, if the 
 human will could produce any action, of which God was 
 not author, the human will would have the nature of a first 
 principle." 
 
 *' Nor does God only concur with the actions of second 
 causes. When they act, but, also, influences tlie causes 
 themselves to act. . . . Calvinists contend that, as 
 nothing can ever come to pass without a cause, the acts 
 of the will are never contingent, or without necessity — 
 understanding by necessity, a necessity of consequence, or 
 an infallible connection with something foregoing." (Ex- 
 positor of Confession.) 
 
 "Calvinists conteiid, that a power in the will to de- 
 termine its own determinations, is either unmeaning, or 
 supposes, contrary to the first principles of philosophy, 
 something to arise without a cause; that the idea of the 
 soul exerting an act of choice, or preference, while, at the 
 same time, the will is in a perfect equilibrium, or state of 
 indifierence, is full of absurdity and self-contradiction : and 
 that, as nothing can ever come to pass without a cause, the 
 acts of the will are never contingent, or ivithout necessity — 
 understanding, by necessity, a necessity of consequences, or 
 an infallible connection with something foregoing. Accord- 
 ing to Calvinists, the liberty of a moral agent consists in the 
 power of acting according to his choice; and those actions are 
 free which are performed without any external compulsion 
 or restraint, in consequence of the determinations of his 
 
216 THE WILL. [CIIAP. VIII. 
 
 own mind. The necessity of a man's willing and acting 
 in conformity to his apprehensions and dispositions, is, in 
 their opinion, fully consistent with all the liberty which can 
 belong to a rational nature. The infinite Being necessarily 
 wills and acts according to the absolute perfection of his 
 nature, yet with the highest liberty. Angels necessarily 
 will according to the perfection of their nature, yet with 
 full liberty ; for this sort of necessity is so far from inter- 
 fering with hberty of will, that the ^perfection of the will's 
 liberty lies in such a necessity.'' (Expositor of Con- 
 fession, p. 136.) 
 
 "Neither does God only excite and predetermine the 
 will of men to vicious actions, so far as they are actions, 
 but he likewise so excites it, that it is not possible but, thus 
 acted upon, it shall act." (Witsius.) 
 
 "Moreover, as a second cause cannot act, unless acted 
 .upon, and previously moved to act, by the predetermining 
 influence of the first, so, in like manner, that influence of 
 the first cause is so efficacious, as, that supposing it, the 
 second cause cannot but act." (lb.) 
 
 "Every step of every individual character, receives as 
 determinate a character from the hand of God, as every 
 mile of a planet's orbit, or every gust of wind, or every 
 wave of the sea, or every particle of flying dust, or every 
 rivulet of flowing water. This power of God knows no 
 exceptions: it is absolute and unlimited. And, while it 
 embraces the vast, it carries its resistless influences to all 
 the minute and unnoticed diversities of existence. It reigns 
 and operates through all the secrecies of the inner man. 
 It ffives birth to every purpo&e; it gives impulse to every 
 desire; it gives shape and color to every conception; it 
 wields an entire ascendency over every attribute of the 
 mind : and the will, and the fancy, and the understanding, 
 with all the countless variety of their hidden and fugitive 
 operations, are submitted to it. It gives movement and 
 
fHAP. VIII.] THE WILL. 217 
 
 direction througli every one point of our pilgrimage. At 
 no moment of time does it abandon us. It follows us to 
 the hour of death, and it carries us to our place, and to 
 our everlasting destiny in the regions beyond it," (Dr. 
 Chalmers.) 
 
 "A man chooses what appears to be good," says Mr. 
 Dick, " and he chooses it necessarily, in this sense, that he 
 could not do otherwise. The object of every volition is to 
 please himself; and to suppose a man to have any other 
 object, that is, to will any thing that does not please him in 
 itself, or in its circumstances, is absurd: it is to suppose 
 him to will and not to wjll at the same time, He is per- 
 fectly voluntary in Ms choice; hut his willingness is the 
 consequence of the view which his mind takes of the object 
 presented to it, or of his prevailing disposition. 
 
 " Those actions are free which are the effect of volition. 
 In whatever manner the state of mind which gave rise to 
 the volition has been produced, the liberty of the agent is 
 neither greater nor less. It is the will alone which is to be 
 considered, and not the means by which it has been deter- 
 mined. If God foreordained certain actions, and placed 
 men in such circumstances that the actions would certainly 
 take place, agreeably to the laws of the mind, men are, 
 nevertheless, moral agents, because they act voluntarily, 
 and are responsible for the actions which consent has made 
 their own. Liberty does not consist in the power of acting 
 or not acting, but in acting from choice. The choice is 
 determined by something in the mind itself, or by some- 
 thing external influencing the mind; but, whatever is the 
 cause, the choice makes the action free, and the agent 
 accountable. If this definition of hberty be admitted, you 
 will perceive that it is possible to reconcile the freedom of 
 the will with absolute decrees; but we have not got rid of 
 every difficulty. By this theory, human actions appear to he 
 as necessary as the motions of matter, accordin^g to tlie laws 
 
 19 
 
218 THE WILL. [chap. VIII. 
 
 of gravitation and attraction : and man seems to be a 
 jnachine, conscious of his movements, and consenting to (hem, 
 bvt impelled by something different from himself ^^ 
 
 If any thing further should be esteemed necessary upon 
 this point, a few selections from Dr. Emmons, a distin- 
 cfuished divine of New England, and author of an elaborate 
 work on theology, may supply the demand. He says, 
 "Since the Scriptures ascribe all the actions of men to 
 God, as well as to themselves, we may justly conclude 
 that the Divine agency is as much concerned in the had as 
 their good actions. Many are disposed to make a distinc- 
 tion here, and to ascribe only the good actions of men to 
 the Divine agency, while they ascribe their bad ones to the 
 Divine permission. But there appears no ground for this 
 distinction in Scripture or reason. Men are .no more capa- 
 ble of acting independently of God in one instance than 
 another. If they need any kind or ^ degree of Divine 
 agency in doing good, they need precisely the same kind 
 and degree of Divine agency in doing evil. 
 
 "But there was no possible way in which he could 
 dispose them to act right or wrong, but only by producing 
 right or wrong volitions in their hearts. And if he pro- 
 duced their bad as well as good volitions, then his agency 
 was concerned in precisely the same manner in their wrong 
 as in their right actions. His agency making them act, 
 necessarily connects his agency and theirs together, and 
 lays a solid foundation for ascribing their actions either to 
 him or them, or to both. 
 
 " But, since mind cannot act any more than matter can 
 move, without a Divine agency, it is absurd to suppose that 
 men can be left to the freedom of their own will, to act 
 i»t not to act, independently of Divine influence. There 
 must, therefore, be the exercise of Divine agency in every 
 human action. 
 
 " By this invisible agency upon the minds, he governs all 
 
CHAP. VIII.j THE WILL. 219 
 
 their views, all their thoughts, all their determinations, and 
 all their volitions, just as he pleases, and just according to 
 his secret will, which they neither know beforehand, nor 
 can resist, evade, or frustrate." 
 
 "The plain and obvious meaning of the words freedom 
 and liberty, in common speech, is the power, opportunity, 
 or advantage that any one has to do as he pleases ; or, in 
 other words, his being free from hinderances or impedi- 
 ments in the way of doing or conducting in any respect as 
 he wills. And the contrary to liberty, whatever name we 
 call that by, is a person's being hindered or unable to 
 conduct as he will, or being necessitated to do otherwise. 
 
 " But one thing more I would observe, concerning what 
 is vulgarly called liberty, namely, that power and oppor- 
 tunity for one to do and conduct as he will, or according 
 to his choice, is all that is meant by it, without taking into 
 the meaning of the word any thing of the cause of that 
 choice, Or at all considering how the person came to have 
 such a volition — whether it was caused by some external 
 motive, or internal, habitual bias — whether it was deter- 
 mined by some internal, antecedent volition, or whether 
 it happened without a cause — whether it was necessarily 
 connected with something foregoing, or not connected. 
 Let the person come by his choice any how, yet, if he is 
 able, and there is nothing in the way to hinder his pur- 
 suing and executing his will, the man is perfectly free, 
 according to the primary and common notion of freedom." 
 (Edwards on the Will, p. 12.) 
 
 "That every act of the will has some cause, and, con- 
 sequently, has a necessary connection with its cause, and 
 so is necessary, a necessity of connection and consequence 
 is evident by this, that every act of the will whatsoever is 
 excited by some motive. 
 
 "But if every act of the will is excited by a motive, 
 then that motive is the cause of the act. If the acts of 
 
220 THE WILL. fCHAP. VIII 
 
 the "vvill are excited by motives, then motives are the causi 
 of their being excited, or, what is the same thing, the cause 
 of their existence. And if so, the existence of the acts of 
 tlie will is properly the effects of their motives. Motives dc 
 nothing, as motives or inducements, but by their influence ; 
 and so much as is done by their influence is the effecl 
 of them. For that is the motive of an effect, something 
 that is brought to pass by the influence of something else. 
 And if volitions are properly the effects of motives, then 
 they are necessarily connected with their motives — every 
 effect and event being, as was proved before, necessarily 
 connected with that which is the proper ground and reason 
 of its existence. Thus it is manifest, that volition is neces- 
 sary, and is not from any self- determining power in the 
 will; the volition which is caused by previous motive and 
 inducement, is not caused by the will exercising a sovereign 
 power over itself, to cause, determine, and excite volitions 
 in itself." (Edwards on the Will, pp. 26, 27.) 
 
 The view given in this quotation, is the view elaborately 
 sustained in Mr. Edwards' celebrated work on the will. 
 The whole work is based, for the defense of this view, 
 against Arminian notions of liberty. It will not be neces- 
 sary to quote more largely upon this point, as our simple 
 object, in these quotations, is to learn the view of the 
 authors referred to, without examining their particular 
 merits. 
 
 " The liberty of a moral agent consists in the power of 
 actino" according to his choice ; and those actions are free 
 which are performed without any external compulsion or 
 restraint, in consequence of the determination of his owti 
 mind. 
 
 "The various changes upon matter, which are the events 
 of the natural world, arise from a succession of operations, 
 every one of which, being the effect of something previous, 
 becomes, in its turn, the cause of something which follows. 
 
CHAP. VIII.] THE WILL. 221 
 
 Tlie particular determinations of mind, which may be con- 
 sidered as events arising in the moral world, have their 
 causes, also, which we are accustomed to call motives, that 
 is, inducements to act in a particular manner, which arise 
 from the objects presented to the mind, and the views of 
 those objects A\hich the mind entertains. The causes of 
 the events in the natural world are efficient causes, which 
 act upon matter ; the causes of events in the moral world 
 are final causes, with reference to which the mind, in which 
 the action originates, proceeds voluntarily and deliberately 
 to put forth its own powers. But the direction of the 
 action toward its final cause is not less certain, than the 
 direction of the motion produced in an inert, passive sub- 
 stance, by the form impressed upon it, which is the effi- 
 cient cause of the motion." (Hill, pp. 551, 552.) 
 
 " It is essential to a soul to have a moral disposition, good 
 or bad, or a mixture of both ; and according to what is the 
 prevaihng moral disposition of the soul must be the moral 
 actings of the will. [Query : How did a holy nature make 
 an unholy volition?] Hence, there is a great difference in 
 regard to the freedom of the will in the different states of 
 man. In the state of innocence, the natural inchnation of 
 man's will was only to good ; but it was liable to change 
 through the influence of temptations, and, therefore, free 
 to choose evil. In his natural corrupt state, man freely 
 chooses evil; and he cannot do otherwise, being under 
 bondage of sin. In the state of grace, he has a free will, 
 partly to good and partly to evil. In this state there is a 
 mixture of two opposite moral dispositions ; and as some- 
 times the one and sometimes the other prevails, so the will 
 sometimes chooses that which is good, and sometimes that 
 which is evil." (Expositor of the Confession, p. 137.) 
 
 From the above quotations we make the following de- 
 ductions : 
 
 1. Calvinists believe that every volition, or choice, is the 
 
222 TfiE WILL. [chap. VIIL 
 
 necessary result of an influence exerted upon the mind, 
 through the agency of motives. In other words, they be- 
 lieve that such is the constitution of the human mind, that 
 it cannot will at all without a motive, and that, when it 
 does will, it cannot will otherwise under the circumstances, 
 because the particular exercise of will is the necessary 
 effect of the motives then operating upon the mind. 
 
 2. They believe that free agency consists, not in the 
 power to originate and govern volitions, but in the power 
 one has to do according to his volitions. 
 
 AVe insist that this view of the subject involves fatalism, 
 and is entirely inconsistent with the free agency of man. 
 And this must appear with the slightest examination. 
 
 The doctrine is, that, when a man makes a choice, or puts 
 forth an exercise of will, he cannot, under the circum- 
 stances, make any other choice ; the motives presented to 
 his mind are such as to necessitate this particular choice, 
 and to render any other impossible. ISow, is it not manifest, 
 that this renders man the victim of inexorable necessity. 
 What he chooses he is coerced to choose, without the 
 possibility of an opposite choice, by irresistible power. 
 What matters it, thoiigh you say he acts from choice, or 
 volunlarily, and is, therefore, free? Is it not certain that 
 choice itself is forced upon him, and, hence, that he is not 
 free? 
 
 I cannot do better here, than to quote from the distin- 
 guished Dr. Beecher : " Choice, in its very nature, implies 
 the possibility of a different, or contrary election, to that 
 which is made. There is always an alternative to that 
 which the mind decides on, with the consciousness of 
 choosing either. In the simplest form of alternative, it is 
 to choose or not to choose, in a given way; but, in most 
 cases, the alternatives he between two or many objects of 
 choice presented to the mind ; and, if you deny to mind 
 this alternative power — if you insist, that, by a constitution 
 
CHAP. VIII.J THE WILL. 223 
 
 anterior to choice, of the nature of natural cause to its 
 effect, the choice which takes place can come, and cannot 
 but come, into being, and that none other than this can, by 
 any possibility, exist, you have as perfect a fatality of choke 
 as ever Pagan, or Atheist, or Antinomian, conceived. The 
 question of free will is not whether man chooses — this is 
 notorious — none deny it; but whether his choice is free, as 
 opposed to a fatal necessity — as opposed to the laws of 
 instinct and natural causation — whether it is the act of a 
 mind so qualified for choice, as to decide between alterna- 
 tives, uncaused by the energy of a natural cause to its 
 effect — whether it is the act of an agent, who might have 
 abstained from the choice he made, and made one which he 
 did not. To speak of a choice as being free, which is pro- 
 duced by the laws of natural necessity, and which cannot 
 but be when and what it is — more, that the effects of 
 natural causes can govern the time, and manner, and quali- 
 ties of their being — is a perversion of language. 
 
 " To illustrate the fatality of an agency, in which choice 
 is the unavoidable effect of a natural, constitutional, and 
 coercive causation, let us suppose an extended manufcictory, 
 all whose wheels, like those in Ezekiel's vision, were inspired 
 with intelligence and instinct with life — some crying holy ! 
 holy! as they rolled, and others aloud blaspheming God — 
 all voluntary in their praises and blasphemies; but tlie 
 volitions, like the motions of the wheels themselves, pro- 
 'duced by the great water-wheel and the various bands, 
 which kept the motion, and the adoration, and the blasphemy 
 agoing: how much accountability would attach to these 
 praises and blasphemies produced by the laws of water- 
 power? and what would it avail to say, as a reason for 
 justifying God in punishing these blasphemies, 0, but they 
 are free, they are voluntary, they choose to blaspheme ? 
 Truly, indeed, they blaspheme voluntarily ; but their choice 
 to do so is necessary in the same sense that the motion of 
 
224 THE WILL. [cIIaP. VIII. 
 
 the great wheel, which the water, by the power of gravity, 
 turns, is necessary, and just as destitute of accountabihty. 
 
 " Choice, without the possibihty of other or contrary 
 choice, is the immemorial doctrine of fatalism; the theory 
 of choice, that it is what it is by a natural, constitutional 
 necessity, and that a man cannot help choosing what he 
 does choose, and can b}'- no possibility choose otherwise, is 
 the doctrine of fatalism in all its forms." 
 
 So writes one of the most venerable and learned living 
 Presbyterian ministers, who has the boldness to think and 
 speak his own sentiments. He sustains this view with an 
 amount of learning worthy of himself and the subject. 
 
 The same point has been thus stated by Jouffroy, a dis- 
 tinguished French writer: **The principal propositions 
 the supporters of this system, are as follows: in the first 
 place, they assert as a fact, that every volition has a motive ; 
 in the second place, they say, that if the motive which acts 
 upon the vnW is a simple and single one, the motive will 
 necessarily determine it ; but if there are several motives 
 operating at the same time, the strongest will determine it. 
 Such, gentlemen, is the argument of the friends of this 
 system." (P. 96.) 
 
 I have riot thought it necessary, in this connection, to 
 refer to the use of a variety of terms commonly incorpo- 
 rated in the controversy about the will. The only point we 
 have deemed important to particularize, we find in the 
 proposition, that " motives are causes of which volitions are 
 effects." Upon this simple proposition, the whole contro- 
 versy turns. If it is true, the Calvinian view of the will is 
 true. If it is false, the Calvinian view of the will is false. 
 ]t forms the direct issue. 
 
 It is presumed upon this point there will be no quibbling — 
 no equivocation. We have already shown that the view 
 thus stated, results consequentially from the doctrine of 
 decrees, by showing that, if God decreed whatsoever comes 
 
CHAP. VIII.] THE WILL. 225 
 
 i,o pass, he must have decreed what each distinct volition 
 should be; and his decree being the necessity or necessi- 
 tating cause of the thing decreed, it was, therefore, the 
 cause of volitions. This we have shown before conse- 
 quentially ; and now, from a more direct examination of the 
 doctrine of will, Ave learn that what was then a logical 
 deduction, is, in fact, a matter of faith; the volition is 
 determined by the force of motives — motives are arranged 
 by the providence of God — and so the decree of God, with 
 respect to volitions, is executed, or brought about by his 
 providence. 
 
 This view is given as the most moderate and least objec- 
 tionable. Many Calvinists have, indeed, asserted that voli 
 tions are produced by the direct agency of God, and it might 
 be shown that such is a legitimate consequence of other 
 points of the system; but we select this as the explanation of 
 the more moderate school, and the now prevailing sentiment 
 of Calvinistic Churches. 
 
 Calvinists become angry with us when we accuse them 
 of denying the free agency of man. Now, that there may 
 be no mistake here, we call attention to this point. Calvin- 
 ists do believe in free agency, according to their definition : 
 that is, " the power or opportunity any one has to do as he 
 pleases." They do beheve that a man can do as he pleases 
 when he is not prevented ; but they do not believe that a mar 
 has any control over his choices— they do not believe that 
 he is able to choose differently from what he does — they do 
 not think that such a power is necessary to constitute free 
 agency. Now, we shall show that all the consequences of 
 sheer fatalism are included in their doctrine and definition of 
 freedom ; that, though they believe in what they are 
 pleased to call free agency, yet they do not, in fact, include 
 the idea of actual liberty therein, but leave it embarrassed 
 with inexorable necessity. 
 
 That I have stated their views in the least objectionable 
 
226 THE WILL. [chap. VIIJ. 
 
 form, in the most moderate tone, I think must be admitted 
 by all candid judges: it only remains, therefore, that I 
 proceed to point out consequences, and then it will be for 
 my readers to decide, whether the consequences thus de- 
 duced do actually flow or not. 
 
 1. And, first, I object to this doctrine of the will, that it 
 is directly opposed to the consciousness of mankind. Here, 
 again, I will employ the language of the venerable Dr. 
 Beecher: * Of nothing are men more thoroughly informed, 
 or more competent to judge unerringly, than in respect to 
 their voluntary action, as coerced or free. Testimony may 
 mislead, and the sense, by disease, may deceive, but con- 
 sciousness is the end of all controversy ; its evidence cannot 
 be increased, and, if it be distrusted, there is no alternative 
 but imiversal skepticism. Our consciousness of the mode 
 of mental action in choice, as uncoerced and free, equals 
 our consciousness of existence itself; and the man who 
 doubts either, gives indications of needing medical treat- 
 ment, instead of argument. When a man does wrong, and 
 then reflects upon the act, he feels that he was free, and is 
 responsible ; and so when he looks forward to a future action. 
 
 "And because this consciousness is in men, you never 
 can reason them out of a sense of their accoimtability. 
 Many have tried it, but none have eflectually, or for any 
 length of time, succeeded ; and the reason is plain, there is 
 nothing which the mind is more conscious of, than the fact 
 of its own voluntary action with the power of acting right 
 or wrong : the mind sees, and knows, and regrets, when it 
 has done wrong. Take away this consciousness, and there 
 is no remorse. You cannot produce remorse, as long as a 
 man feels that his act was not his own — that it was not 
 voluntary, but the efl'ect of compulsion : he may dread the 
 consequences, but you never can make him feel remorse for 
 the act on its own account. This is the reason why men 
 who have reasoned away the existence of God, and argued 
 
CHAP. VIII."] THE WILL. 227 
 
 to prove that the soul is nothing but matter, know, as soon 
 as the}' reflect, that all their reasoning is false. There is a 
 lamp within they cannot extinguish; and, after all their 
 metaphysics, they are conscious that they act freely, and 
 that there is a God to whom they are accountable; and 
 hence it is, that when they cross the ocean, and a storm 
 comes on, and they expect to go to the bottom, they begin 
 straightway to pray to God and confess their sins. 
 
 "The natural impossibihty of choosing otherwise than 
 we do choose, is contrary, then, not only to the common 
 sense and intuitive perceptions of men, but contrary to their 
 internal consciousness. There is a deep and universal 
 consciousness in all men, as to the freedom of choice ; and 
 in denying this, you reverse God's constitution of man — 
 you assume that God gave a deceptive constitution to mind, 
 or a deceptive consciousness." 
 
 Upon this point, Mahan, in his excellent little work on 
 the will — a complete refutation of Edwards — says, "We 
 may pile demonstration upon demonstration in favor of the 
 doctrine of necessity, still, as the mind falls back upon the 
 spontaneous affirmations of its own intelligence, it finds, in 
 the depths of its inner being, a higher demonstration of the 
 fact, that that doctrine is, and must be, false — that man is 
 not the agent which that doctrine affirms him to be." 
 
 It is still more elegantly expressed by JoufFroy : he says, 
 ** If there is one familiar feeling of which we are distinctly 
 and vividly conscious, it surely is that which we experience 
 when we make a choice. Whatever the force of the motive 
 which we obey, we yet perceive a wide distinction between 
 the influence of this motive, and any thing which can be 
 called constraint. Indeed, we feel distinctly, that in yield- 
 ing to this motive, that is to say, in resolving in conformity 
 with it, we are entirely able not to form this resolve. If, 
 for instance, when standing at a window, I determine not to 
 throw myself into the street, I feel that it depends wholly 
 
228 T5IE WILL. [chap. VIH. 
 
 upon myself to form an opposite determination; only, I 
 say, I should then be a fool ; and being rational, I remain 
 where I am. But that I am free to be a fool, and to throw 
 myself down, is to me most evident. If any of my audi- 
 ence are capable of confounding in their minds the fact, 
 that a bilHard ball on a table is put in motion by a stroke, 
 with the fact, that a volition is produced in my mind when I 
 seek to know what is my reasonable course of conduct, and 
 think I discover it — if there are any here, who can see a sim- 
 ilarity between the action of one ball on another, and the in- 
 fluence of a motive on my volition, then have I nothing more 
 to say. But no one can imagine a similarity between the 
 two ; at least, no one who has not taken sides on the ques- 
 tion, and given up his mind to some system, of which it 
 consequence that some necessity must control our volition 
 and acts, can confound two facts in their nature so dissimilar, 
 as the action of one ball upon another, and the influence 
 of a motive on the determinations of my will. The whole 
 question — and I beg you again to remark it — depends upon 
 the fact, whether you know that the influence which the 
 motive exercises over the will is a constraining force or not. 
 For myself, I say, that my inward feeling answers in the 
 negative, and that, under the influence of all motives, I 
 retain, in every case, a distinct consciousness of a power of 
 acting in opposition to what they advise and direct. 
 
 ** When I attempt thus to bring argument for the sake 
 of proving that we are free, and that motives do not exer- 
 cise a controlling force over us, I feel as uncomfortable as 
 if I were answering one who should deny our power of 
 movmg or walking. To employ argument in refuting such 
 an opinion, seems like some game of logic; for I have to 
 oppose to this opinion a plain, decisive fact — a fact, the 
 consciousness of which I can never lose, and which is m 
 accordance with common forms of speech in all languages, 
 with the universal faith, and with the established practices 
 
CHAP, VIII.j THE WILL. 229 
 
 of mankind : and I smile to think, that when I can utterly 
 destroy the system of necessity, by merely bringing it 
 in conflict with this fact, I should be seeking superfluous 
 trains of reasoning to oppose it with. This fact, which we 
 cannot escape from, is one which consciousness bears wit- 
 ness to, when placed under the influence of the strongest 
 possible motive, say, self-preservation. I feel, distinctly, 
 that it depends upon myself, and only upon myself, whether 
 I shall yield to or I'esist this motive, and do or refrain from 
 what it recommends. I can conceive, indeed, that a man 
 may deny this evident fact ; for to what length of delusion 
 will not the spirit of theory and system carry us ? But I 
 will ask him, am I not justified in not admitting this pecu- 
 liar opinion of a small body of men, when I see that tven 
 they act and speak as if they agreed in my opinion — when 
 I see the most logical among them form a scheme of ethics, 
 and give rules for conduct — when I find in every tongue 
 the words, right and wrong, punishment and reward, merit 
 and demerit — when the whole human race agree in being 
 indignant against him who does wrong, and in admiring him 
 who does right — when, indeed, there is not an event in 
 human life which does not imply, necessarily, and in a 
 thousand diff'erent ways, this very freedom of will of which 
 I feel so sensibly and deeply conscious ? I have certainly 
 8orae right to feel strengthened in my opinion by so many 
 testimonies to its truth, and by its perfect accordance 
 with what I see about me. And were there no stronger 
 objections against the doctrine which denies human free- 
 dom, than this universal contradiction which it off"ers to all 
 human belief, conduct, and language, to. all judgments and 
 feelings, it would, even then, be more completely answered 
 than it deserves." 
 
 Thus we see that the Calvinian view of the will is op- 
 posed to the consciousness of mankind. When it is stated, 
 every man feels within himself the consciousness that it is 
 
230 THE WILL. [chap. VIIl. 
 
 false — that it is not in accordance with his constitution. It 
 may be mystified and drowned with bewildering terms, and 
 encumbered with intricate speculations, and burdened with 
 senseless distinctions, but deep beneath it all, the plain 
 man and the scholar, all men alike, feel a consciousness 
 that the will is essentially free — that vohtions are not 
 necessitated. This consciousness of mankind is not only 
 detected by each man in his own bosom, but it is out- 
 wardly manifested and expressed, involuntarily and, in a 
 great variety of ways, constantly by others ; as, for mstance, 
 in the universal conviction of mankind, that their former 
 course of conduct might have been different from what is. 
 I will venture to affirm, that there is not a person on earth 
 who has not this conviction resting upon his mind, in 
 respect to his own past life. It is important to analyze 
 this conviction, in order to mark distinctly its bearing 
 upon our present inquiries. This conviction is not the 
 belief, that, if our circumstances had been different, we 
 might have acted differently from what we did; but a 
 firm persuasion, that, under precisely the same circum- 
 stances, our volition and act might have been the precise 
 contrary of what they were. This conviction, that, with- 
 out any change of circumstances, our past course of life 
 might have been different from what it was, rests upon 
 every mind on earth, in which the remembrance of the past 
 dwells. Now this universal conviction is totally false — and 
 when, then, can consciousness be trusted ? — if the doctrine 
 of necessity is true. The doctrine of the liberty of the will 
 must be true, or the universal intelligence is a perpetual 
 falsehood. 
 
 In reference to all deliberate determinations of the will 
 in time past, the remembrance of them is attended with 
 a consciousness the most positive, that, in the same 
 identical circumstances, determinations precisely opposite 
 •night have been originated. Let any one recall any such 
 
CHAP, VIII.J THE WILt,. 231 
 
 determination, and the consciousness of a power to have 
 determined differently, will be just as distinctly recalled as 
 the act itself. He cannot be more sm-e that he has willed 
 at all, than he will be that he might have willed dif- 
 ferently. But all these affirmations of consciousness are 
 false, if the doctrine of liberty is not true. 
 
 The existence of such a consciousness is further evinced 
 in the condemnation or approbation we exercise with re- 
 spect to other men, in view of their determinations and 
 acts. These are always accompanied with the conviction, 
 arising from the consciousness of human freedom, that 
 they might, under the circumstances, have acted and de- 
 termined differently. And if this conviction could be dis- 
 placed, we would no more condemn or approve them than 
 we do an avalanche or earthquake, rain or sunshine. 
 
 But, further : not only with respect to the past, but with 
 respect to the present, also, we are now distinctly con- 
 scious, that, with regard to the particular object submitteil 
 to our minds, under the identical circumstances existing, 
 any one of a number of different determinations is equall}^ 
 or as certainly possible. Every man is as conscious of this 
 as he is of his existence. 
 
 2. I object to this doctrine of the will, further, that it 
 involves sheer fatalism — universal necessity. This point is 
 thus expressed by Mahan: "If this doctrine is true, it is 
 demonstrably evident, that in no instance, real or sup- 
 posable, have men any power whatever, to will or to act 
 differently from what they do. The connection between 
 the determinations of the will and their consequents, ex- 
 ternal and internal, is absolutely necessary. Constituted 
 as T now am, if I will, for example, a particular motion of 
 my hand or arm, no other movement, in the circumstances, 
 was possible, and this movement could not but take place. 
 The same holds true of all consequents, external or in- 
 terna] of all acts of the will. Let us now suppose that 
 
232 THE WILL. [chap. VIII. 
 
 tliese acts of the will are themselves the necessary conse- 
 quenis of the circumstances in which they originate. In 
 wha* conceivable sense, then, have men, in the circum- 
 stances in which Providence places them, power either to 
 Avill or to act differently from what they do ? Here, then, 
 is absolute, universal necessity. The motive must produce 
 the volition ; the volition must produce the act ; and all the 
 circumstances taken together constitute the motive." 
 
 Well, now, the creature can have no control of the 
 motives; that is, he cannot prearrange motives to produce 
 in him certain volitions ; because, to determine to make 
 Ruch a prearrangement is a volition, and this volition 
 cannot take place without a motive to produce it; so he 
 is utterly, and without mitigation, doomed to the despotism 
 of such motives as exist, bringing in their train, as cause 
 produces effects, other motives, and these producing their 
 legitimate exercises of will. Fate runs through all. Every 
 determination and act is immediately connected with a cause 
 foregoing, which produces it as a necessary effect. 
 
 3. It follows from this system, not only that all things 
 are necessary, but, also, that each individual thing is the 
 best possible in its place and relations. God is the first 
 mover — the first link in this endless chain of causation. 
 From him, ultimately, all motion proceeds. All volitions 
 and acts, therefore, have for their ultimate cause infinite 
 Wisdom. All that has been, all that is, all that will be, 
 are connected by an absolute necessity with the same great 
 Source. There may be a million intermediate, transmitting 
 links, but, through all, they trace back to the First Cause. 
 It would be the height of absurdity to suppose it possible 
 for any thing to be different from what it is, or to suppose 
 that any change could make any thing better than what it 
 is; for all that is, is by absolute necessity; and all that is, 
 is just what and when infinite Wisdom has made it and dis- 
 posed of it. No difference what it is, therefore — whether 
 
CHAr. VIII. THE WILL. 233 
 
 rnui-der, incest, idolatry, or wliat not — it is the best thing 
 in that place, or the great First Cause is at fault. If thai 
 which we call evil in reality be evil, then it must be both 
 necessary evil, and evil having its origin in infinite Wisdom. 
 It is vain to say that man is the agent, in the strict accepta- 
 tion of the word ; he is — he can be no more than one of 
 the links through which causation is traced back to God. 
 Is not this fearful ? 
 
 4. If this doctrine be true, man cannot be responsible 
 or accountable for either his volitions or acts — cannot be 
 subject of praise or blame. God himself is the only re- 
 sponsible being in the universe, as all causation — agency 
 proper — terminates in him. This is so manifest, it is ques- 
 tionable whether any man, in the possession of his rea- 
 son, can sincerely doubt it. The idea of obligation, of 
 merit and demerit, and of the consequent propriety of 
 rewards and punishments, are chimeras. To conceive of a 
 being deserving praise or blame for volitions or actions, 
 which occurred under circumstances in which none other 
 were possible, and in which these could not possibly but 
 be, is absolutely impossible. The human mind has not 
 power to entertain such a conception. Let any one under- 
 take it, and he will find it as impossible as to conceive of 
 the annihilation of space, or of an event occurring without 
 a cause. Human intelligence, as the consciousness of every 
 one of my readers will attest, is incapable of aflirming such 
 a contradiction. 
 
 The ground of blameworthiness is not only the percep- 
 tion of the difference between right and wrong, and the 
 conviction that the right ought to be done, but the posses- 
 sion of a power to do the right, and refrain from the 
 v/rong. But if every volition is fixed by absolute necessity, 
 then neither can the individual be supposed to have power 
 t.o do otherwise than he actually does, nor, all things con- 
 sidered, can it be, supposed there could have been, at that 
 20 
 
234 THE WILL. [chap. VIIl. 
 
 present moment any other volition. The voHtion is fixed, 
 and fixed by infinite Wisdom. We cannot escape from this 
 difficulty, by perpetually ringing the changes of, "He can 
 if he will," "he could if he would;" the thing is, he cannot, 
 will — he has no power competent to do the very thing 
 which is required, and, hence, cannot be responsible. 
 
 Shall it be said, " that, in looking for the ground of ac- 
 countability, men never go beyond the fact of voluntariness ; 
 they look not for the cause of volitions themselves; if the 
 deed, whether good or evil, be voluntary, that satisfies? 
 This is, no doubt, true; we are satisfied that men are 
 accountable for acts which are voluntary; but this is be- 
 cause all men include, unfailingly, both in their theory and 
 consciousness, the supposition of powers of agency unhin- 
 dered and uncoerced by any fatal necessity. But convince 
 them that choice is an eflfect, over which mind has no more 
 control than over drops of rain, and the common sense of 
 the world would revolt against the accountability of choice, 
 merely because it was choice." The view of the will here 
 offered, is, beyond all question, as diametrically opposed 
 to accountability as it is to freedom ; indeed, by the common 
 consent of mankind — a consent founded in consciousness 
 itself — these must stand or fall together, and cannot exist 
 separately. 
 
 5. But if the foregoing be true, then men cannot be 
 required to do difi'erently from what they do ; for to require 
 this, is to require an absolute impossibility. Any law or 
 lawgiver making such requirement, is the perfection of 
 tyranny. There can be no cruelty, no oppression, more 
 unreasonable, more unjust, thaii this. To imagine it, is blas- 
 phemously to cast inconceivable odium on the character of 
 God. Dr. Beecher has well said upon this point, " God re- 
 quires of his subjects only conformity to himself — to his own 
 moral excellences — but he admits of no obligation on him- 
 self to work impossibilities ; and does he impose obligations 
 
OHAP. VIII.] THE WILL. 236 
 
 on his subjects which he himself refuses to assume ? He 
 does not regard it as an excellence in himself to work 
 impossibilities ; does he command it as a virtue in his sub- 
 jects? He has no desire to work impossibilities himself, 
 why should he desire it in his creatures? He has never 
 tried, and never will try, to work an impossibility ; and why 
 should he command his creatures to do what he neither 
 desires nor tries to accomplish? He cannot work impossi- 
 bilities ; and how can it be thought that he will require of 
 his creatures that which he himself cannot do?'^ Such is 
 one of the fearful consequences to which this scheme inev- 
 itably leads. Either God cannot require men to do differ- 
 ently from what they do, and, if this be so, then he does 
 not require them to obey his laws; for these laws en- 
 join a different conduct : or, if God does require men to do 
 differently, then he requires them to do what is absolutely 
 impossible — to do what Omnipotence cannot do — nay, to 
 resist and overcome Omnipotence; for it is the causation 
 emanating from Omnipotence which he is required to resist. 
 Can a God of justice make such a requisition as this? 
 
 But if such a requirement cannot be made — if the idea 
 is startling blasphemy — and who can think it is less — what 
 must be our amazement to learn, not only that such require- 
 ments are made, but additionally for non-compliance, the 
 wretch, who may be found guilty, is to be punished in hell 
 throughout an endless eternity! Think of such a doom, 
 and answer yourself the question, can God be a monster 
 capable of such appalling ferocity? The devil that would 
 torment his victim in flames through millions of years, for 
 not annihilating the universe, with only power sufficient to 
 crush a moth, would be the impersonation of mercy and 
 loveliness compared with such a being as this. 
 
 If this doctrine is true, at the final judgment the con- 
 science and intelligence of the universe must be on the side 
 of the condemned. Suppose that when the conduct of the 
 
236 THE WILL. [CIIAP. VIII. 
 
 wicked shall be revealed at that day, another fact shall 
 stand out with equal conspicuousness, namely, that Gpd 
 himself had placed, these beings where but one course of 
 conduct was open to them, and that course they could not 
 but pursue — namely, the course which they did pursue — 
 and that, having pursued this course, the only one possible, 
 they are now to be punished with everlasting destruction 
 from the presence of God and the glory of his power, must 
 not the intelligence of the universe pronounce such a sen- 
 tence unjust ? Yet all this must be true, or the necessity 
 false. Who can believe that the pillars of God's eternal 
 government rest upon such a doctrine ? A resort to blank 
 Atheism, to hopeless death, would be a refuge from an 
 existence under the inconceivable misrule and tormenting 
 despotism of such a God. 
 
 6. I object, further, if this doctrine be true, probation is 
 an infinite absurdity. We might, with the same propriety, 
 represent the specimens in the laboratory of the chemist as 
 on probation, as men, if their actions are the necessary 
 result of the circumstances in which Omnipotence has 
 placed them. What must intelligent beings think of pro- 
 bation for a state of eternal retribution, based on such 
 principles ? Is it not a mockery ? 
 
 v. I object, if this doctrine be true, all the exhortations 
 and persuasions which call upon the man to bestir himself — 
 to think, to plan, to act — are inconsistent and absurd. In 
 all such persuasions, the man is urged to will or put forth 
 volitions, as if he were the author or determiner of volitions. 
 It may be replied, that the man does will, that the volitions 
 are his volitions. But, allowing them to be his in a certain 
 sense, the point of difficulty is here : they are made his, by 
 being wrought in him as a passive subject; they are not 
 his in the sense of his being their prime cause. You exhort 
 and persuade him to arouse himself to activity; but what 
 is his real condition, according to this system? The 
 
CHAr. VIII. J THE WILL. 237 
 
 exliortations and persuasions do themselves contain the mo- 
 live power ; and, instead of arousing himself to action — the 
 thing exhorted — he is absolutely and necessarily passive un- 
 der the motive you present. If he does not act, he is not 
 at fault, but the motive ; the defect is in the motive, not in 
 the man. He cannot act without a sufficient motive ; and 
 that he does not act, is proof that the motive is not suffi- 
 cient. To blame him, therefore, is to blame him for not 
 performing an impossibility. Whether he be moved or not 
 as truly and as absolutely depends upon the motives you 
 present, as the removing of any material mass depends 
 upon the power or labor applied. When I bring motives 
 before the minds of my fellow-beings in the proper relation, 
 the volition is necessarily produced ; but let me not forget, 
 that, in bringing these motives, I put forth volitions, and 
 that, of course — according to the system — I am myself 
 moved under the necessity of some antecedent motive. My 
 persuasions and exhortations are necessary sequents, as well 
 as necessary antecedents. The water must run through 
 the water course ; the wheel must turn under the force of 
 the current. I must exhort and persuade when motives 
 determine me; the mind I address must yield, when the 
 motives are properly selected and applied to it ! Was there 
 ever a more admirable system of fatalism than this ? All 
 volitions and actions, linked together in one endless chain 
 of causation, reaching back to the first great Mover, as the 
 sole and only cause ! The connection between the volition 
 and the strongest motive, is as absolute and necessary as 
 the connection between any cause and its efi'ect. The 
 movements of mind, as a consequence of this system, are 
 as absolutely fixed and rigidly necessary, as the movements 
 of the material creation under the forces which cause its 
 changes. How utterly absurd, therefore, to address exhor- 
 tations, advices, and reproofs to men, with respect to their 
 
238 THE WILL. [CIIAP. VIll. 
 
 purposes and actions ! Just with tne same propriety might 
 we urge and entreat the water-wheel to reverse its motion, 
 and roll round against the current — the norve to convey no 
 sensation, under the most painful operation —.the eye to look 
 upon the full, blazing sun, without inconvenience — the earth 
 itself to stand still, when Omnipotence urges it forward 
 the advice would be as proper in one case as the other. If 
 it is manifestly absurd in the latter case, it is no more so 
 than in the former. A mind, every one of whose deter- 
 minations is absolutely fixed by the force of motives, can 
 no more of itself make different determinations, than matter 
 can, of itself, act contrary to the force which impels it. 
 Therefore, if causation is in the motive, so is responsibility ; 
 and men would act wisely no more to exhort, advise, or 
 reprove each other, but address themselves to the consid- 
 eration alone of external causes. But is this so? Is man 
 the thing here represented? the mere sport of outward 
 influence, without power, without agency? He is, or Cal- 
 vinism is radically false. 
 
 8. I object, further, to this doctrine, in the language of 
 Tappan, "It is another consequence, that there can be 
 nothing evil in itself. If infinite wisdom and goodness are 
 the highest form of moral perfection, as, indeed, their very 
 names imply, then all the necessary consequences of these 
 must partake of their nature. Infinite wisdom and good- 
 ness, as principles, can only envelop parts of themselves. 
 It would be the destruction of logic to deny this. It 
 would annihilate every conclusion that has ever been 
 drawn. If it be said, that infinite Wisdom has promulged 
 a law which defines clearly what is essentially right, and 
 that it is a fcict that volitions do transgress this law, still 
 this cannot affect what is said above. The promulgation of 
 the law was but a necessary development of infinite Wisdom; 
 and the volition which transgresses it, is a development of 
 
CHAP. VIII.] THE WILL. 239 
 
 the same nature. If this seems contradictory, I cannot 
 help it. It is drawn from the system, and the system alone 
 is responsible for its conclusions." 
 
 9. I object to the doctrine, that it is as fatal to freedom 
 in the Divine as well as the human mind. I cannot better 
 express this point than by substituting the language of 
 Fisk : " It is argued, that to maintain the doctrine of spon- 
 taneous volition, independent of the control of motives, 
 involves the absurdity, that *our volitions are excited 
 without any intelligent reason whatever, and as the effect, 
 consequently, of nothing better than a mere brute or 
 senseless mechanism.' Now, if this has any bearing on 
 the question, it relates not to human mind and human voli- 
 tions merely, hut to mind in general, and must apply to 
 the Divine mind. The same may be said, in fact, of most 
 of the arguments that are brought in favor of this doc- 
 trine. Calvinists are convinced of this; and, hence, this, 
 also, is a part of their creed. It was defended by Ed- 
 wards, and is thus avowed by Upham in his system of 
 Mental Philosophy. Speaking of the control of motives, 
 he says : ' Our condition, in this respect, seems to be essen- 
 tially the same with that of the supreme Being himself; 
 he is inevitably governed in all his doings, by what, in the 
 great range of events, is wisest and best.' Thus, the 
 divine Being is, according to this theory, and by the express 
 showing of the leading advocates of the theory, * inevitably ' 
 made a subordinate to a superior. It is believed there is no 
 avoiding this conclusion ; and, what then ? Why, then, the 
 doctrine makes Clod a necessary agent, and leads to Athe- 
 ism! It is nearl}^, if not exactly, the same as the old 
 heathen doctrine of fate. The ancient heathen supposed 
 that Jupiter himself, the omnipotent father of the gods and 
 men, must yield to fate. Modern Christians teach that 
 ';here is a certain fitness of things, certain constitutional 
 relations, existing independent of the Divine will, which 
 
240 THE WILL. [chap. VIII. 
 
 God himself cannot supersede, but to which he must yield. 
 How does this sink at once both the natural and moral 
 perfections of God! The exercises of his wisdom and 
 goodness, are nothing more than the result of certain fixed 
 and irresistible influences. Fixed, not by God himself, for 
 that' would be to give up the doctrine ; for, in that case, in 
 the order of cause and effect, the Divine mind must have 
 acted without control of motives, if this law of motive 
 influence did not exist until the Divine volition willed it into 
 being; and if he could once act independent of this con- 
 trol, he might so act for ever, and the argument, built on 
 the absurdity of volition without an intelligent reason, 
 would be contradicted. But if that argument has any 
 weight, it fixes, in the order of cause and effect, a para- 
 mount influence eternally antecedent to the exercise of the 
 Divine mind, and controlling that mind with irresistible 
 sAvay. This is fate ! this is Atheism ! Once set up an influ- 
 ence that controls the Divine mind, call that influence what 
 you please — fitness of things, fate, energy of nature, or 
 necessary relation — and that moment you make God a 
 subordinate ; you hurl him from his throne of sovereignty, 
 and make him the instrument of a superior. Of what use 
 is such a Deity? Might we not as well have none? nay, 
 better, as it seems to me, if, under the control of his own 
 motive influence, he is led to create beings susceptible of 
 suffering, and fix the relations of those beings to the motives 
 around them such, that, by a law of their nature, they 
 are 'inevitably' led to sin and endless woe? Is it to be 
 wondered at, that many Calvinists have become infidels? 
 'J'his doctrine of motives is the very essence of the system 
 of Spinoza, whose deity was the energy of nature. The 
 supreme, controlling power of Dr. Edwards and his fol- 
 lowers, is the energy of motives, which exist in the nature of 
 things, anterior to the will of God. Can any one point out 
 m essential difference between the two systems?" 
 
CHAP. VIII.] THE WILL. 241 
 
 1 0. Fisk continues : "Another argument against the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine of motives, is that it leads to materialism. 
 The doctrine, it will be recollected, is this : when the mind 
 is brought into connection with objects of choice, it is 
 inevitably led, by a law of its nature, to the selection of 
 one rather than of the other, unless there is a perfect 
 equality between them ; in which case I suppose, of course, 
 the mind must remain in equilibrium; for it moves only 
 by the influence of motives, and to the sameidegree, and 
 in the same direction, with motive influences; of course, 
 when it is equally attracted in opposite directions, it must 
 be at rest ! It is on this ground that Leibnitz maintained 
 that God could not make two particles of matter in all 
 respects alike; because, in that case, being 'inevitably* 
 governed by motives in his decisions, he could not deter- 
 mine where to place them, both having the same influence 
 on his mind for a location in the same place ! The same 
 writer represents this motive influence, also, as frequently 
 imperceptible, but not the less eflectual, and not the less 
 voluntary; and, to illustrate it, makes the following com- 
 parison: * It is as if a needle, touched with a loadstone, 
 were sensible of, and pleased with, its turning to the north ; 
 for it would believe that it turned itself independent of any 
 other cause, not perceiving the insensible motives of the 
 magnetic power.' This statement of Leibnitz, who had 
 paid great attention to this philosophical theory, is impor 
 tant in several respects. It is, in the first place, an acknowl- 
 (vdgment that consciousness is against the doctrine ; and it 
 IB, also, a concession that the mind is imposed upon in this 
 matter by the Creator. But, with respfsct tq the argument 
 that this doctrine leads tp materialism, this quotation is 
 important, because it shows that one of the most philo- 
 sophical, if not one of the most evangelical, of the defenders 
 of this doctrine, considered the law of motive influence 
 similar to the law of magnetic attraction, difiering only in 
 21 
 
242 THE WILL. I CHAP. VIII. 
 
 ]>eing accompanied by sensation and a deceptive conscious- 
 ness. And what says its great evangelical champion in 
 this country, Dr. Edwards ? He compares our volitions to 
 the vibrations of a scale-beam, the different ends of which 
 are respectively elevated or depressed, as the opposite 
 weights may chance to vary. What is this, but teaching 
 that motions of mind are governed by the same fixed laws 
 as those of matter, and that volitions are perfectly me- 
 chanical states of mind? What the advocates of this 
 doctrine charge on the opposite theory, belongs, by their 
 own showing, to their own system. They, not we, make 
 choice the result of animal instinct. If the attractive 
 power of motives over the mind is any thing different from 
 the law of gravitation, or magnetic attraction, what is that 
 difference? Should any one say, I cannot tell, I ask, 
 then, how does he know but it is that very power for which 
 Arminians contend ? Most probably it is that power. Or 
 will it be said the difference between motive influence and 
 gravity is consciousness? I reply, consciousness is no part 
 of the relation between motives and the power of choice. 
 I see not, indeed, how it affects that relation at all. Look 
 at the flowing stream; it hastens on most freely, and by 
 the law of its own nature, down the gentle declivities or 
 more precipitous slopes of its meandering channel. Sup- 
 pose, now, that Omnipotence should impart consciousness 
 to the particles of the continuous current, it would then 
 wake up to perceir.e the action, and feel the pleasure of its 
 own delightful motions. It Avould roll on still by the law 
 of its own nature, and would feel that it was free to move 
 according to its own inclination and voluntary tendency, 
 for its will would, of course, be in the direction of its mo- 
 tive, or, in other woi'ds, its gravitating influence. But could 
 it turn its course, and roll back its waters to their fountain ? 
 It could, if it was so inclined. But its present inclination 
 is toward the bottom of the vallej^ or the bosom of the 
 
Vn\P. VIII.] THE WILL. 243 
 
 ocean; and thither, by the rehition which exists between 
 its particles and the gravitating- influence of the earth, it 
 lolls on with the utmost freedom, though with the utter 
 impossibiUty of changing its own course, without the inver- 
 sion of the gravitating power. Let the hand of Omnipotence 
 invert the slope of the mountain, and, lo ! with the same free- 
 dom these very same waters roll back again to their original 
 fountains ! Thus it is with the human mind : it is conscious 
 of being free to move in the direction of its inclinations, but 
 require it to turn its course, and move in the current of its 
 volitions in an opposite direction, and it would be utterly 
 impossible, until Omnipotence himself should change the 
 motive influence. ' God is the determiner of perceptions, 
 and perceptions are the determiners of choice,' 
 
 " We see, therefore, that this doctrine of motive influence 
 leads to materialism; for it makes the analogy between 
 mental and material action so complete, that it destroys alh 
 idea of intellectual power. Philosophically speaking, there 
 is no power in the laws of nature. What we express by 
 the power of attraction, repulsion, or decomposition, is 
 nothing more than the uniformity of the Divine agency." 
 The power of motives to excite volitions, is nothing else but 
 the Divine energy operating through that mode to the 
 accomplishment of a given end. God is the all-directing 
 agent; mind, the passive recipient. From the theory, 
 inertia becomes the law of mind as well as of matter; 
 materialism is the unavoidable consequence. 
 
 Free agency, responsibility, and kindred vital doctrines, 
 vanish before this theory, as mists before the sun. God be 
 comes the sole and universal doer: all physical, intellectual, 
 and moral results, emanate -from and return to him. Human 
 volitions are as really the effiects of Divine agency, as the 
 rising of the stars, the flight of the lightning, the tumult 
 of the waters, or the light, which spreads itself like a 
 
244 THE WILL. [chap. VIII. 
 
 garment over creation. Every volition of created mind is 
 God's act, as really as any other effect in nature. We 
 have seen how every volition is connected with its motive — 
 how the motive lies in a preconstitution — how the series oi 
 antecedents and sequents necessarily runs back, and con- 
 nects itself with the infinite wisdom. God's wisdom is his 
 own act; the effect immediately produced by that vCiitioE 
 is his own deed. Let that effect be the creation of man: 
 the man, in all his powers and susceptibilities, is God's 
 work; the objects around him are God's work; the corre- 
 lation of the objects with the sensibility of man is God's 
 work; the volition, which necessarily takes place as the 
 result of this correlation, is God's work. The volition of 
 the man is as strictly attributable to God, as, according to 
 our common apprehensions, the blow which I give with the 
 axe is attributable to me. What is true of the first man, is 
 equally true of man removed to a thousand generations, 
 for the intermediate links are all ordained of G od, and form 
 but so many parts of the same necessity. God is really 
 the sole doer — the only efficient cause : all beings and 
 things, all motions and volitions, are absolutely resolved 
 into Divine volitions. God is the author of all beings, 
 things, motions, and Volitions, and as much the author of 
 any one of these as any other, and the author of all in the 
 same way, and in the same sense. All things exist in 
 necessity ; that necessity centres either in God, or in some- 
 thing which is above God ; God himself is all and only, or 
 he, like all things else, is but a link in the stupendous 
 chain, which attaches to the blind fate Avhich governs and 
 directs him, together with the rest. 
 
 11. I object, further, to this doctrine, that it is not only 
 contradictory to the reason and consciousness of mankind, 
 but, also, to the word and revelation of God. It finds no 
 favor in the Bible: every precept, exhortation, invitaiion. 
 
rnAP. VIII. I THE WILL. 245 
 
 entreaty, remonstrance of that book, is opposed to it : it is 
 anti-Bible. This might be shown with the utmost ease, 
 but it is so palpable as to need no such manifestation. 
 
 12. I object: it is contrary to the opinion of the early 
 Christians. I refer my readers, for proof of this and the 
 former point, given at length, to Beechor's Views in The- 
 ology, Tomlins' Refutation of Calvinism, Whitby on the 
 Five Points, (fee. 
 
 13. I object, that the whole theory of motive influence 
 is without support, and depends upon vicious reasoning, or 
 reasoning in a circle, for its proof. It asks to be believed 
 upon unsound argumentation, and against the most over- 
 whelming and conclusive evidence of its utter falsehood. 
 When, for instance, we ask what determines the will, we 
 are directly answered, it is the strongest motive ; but when 
 we ask what constitutes the strongest motive, we are 
 answered, that which determines the will. The whole 
 theory is reducible to this vicious circle — this absurd as- 
 sumption. Edwards' celebrated work revolves in it from 
 the beginning to the end. An unsupported assertion is 
 made the basis of the whole, and upon the strength of this 
 we are required to yield credence, against the testimony 
 of consciousness, of reason, of nature itself, of the Bible, 
 and of every fhing else, within and without us, entitled to 
 respect. 
 
 For a more extensive examination of this point, I must 
 refer my readers to the following works: Dr. Beecher's 
 Views in Theology, Mahan on the Will, Tappan's Review 
 of Edwards, Bledsoe on the Will, Fisk, Jouffroy, &c. I 
 take pleasure in acknowledging my obligations to these 
 authors, as aids to the preparation of the pi-esent brief 
 chapter. Had it been possible, I should gladly have made 
 still more copious extracts from them. Let the studious 
 inquirer refer to them, and he will find the subject thor- 
 oughly and sufficiently discussed. Had it been our purpose 
 
246 Tiiii WILL. [ciiAr. VIII. 
 
 to write a treatise on the will, a more particular examination 
 of th*^ theory here objected to would have been made ; such 
 was not our plan, bu* simply to state the grounds or prin- 
 ciples of the system, and name some of the many insuper- 
 able difficulties investing it. We leave the subject here : ii 
 will be for our readers to determine upon the question in 
 debate. Is the view Ave have antagonized true or false? 
 What is the answer? Let not prejudice make up the decis- 
 ion. What says reason — consciousness — the word of God ? 
 What says the language of mankind — the common, every 
 day, and everyw^here sentiments of the species? Does not 
 every thing with which we are conversant — all law, all usnge, 
 all organizations of human society, all rational methods of 
 government and influence — proceed upon the assumption that 
 man is a free, voluntary agent, having power to determine 
 his own choices, as well as actions ? Such, it seems to me, 
 must be the spontaneous response of mankind — of human- 
 ity, unbiased by prejudice, unfettered by false philosophy. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 It will be proper to say, at this point, that what is heic 
 presented as an Appendix, is the substance of Dr. aRice's 
 i-ephes to my letters, with my rejoinders thereto. It will 
 be seen by the reader, that our rejoinders are confined 
 strictly to the points at issue between us. The reasons 
 for this will be obvious. Had we permitted ourselves to 
 be decoyed into irrelevant matters, we, and our readers, 
 would have become bewildered and lost in the mazes of 
 endless logomachy. This would, doubtless, have pleased 
 our friend, as it would have served to divert attention from 
 his system ; but it did not suit us. 
 
 NUMBER I. 
 
 I am happy to be able to lay Dr. Rice's reply to my first 
 and second letters before my readers. In its general tone 
 and spirit it accords well with my expectations; and if ii 
 fails in argument, I find an apology in the circumstances of 
 the case. The Doctor will make up for this hereafter. 
 
 *' Letters on Calvinism. — We are decidedly of opinion, 
 after reading two of Mr. Foster's Letters on Calvinism, 
 that he really needs the assistance which, in his first letter, 
 he so warmly invoked. His second letter urges the old 
 objection, a thousand times made, and as often refuted, 
 that the doctrine of decrees makes God the author of sin. 
 This hackneyed objection is founded upon the idea, that 
 * God's decree is the necessity or necessitating cause of sin.' 
 Now, inasmuch as Presbyterians hold no such view, and 
 would really depose any one of their ministers who should 
 teach it, the objection is utterly without force. No Pres- 
 byterian holds, that God ever purposed or decreed to 
 dispose or influence any man or angel to sin. If Mr. 
 
 241 
 
248 , APPENDIX. 
 
 Foster had taken the trouble to read the sixth chaptei 
 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, he would have 
 found the following language concerning the fall of our 
 first parents: 'This their sin God was pleased, according 
 to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed 
 to order it to his own glory/ He will scarcely assert, that 
 God *d not permit their sin, nor that by permitting it he 
 forced them to it, and thus became the author of it. Nor, 
 we presume, will he pretend, that God's purpose to order 
 this sin to his own glory — to bring good out of evil — ^made 
 him the author of sin. And yet this is precisely the doc- 
 trine of our Confession — that God purposed to permit the 
 sins of men and angels, and so to bound, control, and order 
 them, that his own wise plans shall be accomplished by 
 their means. Any harm in this ? Does not the Bible say, 
 * Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee : the remainder 
 of wrath shalt thou restrain?' (Psalm Ixxvi, 10.) Does 
 it not say, that Jesus Christ was delivered to crucifixion, 
 *by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God?' 
 (Acts ii, 23.) Come back, brother Foster, and start right, 
 or your work will all be lost. 
 
 "There is another great defect in these letters. The 
 real points of difference between Methodists and Presby- 
 terians are not stated. One might conclude from all that 
 Mr. Foster has yet said, that, according to Methodism, 
 God has no purposes at all, certainly none that relate to 
 men. What is the Methodist doctrine on this subject? 
 Wherein, precisely, do they differ? The very first thing 
 necessary to a satisfactory discussion of this subject, is a 
 clear statement of the difference between the faith of 
 Methodists and that of Presbyterians. 
 
 "We venture to suggest, whether it would not be well 
 for Mr. Foster to let his first two letters go for nothing, as 
 the boys say, and begin anew." 
 
 To so much of the above as purports to be an answer to 
 
APPENDIX, 249 
 
 my letters, I now call atK^tion. Irrelevant portions I must 
 be excused from noticing. "His second letter," he says, 
 "urges the old objection, a thousand times made, and as 
 often refuted, that the doctrine of decrees makes God the 
 author of sin." Now, Doctor, why did you not tell me 
 how that old objection was refuted ? That is precisely the 
 thing I desire to know ; and if it has been done so often, 
 you, of course, will find it perfectly convenient to repeat 
 it for my edification. Attend to this, if you please, as 
 soon as you find leisure, by taking up and refuting my 
 arguments. 
 
 "This hackneyed objection is founded upon the idea, 
 that God's decree is the necessity or necessitating cause 
 of sin. Now, inasmuch as Presbyterians hold no such 
 views, and would really depose any one of their ministers 
 who should teach it, the objection is utterly without force. 
 No Presbyterian holds, that God ever purposed or decreed 
 to influence any man or angel to sin. If Mr. Foster had 
 taken the trouble to read the sixth chapter of the West- 
 minster Confession of Faith, he would have found the fol- 
 lowing language concerning the fall of our first parents: 
 * This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and 
 holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it 
 to his own glory.' " This language I can assure Dr. Rice 
 I have often read, and much more to the same import, 
 from various Calvinistic authors. But, as said in my 
 second letter, this only convinces me that the different 
 parts of the system clash, and they who embrace it em- 
 brace contradictions. It is certainly in vain to demur 
 against a clear, logical conclusion. What the Doctor must 
 do, is to point out where my logic is at fault, not to array 
 disclaimers. His present course will only help me to 
 another chapter of objections against his system; that is, 
 that it is self- contradictory, which, in due time, I expect 
 to prove. 
 
250 APPENDIX. 
 
 But now to the question of fadl. Dr. Rice asserts, thai 
 *•' no Presbyterian holds that God's decree is the necessity 
 or necessitating cause of sin" — that "they would depose a 
 minister who should teach it" — that "no Presbyterian 
 holds^ that God ever purposed or decreed to dispose or 
 influence any man or angel to sin." Right upon this point 
 1 jom issue with Dr. Rice. My reasons for making the 
 charge are contained in my second letter, and his assertion 
 must stand unsupported until these reasons are answered, 
 and taken away. Will the Doctor remove them? Mean- 
 time we submit additional proofs upon this point. 
 
 1. This is the doctrine of the Confession itself, contained 
 in the following language : " God, from all eternity, did, by 
 the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and 
 unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass. Although 
 God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all 
 supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed any thing 
 because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would 
 come to pass upon such supposed conditions." Here is 
 a witness I introduce to the respectful attention of Dr 
 Rice : it is the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. 
 
 It testifies three things concerning God's decrees: 1. He 
 decreed whatsoever comes to pass. 2. His decree was 
 made from eternity. 3. His decree was unconditional — 
 absolute. 
 
 Sin, then, as it has come to pass, was decreed to come 
 to pass, from eternity, and without conditions. But that 
 which is decreed to come to pass without conditions, can- 
 not be said to be merely permitted, as it is manifest that to 
 permit a thing supposes conditions, or reasons in the thing 
 for so permitting it. 
 
 2. The expositor of the Confession says, "The fore- 
 knowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree; for 
 God could not foreknow that things would be unless 
 he had decreed they should be'' — not might be. Now, 
 
APPENDIX. 251 
 
 according to this, either God did not know sin would be, or 
 he decreed it should he. To deny the former is to deny the 
 •Divine oraniscience-^to admit, is to admit that he decreea 
 sin should be. But the expositor of the Confession tells us 
 explicitly, that the efficient cause of sinful actions is the 
 decree of God. If the decree causes the act, does it not 
 cause the sin? 
 
 3. Herman Witsius says, " The human will can produce 
 no action of which God is not the author." Does sin reside 
 in the will? Then God, who is the author of every act of 
 the will, is author of every sin. With him agree Hill, Dick, 
 Chalmers, and others, quoted in my third letter. I request 
 my readers to refer to the numerous quotations contained in 
 that letter upon this point. 
 
 4. " The will of the supreme Being is the cause of every 
 thing that now exists, or is to exist at any future time." 
 (Hill.) Does sin exist? Then, according to Hill, God's 
 decrees caused it. 
 
 "The supreme Being selects those single objects and 
 combinations of objects, which he chooses to bring into 
 existence; and every circumstance in the manner of the 
 existence of that which is to be, thus depending entirely 
 on his will, is known to him because he decreed it should 
 be" — not might be. "The Divine decree is the determina- 
 tion to produce the universe, that is, the whole series of 
 heings and events'^ (lb.) Is it causing a thing to produce 
 li-'-ereate it? Then the Divine decree, Mr. Hill says, 
 caused sin. 
 
 5. " I say with Augustine, that the Lord created those 
 who he certainly foreknew would fall into destruction, and 
 that this was actually so because he willed it." (Calvin.) 
 " I confess with Augustine, that God's decree is the neces- 
 sity of things." (lb.) Is sin something? Then Calvin 
 says, God's decree is the necessity of it. "They further 
 object, [we Arminians,] were they not, by the decree dI' 
 
252 APPENDIX. 
 
 God antecedently predestinated to that corruption, which 
 is now stated as the cause of condemnation? When they 
 perish in their corruption therefor, they only suffer the 
 punishment of that misery into which, in consequence of 
 his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated his posterity 
 with him. I confess, indeed, that the descendants of Adam 
 fell by the Divine will; and this is what I said at the begin- 
 ning, that we must always return, at last, to the sovereign 
 determination of God's will." (lb.) " Nor should it be 
 thought absurd to affirm, that God not only foresaw the 
 fall of the first man, and the ruin of his posterity in him, 
 but also arranged all by the determination of his will." (lb.) 
 ** It should be considered as indubitably certain, that all the 
 revolutions in the world proceed from the secret exertion 
 of the Divine power. What God decrees, must necessarily 
 come to pass." (lb.) Does this look like permission. Doc- 
 tor? "It is not probable that man procured his own de- 
 struction, by the mere permission, and without the appoint- 
 ment of God." (lb.) Not much favor for your idea of 
 permission here. Doctor. " We make God the arbiter and 
 governor of all things, who, in his own wisdom, has, from 
 the remotest eternity, decreed what he would do, and now 
 by his own power executes what he has decreed. Whence 
 we assert, that not only the heavens, and earth, and inan- 
 imate creatures, but also the deliberations and volitions of 
 men are so governed by his providence, as to be directed to 
 the end appointed by it.'' (lb.) ''They therefore evade 
 the difficulty, by alledging that it happens only by the per- 
 mission, and not by the will of God ; but God himself, by 
 the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge." 
 (lb.) It would seem. Doctor, that Calvin was not well 
 pleased with your subterfuge of permission. "The whole 
 may be summed up thus : that, as the will of God is said 
 to be the cause of all things, his providence is established 
 as the governor in all the counsels and works of men, so 
 
APPENDIX. 25S 
 
 that it not only exerts its power in the elect, who are influ- 
 enced by the Holy Spirit, but also compels the compliance 
 of the reprobate. . . . For the first man fell, because 
 the Lord had determined that it was so expedient." (lb.) 
 
 I commend these quotations from Calvin especially to 
 the attention of Dr. Rice. Will he give us light upon 
 them ? 
 
 6. To Dr. Rice's retreat from my arguments, under the 
 pretense that Presbyterians do not attach the idea of ne- 
 cessity to decree, but bare permission, I object, further, 
 that it is not only contrary to the teaching of those dis- 
 tinguished Calvinists already referred to, but it is also 
 absurd in itself, and antagonistic to the whole system 
 essentially. 
 
 It is contrary to the signification of the terms employed. 
 Decree, purpose, predestinate, ordain, predetermine, and 
 such terms, exclusively used, do not contain the idea of 
 permission, but are precisely the opposite of such idea, 
 and contain alone the idea of appointment, establishment, 
 fixedness, to set, to appoint, to establish, to prepurpose, to 
 procure by edict, by authority; and with no consistency 
 whatever, can that which is barely permitted be said to be 
 decreed. 
 
 Is it said the decree was to permit sin ; that is, God ap- 
 pointed, fixed in purpose, decreed, that he would permit 
 sin? I answer, such a construction shows clearly that he 
 did not decree sin, but only decreed what his own action 
 would be in respect to it, should it be about to occur : he 
 decreed that in such a case he would not prevent it — he 
 would allow it to take place. Is this decreeing sin ? The 
 decree did not respect the sin, but simply himself; so that, 
 if God simply permitted sin to exist, he did not decree its 
 existence. But then Dr. Rice is reduced to this dilemma. 
 If he says God simply permitted sin, he admits that he did 
 not decree it; and so he admits that his Confession is in 
 
2o4 APPENDIX. 
 
 error, "when it says God decreed whatsoever comes to pass. 
 If he says God decreed sin, he retreats from the position 
 lie has already made, that he simply permits it. 
 
 T. But I object, f mother, to Dr. Rice, that, when he says 
 God did not procure sin by his decree, he antagonizes his 
 system in another particular. It is contended by all Cal- 
 vinists, that God's foreknowledge is consequent upon his 
 decree ; he foreknows things will be, because he has decreed 
 they shall be. How can this be, if the occurrence of the 
 thing is not somehow dependent upon the decree? If it 
 mio^ht occur without beinof decreed, mie^ht it not be known 
 to an omniscient God ? If it could not occur by any pos- 
 sibility without being decreed, then is not the intervention 
 of decree supposed to be the essential thing in order to 
 its occurrence, or the cause of it? 
 
 8. I object, further, to Dr. Rice's doctrine of permission, 
 that it is contrary to his doctrine of the will. He does not 
 believe that the human will can act of itself — he will admit 
 this — he cannot deny. The will, he believes, always and 
 necessariiy acts from the force of motives. The strongest 
 motive must prevail. The will must accord with the 
 stiongest motive, as the needle must turn to the pole — as. 
 the scale must descend with the preponderating weight. 
 He believes that these motives, whatever they may be, are 
 all arranged of God, and brought to bear upon the will, by 
 a decree as old as eternity. But how now, if he has made 
 the action of the will subject to motives, and if he has ap- 
 pointed all the motives, can it be said he permits the action 
 of the will ? Is it not manifest that he causes it, as directly 
 as though he controlled it by positive agency ? 
 
 The foregoing reasons, together with the quotations and 
 arguments previously given, I assign as sustaining the 
 charge made in my second letter, that Calvinism makeg 
 God the author of sin. Will the Doctor point out in 
 what particular they fail to sustain the charge? To 
 
APPENDIX. 255 
 
 these, a variety of additional quotations from other au- 
 thors and arguments, will be submitted as occasion may 
 require. 
 
 NUMBER II. 
 
 Dr. Rice thus notices my letters, after reading the fourth : 
 " The first objection urged by Mr. Foster, of the Methodist 
 Church, against the Calvinistic doctrine of Divine deeree, 
 is that it makes God the author of sin, by making him the 
 necessitating cause of sin; the second is, that it destroys 
 the free agency of man ; and the third, that it destroys the 
 accountability of man. These three objections are so nearly 
 identical, that they properly make but one, and they are all 
 based upon a view of the doctrine not taught in the West- 
 minster Confession of Faith, and not held by any Presby- 
 terian. The whole of his arguments, therefore, are nothing 
 more nor less than an entire misrepresentation of the doc- 
 trme. This being the case, no particular notice need be 
 taken of them." 
 
 I am here charged with misrepresenting Calvinism. 
 Upon this ground the Doctor . declines noticing my letters 
 further. 
 
 The charge that I have misrepresented Calvinism, to me 
 seems strange. Why, I have not represented it at all — I 
 have only presented it. I have quoted only from their own 
 standards. If they are misrepresented, they have mis- 
 represented themselves. I have drawn inferences from 
 their authors quoted, it is true, and deduced consequences. 
 If in this I have been unfair or illogical — if I have misun- 
 derstood the authors cited, I can assure the Doctor it has 
 been unintentional, and I only ask him to correct my honest 
 and sincere misapprehensions. My sole object, in address- 
 ing these letters to Dr. Rice, was that I might have the 
 benefit of his explanations. Now, why does he decline? 
 He cannot think I have been unkind — he cannot look upon 
 the matter with indifference — he cannot plead disinclination 
 
'2r>6 APPENDIX. 
 
 to such controversies. Why, then, will he at this point ab 
 ruptly leave me under all the misapprehensions and conse- 
 quent difficulties of mind I experience in regard to his 
 system? I was in hopes, and still am, that explanations 
 could be made, which would discover that we are not so 
 wide apart as we sometimes have thought. I have stated 
 my views of the system, always giving the authorities upon 
 which they were founded, and then raised my objections to 
 the system as I understood it, on purpose that such expla- 
 nations might be made, expecting that Dr. Rice would — 
 particularly after pledging himself to my aid — point out 
 my mistakes, and lead me to a better view. And now he 
 stops still, and meets me with the blank reply, that my 
 " letters are an entire misrepresentation." Is this mag- 
 nanimous ? I wall not say it is not. Dr. Rice will perceive 
 the propriety of a second thought, and will return to my 
 aid — particularly as he will have the opportunity of cor- 
 recting the erroneous views of at least 40,000 readers of 
 the Advocate, with respect to his system. 
 
 Dr. Rice says that I misrepresent Calvinism on this 
 point — that it renders the decree of God "the necessitating 
 cause of sin." Now, if I had made that charge in so many 
 words, on my own authority, it would be sufficient for Dr. 
 Rice to deny. This would satisfy our readers. But'I have 
 stated my reasons for making the charge. These reasons 
 are either good or bad : if good, they sustain the charge, 
 and the system is liable; if bad, it can be made to appear. 
 
 The Doctor says no Presbyterian believes the doctrine! 
 I quote his own Confession and many authors — standard 
 with his Church — against him, and sustaining my charge. 
 Now, these quotations sustain my charge, or they do not. 
 Jf they do, I have not misrepresented Calvinism; if they 
 do not, it can be shown. 
 
 The Doctor has made the issue with me himself upon 
 this point. Why now does he decline it? He certainly 
 
APPENDIX. 257 
 
 Tttnnot suppose that his bare denial will be sufficient in this 
 Rase. 
 
 I will not complain of the Doctor, that he charges me 
 of misrepresenting Calvinism to thousands of his readers, 
 without letting me be heard — thereby producing the impres- 
 sion that I have done them a great wrong. I make no 
 complaint. It may be right to hold a man up as a false 
 accuser, without giving the particulars of his accusation. 
 If the Doctor was under no obligation to notice these letters 
 in the first instance — having made an issue with us volun- 
 tarily — he must certainly see the propriety of sustaining 
 his own issue. After all that has appeared from Dr. Rice's 
 pen, and in his columns, it must seem strange for him to 
 retire at this juncture. We, however, leave him to pursue 
 his own pleasure ; and, having commenced, we shall go on 
 with our letters, exposing what we conceive to be the errors 
 of Calvinism. Whenever Dr. Rice shall redeem his pledge, 
 we shall be glad to treat him with due courtesy; but 
 whether or not, we shall proceed in the same good spirit to 
 perfect the work we have undertaken. 
 
 That Calvinists are inextricably involved in the doctrine 
 of necessity, as charged, and so liable to all the objections 
 urged against them, particularly the three expressly dis- 
 claimed by Dr. Rice, will appear still further by the follow- 
 ing considerations : 
 
 ]. The expositor of the Confession, in his notes on the 
 article respecting the will, holds this language : " According 
 to Calvinists, the liberty of a, moral agent consists in the 
 power of acting according to his choice ; and those actions 
 are free which are performed without external compulsion — 
 physical compulsion — in consequence of the determination 
 of his own mind. The necessity of man's willing and act- 
 mg, according to his apprehension and disposition, is, in 
 their opinion, fully consistent with the highest liberty whicli 
 can belong to a rational nature. . . .As nothins^ can 
 
 22 
 
258 APPENDIX. 
 
 ever come to pass without a cause, the acts of the will are 
 never without necessity; understanding, by necessity, an 
 infallible connection with something foregoing." This 1 
 understand to be the doctrine of all Calvinists respecting 
 the will of man, as well before as since the fall ; it is often 
 expressed in stronger language. 
 
 Now, this view of the will utterly discards this idea of 
 liberty — power to choose either of two alternatives. Here 
 is the real point of difference between us and them: with 
 them liberty is necessity to choose one way according to 
 the motive, but not power to make an opposite choice: 
 with us it is the power to choose either of the various alter- 
 natives presented to the mind. Now, upon their doctrine 
 of the will, I base an argument that its decisions are neces- 
 sitated, and not free; and, hence, that it is absurd for a 
 Calvinist to contend for freedom. Take man in a state of 
 innocence — for we desire to give the advocates of the 
 system the most favorable opportunity to defend them- 
 selves — the question is, Was man capacitated with freedom 
 to stand or fall, in the circumstances? And, according to 
 the Calvinian system, the answer must be, he was not; for 
 he was so constituted that he must )^ield to the prevailing 
 disposition or strongest motive. He could not avoid this; 
 it was his nature. He had no control of these motives, and 
 when they came upon him he as necessarily was moved by 
 them, as the needle is moved to the pole; it matters not 
 that he chose to move with the influence ; for the want of 
 liberty and the fact of necessity were found in the circum- 
 stance, that he had no control of his choice : he made his 
 choice necessarily. 
 
 Now, I ask Dr. Rice, what does control the choice ? He 
 must answei., whatever goes to constitute the prevailing 
 motive. But, then, I ask, who controls and governs these 
 motives? And he must answer, that all things are ar- 
 ranged and governed by God himself: God controls the 
 
APPENDIX. 259 
 
 motives; the motives control the man. He sins, neces- 
 sitated by the motive. And, now, where do we find the 
 first cause ? Not in the choice ; for it was an effect : not in 
 the motives ; for they were under the government and con- 
 trol of God. Here, then, we trace the operations of man's 
 will back to God : not as permitted, but procured. If the 
 Calvinists can trace it beyond God, they may free their 
 system from making God the first cause of sin ! 
 
 2. I derive an argument from the Calvinian view of 
 providence. Two things are included in the notion of 
 providence — the preservation and the government of all 
 things. " God governs all things by directing and disposing 
 them to ihe end for which he designed them. . . . The 
 providence of God extends to all creatures, actions, and 
 things, from the greatest even to the least." This is the 
 doctrine of providence, taught by the expositor of the 
 Confession. According to it, God's providence extends to 
 all actions, from the greatest to the least; and while it 
 regards all actions, it consists in directing all to the end for 
 which he designed them, so that all actions come to the 
 very end for which God designed. Are any sinful, he de- 
 signed them as such ; and, by his providence, disposed and 
 directed them in their causes and development. "To solve 
 the difficulty connected with this point," says Mr. Shaw, 
 "theologians distinguish between an action and its quality. 
 The action, abstractly considered, is from God, for no action 
 can be performed without the concurrence of Providence ; 
 but the sinfulness of the action proceeds entirely from the 
 creature." The first part of this sentence declares the faith 
 of Calvinists ; the second part disclaims a consequence of 
 their faith. It is for us to see whether such a disclaimer is 
 rational and consistent, or the contrary. The proposition 
 is, that the action, abstractly considered, is from God — God 
 is its author — for the reason that no action can be performed 
 without his concurrence or agency. Now, I insist that the 
 
260 APPENDIX. 
 
 proposition positively asserts, that, just so far as sins arft 
 actions, God is their author. There can be no controversy 
 here. The act of murder and adultery, and what not, is 
 God's act, so far forth as it is an act. Now, if the act is 
 his, I leave it to the metaphysics of Calvinists to determine 
 whose is the sin. For more particular argumentation upon 
 this point, I refer to my second letter. 
 
 3. The same conclusion is inferred from the Calvinian 
 doctrine of a Divine plan. "The whole universe derives 
 the reason of its existence from the will of its Creator, and 
 every particular being and event in the universe has that 
 connection with something going before it, by which it 
 forms a part of the plan of Providence." If sin is an 
 event, Mr. Hill thus asserts tliat it derives the reason or 
 cause of its existence from the will of God. Its cause is 
 in God's will, and yet is not God its author. Every event 
 in the universe lias connection with something before it — it 
 is an effect; and, as such, forms a part of the plan of 
 Providence ; which plan is the cause of all, or that some- 
 thing goir^ before all, and emanating from the Divine will, 
 which is the only cause. 
 
 In accordance with this view, all things are directly and 
 repeatedly ascribed to the necessary operations of God's 
 
 plan by Calvinists even the reprobation and damnation 
 
 of sinners, with the causes leading thereto. 
 
 "Whom God passes by, therefore, he reprobates, and for 
 no other cause than his determination to exclude them from 
 the inheritance which he predestines for his children." 
 (Calvin.) How explicit this language ! how impossible to 
 misunderstand it ! Whom God passes by— does not include 
 in the decree of election — he reprobates. Not because of 
 their sins — not for any thing he foresees in them; but for 
 no other cause than his determination to exclude them from 
 the inheritance of his children. Thus honest John Calvin — 
 and with him agree many authors quoted — scorns to seek 
 
APPENDIX. 263 
 
 any otlier cause for the reprobation and consequent damna- 
 tion of some men, than the sovereign purpose of God 
 How absurd and ridiculous for his followers to attempt 
 to deny and demur, when we charge this consequence 
 upon them — when it is thus explicitly declared and ex- 
 tensively elaborated by their great leader — in the con- 
 clusion of which argument he says, "Whence it follows 
 that the cause of hardening — the sinner in his sins, or 
 working his sins in him as an occasion of damnation — is 
 the secret counsel of God ! " First, the sinner is reprobated 
 for no other cause but the purpose of God. Thus repro- 
 bated, he is established in sin by the secret will of God, 
 operating to that purpose ; and then he is damned, because 
 of his previous reprobation and hardening. 
 
 Hear Calvin again: "That the reprobates obey not the 
 word of God when made known to them, is justly imputed 
 to the wickedness and depravity of their hearts, provided 
 it be at the same time stated that they are abandoned to 
 this depravity, because they have been raised up, by a just 
 but inscrutable judgment of God, to display his glory in 
 their condemnation." Observe this passage. The disobedi- 
 ence of the reprobates may be attributed to their depravity, 
 but their depravity is attributable to the fact that God 
 raised them up, fitted them for destruction; so both their 
 actual disobedience and natural depravity is ascribable to 
 God's purpose in raising them up, even their eternal de- 
 struction. 
 
 Presbyterians of the nineteenth century, do you believe 
 this? Can you believe a system necessarily involving it? 
 Yet I show you that such is the miserable doctrine of your 
 Confession, and your standard authors — a consequence from 
 which there is no escape, but by a total abandonment of 
 the whole. And will you be content, when you see, by 
 fair logical deductions, such consequences fastened upon 
 you — consequences at which your reason and piety equally 
 
262 APPENDIX. 
 
 revolt? Will you be content, when the only reply at 
 tempted by your leaders to fair and unavoidable argu 
 ments and proofs, is, "We don't believe it?" Will this 
 mode of defense satisfy Presbyterians? Is your Con- 
 fession capable of no better a support? And still will 
 you cling to a system, beset and encompassed with conse- 
 quences, at the announcement of which you are stunned — 
 which I do not marvel that you spurn with indignant 
 vehemence? But why shall you cling to premises, neces- 
 sarily involving such conclusions ? 
 
 4. That God necessitates the sinful acts of men, is un- 
 avoidable upon the Calvinian view of foreknowledge. Gal- 
 rinists hold that God cannot foreknow any event as future, 
 only as he perceives it connected with some other thing as 
 a cause infallibly and necessarily to produce it — all future 
 things are foreknown as effects springing from a first cause 
 by successive links of attachment, or as a succession of 
 causes and effects. According to this, it is manifest that 
 the first cause is the actual and real cause of every suc- 
 cessive link. But each sin is a link, and therefore the first 
 cause is the actual cause of each sin.«^ It matters not 
 though they be separated by ten thousand intervening 
 links, scattered through as many ages. 
 
 5. The same fact is deducible from the reasonings of 
 Calvinists, in regard to the Arminian doctrine, that the 
 mind originates its own volitions. It is said by Edwards, 
 and it is common to Calvinists to say so, that such a view 
 renders the vohtions of men an efiect without a cause. By 
 which they deny the mind of man to possess the nature of 
 a cause ; or, in other words, they thus deny its agency, and 
 assert its mere passivity. All its motions are mere effects, 
 of which it is the passive instrument : it causes no volition 
 itself. Where is the cause? It is not in mind. It is 
 finally in God! But if God causes the motion, and the 
 motion is sinful, who causes the sin ? 
 
APPENDIX. 263 
 
 " If the determinations of moral agents are thus certainly 
 directed by motives, it is plain that the Almighty, whose 
 will gave existence to the universe, and by whose pleasure 
 every cause operates, and every effect is produced, gives 
 their origin to these determinations, by the execution of the 
 great plan of his providence ; for as there entered into his 
 plan, all those efficient causes, whose successive operations 
 produce the motions and changes of the material world, so 
 there are brought forward in succession, by the execution 
 of his plan, all those objects which present themselves to 
 the mind as final causes." (Hill.) 
 
 This quotation first assumes that the determinations of 
 moral agents are created by motives, as final causes. It 
 is then assumed that the Almighty, by whose will all such 
 final causes operate, causes the determinations produced by 
 them ; and this efficiently, inasmuch as all such motives — 
 final causes — are brought forward by the execution or 
 direct operation of his providence. Well, now, are these 
 determinations sinful? If so, and God caused the deter- 
 mination, who caused the sin? 
 
 "For according 'to the view of the Divine foreknowledge, 
 which is essential to the Calvinistic system, all things are 
 brought into being by the execution of the Divine decree, 
 so that no circumstance, in the manner of the existence of 
 any individual, can depend upon the conduct of that indi- 
 vidual; but all that distinguishes him from others, must 
 originate in the mind that formed the decree.^^ (Hill.) 
 Every thing peculiar in the conduct or character of the 
 individual— of each and every individual — originates in the 
 mind that formed the decree. If he is sinful, therefore 
 this originated with God ! 
 
 In the trial of Dr. Beecher, Dr. Beecher accuses Dr. 
 Wilson as follows: "Dr. Wilson has made a distinct 
 avowal, that free agency and moral obligation to obey 
 law, do not include any ability of any kind.'' To which 
 
26'i APPENDIX. 
 
 Dr. Wilson replied directly in so many words, "With, 
 respect to fallen man I do!" "Now," says Di. Wilson, 
 *' let us look at the doctrine of the Confession with this 
 principle in view, that the state of the man determines the 
 will. The will is dlwaijs at liberty: choice is an effect 
 always, and not a cause! It is always produced freely. 
 When the mind chooses, it always chooses freely. There 
 is no such thing as bound will. Hence, all do what is 
 good or evil voluntarily, in view of a motive, and according 
 to the state of mind in which they are. Take man in a 
 state of innocence. God made him upright; in his own 
 image; his choice is free, and he chooses what is right; 
 but not from any poiver in the will. The will, as I have 
 said, has no power to operate on any thing but the body. 
 His uprightness was in the right state of the affections, 
 and the luminous state of the understanding, in the correct 
 state of the memory, and in his entire moral rectitude in 
 the Divine image. His will was free to do good ivhile no 
 temptation was presented to it. He had no motive but his 
 accountableness to God, and his love to God^ His will 
 operated according to the state of the man. But now 
 look at him in another state — the state of temptation. 
 Motives ai'e now presented to him by the arch tempter, 
 but not to his will at all; they are presented to his under- 
 standing and appetites — to his taste for beauty. The fruit 
 is pleasant to the eye ; and what was the effect ? The will 
 was not trapped in any other Avay than this : the tempta- 
 tion addressed to these powers was so strong, that it over- 
 came the dictates of judgment, and the man chose wrcng. 
 Volition moves the body: the mind moves the will; and 
 the mind is moved by that without, which is adapted to its 
 constitution." Now who moved that without, and made 
 the constitution? 
 
 The foregoing is the language of Dr. Wilson, who, for 
 forty years, occupied the First Presbyterian Church in this 
 
AITENDIX. 265 
 
 city, and during his long life a prominent man in the 
 Church in the west: certainly, for ability and opportunity, 
 inferior to none of his school, and therefore as reliable an 
 exponent as any other. But now observe his honest and 
 candid admission, on an occasion when, of all others, he 
 would be most accurate, and on a point where he would 
 be most critically prepared : " Free agency and moral obli- 
 gation to obey law, with respect to fallen man, do not 
 include any ability of any hindP' According to this, free 
 agency, as held by Calvinists, does not include ability of 
 any kind. A man is a free agent, though he have no 
 power at all ! He is also responsible to obey law, though 
 he have no ability of any kind to do so ! 
 
 But he more fully unfolds his view, as above; and no 
 one can read the quotation, it seems to me, without sympa- 
 thizing with the sincere and able author, in the manifest 
 confusion and self-contradiction in which he involves him- 
 self. "The will is always at liberty;" yet its choice is 
 always caused by a foreign agent! "When the mind 
 chooses, it always chooses freely;" yet it has no kind of 
 ability whatever, but is ruled by the motives in every case ! 
 "There is no such thing as bound will;" but it is always 
 an effect, and not a cause! Observe, further, his phi- 
 losophy of the will Dr. AVilson carries back beyond or 
 behind the fall. Of man, in innocence, he says, " His will 
 was free to do good, while no temptation was presented to it;'' 
 but what is implied in this ? When temptation came, the 
 will was not free to do good, but bound to do evil, or to 
 yield. This, indeed, he does not leave us to infer, but 
 expressly states that the temptation presented to the first 
 pair was such that it overcame, by its strength, the mind — 
 "the mind moves the will, and was itself moved by that 
 without; and thus man fell under the force of a tempta- 
 tion which he had no power to resist. He fell, therefore, 
 when, under the circumstances, he had no power to stand I 
 
 23 
 
266 APPENDIX. 
 
 And 3^et he was free in doing what he had no power U 
 avoid ! 
 
 Dr. Twisse, the Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly, 
 in conformity to whose views the Confession of Faith was 
 formed, holds the followinor lancruage: "All things come 
 to pass by the efficacious and irresistible will of God." 
 Again: "It is impossible that any thing should ever he done 
 hut that to tohich God impels the ivill of manr Again: 
 " God is the author of that action which is sinful, by his 
 irresistible will." 
 
 Piscator: "God made Adam and Eve to this very pur- 
 pose, that they might be tempted and led into sin ; and by 
 force of his decree, it could not otherwise be but they 
 must sin." 
 
 Again : " God foresees nothing but what he has decreed, 
 and his decree precedes his knowledge." 
 
 Again : " For we neither can do more good than we do, 
 nor less evil than we do, because God, from eternity, has 
 precisely decreed that both the good and the evil should 
 be so done." 
 
 Again : " God procures adultery, cursing, lyings." Again : 
 "The reprobates who were predestinated to damnation, and 
 the causes of damnation, are created to that end, that they 
 may live wickedly, and be vessels full of the dregs of sin." 
 
 Peter Martyr: "God cannot be termed the author of 
 sin, though he is the cause of those actions which are 
 sins. ... He supplies wicked men with opportunities 
 of sinning, and inclines their hearts thereto. He blinds, 
 deceives, and seduces them. He, by his working on their 
 hearts, bends and stirs them up to do evil." 
 
 Zanchius: " God's first constitution was, that some should 
 be destined to eternal ruin ; and to this end their sins were 
 ordained, and denial of grace in order to their sins. 
 Both the elect and the reprobates were foreordained to sin, 
 IS sin, that the glory of God might be declared thereby." 
 
APPENDIX. 267 
 
 Zuinglius: "When God makes angels or men sin, he 
 :\oes not sin himself, because he does not break any law." 
 
 VVitsius, in summing up his reasonings, uses the follow- 
 ing language: "If all these truths thus demonstrated be 
 joined and linked together, they will produce that conclu- 
 sion which we laid down — namely, from all this may be 
 inferred, by plain consequence, that man could not hut 
 fall on account of the infallibility of the Divine prescience, 
 and of that necessity which they call a necessity of conse- 
 quences. For it is inconsistent with the divine perfection, 
 that any decree of God should be rendered void, or that 
 the event should not be answerable to it. For if all 
 creatures depend on God in acting — if he not only con- 
 curs with them when they act, but excites them to act — 
 if that excitation he so powerful as that on supposing it the 
 effect cannot hut follow — if God, with that same efficac7j, 
 influences vicious actions so far as they are physical — if 
 the creature cannot give its actions their due moral good- 
 ness without God, it infallibly follows that Adam, God 
 himself moving him to understand, will, and eat, could not 
 hut understand, ivill, and eat, and God not giving goodness 
 to those actions, man could not understand, ivill, and eat in 
 a right manner.'" Honest Witsius! worthy of imitation! 
 He, you see, does not hesitate, with Calvin, his illustrious 
 model, to confess that, in regard to the first, as well as 
 all other vicious acts, man acts only as coerced by Divine 
 influence. 
 
 How, in the face of all these declarations, and the many 
 others cited in foregoing letters, can Calvinists, with any 
 candor, accuse us of misrepresenting them, or attempt 
 themselves to frame an escape by a resort to the doctrine 
 of permissive decrees ? I confess I am at a loss to under- 
 stand how good men reconcile their conduct on this point; 
 but the wrong I must believe is not in the heart, however 
 difficult it may be to ascribe it to the head. 
 
L'OS APPENDIX. 
 
 NUMBER III. 
 
 In the Presbyterian of the West, Dr. Rice honors mc 
 with a notice, Avhich I herewith subjoin. It is all given, 
 bill in paragraphs, followed by replies, to render the answer 
 more direct. 
 
 ''Foster on Calvinism. — We have not intended to enter 
 into a regular discussion with Mr. Foster on Calvinism. 
 The reasons are obvious. We were previously engaged in 
 a discussion with Dr. Simpson, on some other points of 
 difference between Methodists and Presbyterians; and we 
 considered Mr. Foster's letters simply as a plan to divert 
 attention from the weak points of his faith we are exposing. 
 We do not choose to permit the plan to succeed." 
 
 Doctor, you must excuse us for smiling at this. It is 
 impolite, I know ; but nature will out. " A plan to divert 
 attention from the weak points of our faith you are ex- 
 posing!'' Truly, we have great need to be alarmed Your 
 assault is so potent, and your success is so signal! 
 
 " If Mr. Foster desired a discussion with us, courtesy, as 
 we think, would have required him to wait till we were 
 through with Dr. Simpson. Besides, if he desired a dis- 
 cussion with us, he would have proposed it, and allowed us 
 to have some hand in arranging preliminaries; and have 
 made an arrangement to have both sides published in both 
 papers. Having thrust himself forward, whilst a discussion 
 with Dr. Simpson was pending, and without making any of 
 thg usual arrangement of preliminaries, it is rather sur- 
 prising with what confidence and with what vaunting- he 
 has claimed our particular notice." 
 
 "If Mr. Foster desired a discussion with us!" Strange, 
 Doctor — ^I had almost said, shame ! Do you not know that 
 your own imprudent intermeddling with your neighbors 
 provoked the whole controversy, which now engrosses our 
 columns ? Why, now, do you talk as thougli we sought con- 
 tioversy with you. When a man repels the assassin, does he 
 
APPENDIX. 260 
 
 court the figlit ? Have you forgotten your haughty repliei^ 
 to our published deprecations of the whole matter? — that 
 even in the commencement of these letters, you were in 
 exceeding good heart? That your tune has changed, is not 
 without cause. That courtesy should have induced me to 
 wait till you were done with Dr. Simpson, I an\ almost 
 inclined to admit; for your troubles ought not to be in- 
 creased. But, then, did you not court it? Did you not 
 proclaim your readiness and resources? As to the matter 
 of preliminaries, did you stop to make preliminary arrange- 
 ments when you commenced your abusive misrepresen- 
 tations of Methodism? And why did you not think of 
 this before, when you promised, at the appearance of my 
 first letter, to assist me in the discussion? There was no 
 complaint then ! And you talk about arranging to pubhsh 
 our articles in both papers ! Do you not know that nothing 
 could induce you to publish my letters in your columns ? 
 And have you forgotten that I promised to publish your 
 replies, whether you would insert my letters or not, if you 
 would attempt a candid examination of the subject? This 
 attempt of yours to present matters in a false light, and to 
 elicit sympathy, comes with a poor grace from Dr. Rice. 
 You are surprised that I address myself so confidently to 
 you ! Did you not tell us that you were the man ? Have 
 you not put yourself forward as the great champion ? Have 
 you not assailed us? and, then, does it surprise you when 
 we take up your vaunting challenge, and repel your virulent 
 attacks? 0, sir, it is too late to supplicate pity ! 
 
 "We propose, however, in connection with our preceding 
 articles on Divine decrees, to pay our respects briefly tu 
 Mr. Foster. He has quoted brief extracts from the Con- 
 fession of Faith, and from Calvinistic writers ; but it is easy 
 for one who takes up a doctrine without understanding it, 
 to make quotations from writers, so partial, or so com- 
 pletely severed from explanations and qualifications given. 
 
270 APPENDIX. 
 
 as entirely to misrepresent them. This Mr. Foster haj 
 done — we do not say intentionally." 
 
 " He has quoted brief sections of the Confession." Do 
 you not know that I have quoted whole chapters of your 
 Confession, without the omission of a word? How can 
 you, in sight of this fact, print, to be read by your readers, 
 who will never see my letters, that I have garbled your 
 Confession? Why have you done this? You say, I have 
 misrepresented your authors. Will you point out a single 
 instance ? Will you take any quotation I have made, and 
 show that I have put a meaning on it contrary to the 
 meaning of the author? Do this, or your readers may 
 have occasion to question your accuracy, not to say candor. 
 
 "From his quotations, he comes to the conclusion that, 
 according: to the faith of Calvinists, the decree of God is 
 the efficient cause, not onl}- of the acts of men and angels, 
 but of the affections and passions under which they are 
 performed. Hence he concludes that men can no more 
 avoid the murders, blasphemies, etc., which they commit, 
 than theyxould resist the fiat of Omnipotence, or subvert 
 the purposes of the Almighty — that sin results as an effect 
 from the Divine decree as its cause. It is upon this grossly 
 false view of the subject that all his objections to Calvinism 
 are based, such as that, according to this doctrine, * God is 
 the author of sin; man's free agency is destroyed,' etc. 
 The correction of the false view of the doctrine, of course, 
 destroys the force of his objections." 
 
 "From his quotation, he comes to the conclusion," etc. 
 Now, Doctor, the question here is, did the quotations war- 
 rant the conclusion I came to ? If they did, Calvinism is 
 guilty. If not, will you please make it appear? This is 
 the point in a nutshell. No dodging here. Come up 
 squarely to the work. 
 
 "Upon this grossly false view of the subject all Ins 
 objections are based." Why don't you show that I has'e 
 
APPENDIX. 271 
 
 taken a false view of the subject? Why assert and reit- 
 erate this for the ten thousandth time? Are assertions 
 arguments among Calvinists ? 
 
 "The correction of this false view of the doctrine, of 
 course, destroys the force of his objections.'* Exactly so. 
 Doctor; but will you correct this false view, not by cant» 
 but by reasoning? This is precisely what we want! Don't 
 waste your time ; I know it is precious, 
 
 " On the general subject we make the following remarks : 
 1 . If Mr. Foster desired a fair and intelligible discussion of 
 the difference between Methodists and Presbyterians, he 
 should have stated precisely wherein they differ. But, 
 though he has attempted to state the doctrine of Presby- 
 terians, he gave no account of that of the Methodists. Do 
 the latter hold that God has no purposes or decrees at all ? 
 Do they deny that God foreordained any one event which 
 was to be fulfilled by the free agency of man ? Why does 
 Mr. Foster give us no light on this subject ? How can we 
 determine which of two systems is the better, or more 
 accordant with Scripture truth, unless we have them fairly 
 stated, that we may compare them ? Why had Mr. Foster 
 no desire to make the public acquainted with the Methodist 
 faith on this important subject ? " 
 
 This would be rather amusing, if it were not unkind to 
 be amused at the vexation and confusion of a fellow- worm. 
 It is now the third time you have turned attention to this 
 subject, and one of your correspondents condoles with you 
 in your distress ; it has evidently perplexed you not a httle. 
 But, Doctor, how came you to imagine that I ought to 
 write about Methodist doctrine? I assure you I had no 
 such intention ; I saw no occasion for it. My object was 
 simply to examine your faith, and show my objections to it. 
 If you have any desire to know what Methodism is, no one 
 will question your right; and, if you find objections, in due 
 time, we will most probably assist you to examine them 
 
272 APPENDIX. 
 
 This absurd struggle to keep away from the issues, and tc 
 escape from an examination of the objections I have made 
 to your system, is fruitless; men will understand it, and 
 attribute it to its proper cause. Put an end to all this los? 
 of time, and labor, and self- confusion, and come up to the 
 work like a man; take up my letters consecutively, and 
 demolish them ; you say it is an easy work. Many of youi 
 readers, to my personal knowledge, are extremely anxiou.« 
 to see it done. Many of mine are anxious to see if it can 
 be done. You have every facility; my arguments and 
 authorities are before you. When you have done this, 
 you will have sustained Calvinism. If, then, you desire to 
 examine other subjects connected with the doctrines of 
 Methodism, you will find no foreign matters introduced; 
 no evasion ; no special pleading. You have provoked this 
 controversy. Nothing else would do you. Now, then, 
 let there be a direct, candid, Christian, thorough work 
 made of it. 
 
 " The faith of the Presbyterian Church is clearly stated 
 in the Westminster Confession. Whatever individuals may 
 have said, more than is there written, or different from it, 
 our Church is not responsible for. We make this remark, 
 not because we believe that any one of the writers quoted 
 by Mr. Foster has materially departed from the doctrine, as 
 there stated, but because a discussion concerning the views 
 of each of them would fill a volume, instead of a few 
 columns of a newspaper." 
 
 I agree with you here, Doctor, that the Westminster 
 Confession is the standard of your faith. Hence, in making 
 my statements of your doctrine, I have invariably quoted 
 from it fully first, and I have called in other authors of 
 great authority among you — Calvin, Hill, Witsius, Dwight, 
 Edwards, Boston, Shaw, Dickinson, Ridgley, Chalmers, 
 Toplady, Zanchius, etc. — simply to show the common view 
 taken of these doctrines by yourselves. I was not willing 
 
APPENDIX. 273 
 
 to venture an interpretation of your faith without your 
 own sanction, knowing what a wonderful faciUty you have 
 in the use of such epithets as " misrepresentation, ignorance, 
 do not understand,'" etc. My deductions are all based upon 
 the Confession of Faith, as interpreted by these authors; 
 and, if you will show that they are not, I 2>'>'omise a public 
 recantation of the charges made against you. But let me 
 remind you again, that the question is not, whether your 
 Confession and these authors teach an opposite doctrine 
 to that which I have derived from them, but do they tea,ck 
 this? When you attempt to derive an opposite doctrine 
 from them, without correcting and removing my reasonings 
 and quotations, you only prove that you have a contra- 
 dictory creed, liable to all the objections I bring against it, 
 and, the more grievous than all the rest, that it diametri- 
 cally contradicts itself, and its defenders destroy themselves. 
 First, show that the arguments with which I sustain my 
 interpretation are faulty, and then favor us with your new 
 translation. 
 
 "Now, in the Confession of Faith, we have first the 
 general declaration, that 'God, from all eternity, did, by 
 the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and 
 unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as 
 thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence 
 offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or 
 contingency of second causes taken away, but rather estab- 
 lished.' (Chap, iii, sec. i.) We have a particular explanation 
 of the doctrine. The shorter Catechism teaches that God 
 executeth his decrees in the works of creative providence. 
 The fourth chapter of the Confession states what God did, 
 in fulfillment of his decrees in creation. To tlie doctrine 
 of this chapter Mr. Foster has taken no exception. In the 
 fifth chapter, we have stated the fulfillment of the Divine 
 decrees by the providence of God. After stating that Goa 
 upholds, directs, disposes, and governs all creatures, actions. 
 
274 APPENDIX. 
 
 and things, to his own glory, it employs the following 
 language : * Thf almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and 
 infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his 
 providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, 
 and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a hare 
 permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise 
 and powerful hounding, and otherwise ordering and govern- 
 ing them, in a manifold dispensation to his own holy ends ; 
 yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the 
 creature, and not from God ! ' How did the providence of 
 God extend to the fall of man ? The sixth chapter answers : 
 ♦ This their sin God was pleased to permit, according to his 
 wise and holy counsel, having proposed to order it according 
 to his own glory.' 
 
 *' Now, concerning the sin of our first parents, and all 
 sins of men and angels, the Confession states two things : 
 1. God decreed, or chose to permit them. 2. That he not 
 only determined to permit them to have sinful inclinations, 
 but powerfully to bound, order, and govern their actions, 
 so as to bring to pass his own wise designs. God knew 
 the design of Satan to tempt Eve. He had power to pre- 
 vent it. For wise reasons, he chose to permit him to tempt 
 her, and to permit her to sin. Was her free agency de- 
 stroyed by this permission? Or was it destroyed by the 
 purpose of God to bring good out of the evil designs of 
 Satan and the sin of Eve ? Or did either of these things 
 make God the author of her sin? God decreed to harden 
 the heart of Pharaoh, so that he would not let the Is- 
 raelites go out of Egypt, and he did harden it. (Exodus 
 iv, 21, and vii, 13.) By this hardening, the purposes of 
 God are fulfilled. Was the free agency of Pharaoh de- 
 stroyed? Did God become the author of his sins? God 
 decreed to send the Assyrian king against the rebellious 
 Jews, to chastise them, and he did send him. (Isaiah 
 X, 5-15.) And yet he punished the king for his sins, 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 275 
 
 committed in that very war against tlie Jews. Will Mr. 
 Foster tell us how he explains this plain Bible fact ? 
 
 " God permits the sinful dispositions of men ; and he so 
 controls them that he accomplishes by them his holy pur- 
 poses ; and this is precisely what he decreed to do, and no 
 more. Francis Turretine has long been used as a standard 
 author, by Presbyterians. How does he answer the objec- 
 tion that the doctrine of Divine decrees makes God the 
 author of sin ? He says, ' The decree does not flow into 
 the thing, and is not effective of the evil, but only per- 
 missive and directive ! God simply permits and directs, or 
 controls, and, therefore, is not the author of sin; or, as 
 Solomon says, " A man's heart deviseth his way, but the 
 Lord directeth his steps." ' 
 
 " When the doctrine is thus correctly and briefly stated, 
 all the potent objections so triumphantly urged by Mr. 
 Foster become, not only powerless, but almost ridiculous. 
 More on this subject hereafter, if we are spared." 
 
 Here, Doctor, you reiterate an argument for the third 
 time, in support of the doctrine of Divine decrees. I must, 
 therefore, notice it, to save your printers the trouble of 
 setting up the type again, or, perhaps, you might lay it 
 aside to insert from week to week, to avoid the trouble and 
 expense of composition. I cannot help but think it re- 
 markable. Doctor, that, though you have written, directly 
 and indirectly, five lengthy articles upon my letters, you 
 have not named one of my arguments or quotations ! For 
 some cause, you cannot help but write, though with evident 
 irresolution and dispiritedness ; and, for some other cause, 
 you cannot venture to attack one of my arguments, by way 
 of examination and refutation. Why is this, Doctor? Can 
 you tell? You seek to avoid all the objections I alledge 
 against your doctrine of decrees, by assuming that I mis- 
 represent you. I quote from your distinguished authors, to 
 show you that the view I take is their view. You don't 
 
276 APPENDIX. 
 
 examine my quotations at all ! I show you that these 
 authors are against you. You answer not a word ! I make 
 an argument, from the language of the Confession itself, 
 against your interpretation. You say nothing in reply ! I 
 show, from the system, that your interpretation is discord- 
 ant. Not a response do you make ! 
 
 You know very well that, before you can defend your 
 doctrine of decrees, it must be defined. The whole con- 
 troversy, at present, is upon this point. What is youi 
 doctrine? I have defined it. You disagree with me. I 
 quote from your authors to prove that I am correct, and 
 make additional arguments to the same point. Now, mani- 
 festly, the first thing to do, is to settle this point. Will 
 you attend to this? No evasions. And the way to settle 
 it, is to show that the arguments which I employ, to sustain 
 my interpretation, are not competent. When you examine 
 foregoing arguments, you shall have others, and if you can 
 unsettle ray interpretation, you gain your point. Come, sir, 
 with good heart; the path is plain before you. Your pres- 
 ent course is like the Irishman's, when brought before the 
 court, on charge of a trifling theft. It being proved that 
 Paddy was guilty, the judge proceeded to condemn him, 
 on the testimony of some witness who had actually seen 
 him perpetrate the theft. Whereupon Paddy very quickly 
 replied, with all the vivacity of his countrymen, "May it 
 plase yer honor, I can bring fifty men that didn't see me 
 take the thing at all, at all, so I can." 
 
 But in dismissing this subject, one word more to you. I 
 am heartily glad that you renew your promise to attend to 
 this matter hereafter. Don't forget this promise ; and at- 
 tend to it right. I shall not promise to notice any future 
 equivocations. If you desire to discuss, and will do so, we 
 shall find great pleasure in having your co-operation, both 
 with respect to your doctrine and our own; but, in any 
 event, we shall progress with our letters, and not complain 
 
APPENDIX. 27^ 
 
 at jou, whatever course 3^011 may deem best in the defense. 
 I doubt not you know perfectly well which is the wisest 
 course for you to pursue. I had almost said, I can but 
 admire your shrewdness. 
 Four questions : 
 
 1. Do you not know that a decree, or purpose to permit 
 whatsoever comes to pass, is not a decree that the things 
 should come to pass? 
 
 2. Do you not know that when you assume the doctrine 
 of permission, you become an Arminian, and desert Cal- 
 vinism ? 
 
 3. Do you not know that all your questions and Scrip- 
 tural arguments, in the above, have no bearing whatever 
 on the points between you and myself, and are mere sub- 
 terfuges and evasions? 
 
 4. Do you not know that I defend the doctrine of per- 
 mission, against you, who deny it? 
 
 God permits whatsoever comes to pass ! Is this Calvin- 
 ism? or have I not proved that your doctrine is, that he ne- 
 cessitates whatsoever comes to pass? Come, Doctor, no 
 equivocation. Meet the matter squarely; let us get at 
 the truth. 
 
 NUMBER IV. 
 
 ^'Foster on Calvinism. — As already we have proved, the 
 Presbyterian Confession teaches, concerning the sins of 
 angels and men, that God decreed, or purposed to permit 
 and to direct. This is all. Mr. Foster, however, is in 
 difficulty about two points, (see his 2d Letter,) namely, 1. 
 He is under the impression that sin is a thing. He reasons 
 thus : • God's decree [according to Calvinists] is the ne- 
 cessity of things; but sin is something; therefore, God's 
 decree is the necessity, or necessitating cause of sin.' We 
 reply, that sin is not a thing, but a quality; and, therefore, 
 when it is said, that God's decree is the necessity of things. 
 It does not follow^ that it is the necessitating cause of sin. 
 
278 APPENDIX. 
 
 Such a blunder looks badly in a man who evidently glories 
 ill his acuteness and in his logical powers. Again, he says, 
 * God decreed whatsoever comes to pass ; but sin comes to 
 pass; therefore, God decreed sin.' We answer, this is a 
 gross abuse of language. It is not true, that sin comes to 
 pass. It is true, that events come to pass, in connection 
 with whi:h men commit sin. Mr. Foster proves, that Cal- 
 vinists make God's decree the necessitating cause of sin, 
 by assuming what every one ought to know is untrue, that 
 sin is an event or a thing/ Having thus perverted their 
 language, he proceeds to do battle against a doctrine 
 despised by every enlightened Calvinist on earth." 
 
 Dr. Rice commences, by stating that he has already 
 proved, that "the Presbyterian Confession teaches, con- 
 cerning the sins of angels and men, that God decreed, 
 or purposed to permit and direct. This is all." To this 
 I reply, Dr. Rice has proved nothing more than was 
 stated and admitted in my letters — ^nothing but what is 
 subversive of his own creed; but he has overlooked the 
 real issue, and he seeks to keep it from the view of his 
 readers. It is this : I have proved, by several arguments, 
 which the Doctor is too cunning to notice, that his Con- 
 fession and standard authors teach, that God has effi- 
 ciently decreed whatsoever comes to pass — ^that he causes, 
 not permits, all things. To this he makes no reply. He 
 well knows that he has adopted an interpretation of his 
 system which cannot be sustained ; and for this very reason 
 he will not meet me here. Not a word will he say on this 
 subject. He knows that the doctrine of permission is ai? 
 abandonment of the doctrine of decrees, as taught by his 
 Church — that it is Arminianism, and not Calvinism. He 
 escapes the difficulties I bring against him by deserting his 
 creed! — by turning Arminian ! Calvinism says, God de- 
 crees whatsoever comes to pass. Arminianism says, God 
 permits whatsoever comes to pass. Where is Dr. Rice? 
 
APPENDIX. 279 
 
 To my argument, "God's decree is the necessity of 
 tilings; but sin is something; therefore, God's decree is 
 the necessity, or necessitating cause of sin," he replies, 
 " Sin is not a thing, hut a quality'' 
 
 Again: to my argument, "God decreed whatsoever 
 comes to pass; but sin comes to pass; therefore, God 
 decreed sin," he rephes, that ''this is a gross abuse of 
 language. It is not true, that sin comes to pass. Mr. 
 Foster proves that Calvinists make God's decree the neces- 
 sitating cause of sin, hy assuming what every one ought to 
 know is untrue, that sin is an event or a thing." 
 
 Sin is not a thing ! Not an event ! It does not come to 
 pass! It is a quality! Therefore, though God decreed 
 all things and events, with whatsoever comes to pass, yet 
 he did not decree sin! A cardinal's cap for the learned 
 Doctor! If sin is a thing, or an event, or if it comes to 
 pass, the Doctor will admit my argument. Very well, 
 then. Is sin a thing? What is a thing? Webster says, 
 a "thing is an event or action; that which happens or falls 
 out ; that which is done, told, or purposed." 
 
 Now, what is sin? John says, "Sin is the transgression 
 of the law." But is it an act to transgress the law ? Then 
 sin is an action. But perhaps John is mistaken. I have a 
 better authority with Dr. Rice — the Confession of Faith. 
 "Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression 
 of the righteous law of God," etc. " Sin is any want of 
 conformity unto, or transgression of any law of God." 
 But what now? May be transgression is a quality! 
 Webster says, "transgression is the act of passing over 
 or beyond any law or rule of moral duty; the violation 
 of law or known principle of rectitude; breach of com- 
 mand." So, between John and Webster, we find that sin 
 is an act — an act is a thing ; so sin is a thing ! 
 
 Again: nothing is more common than for ministers, 
 luihorized by the Bible, to warn men against committing, 
 
280 APPENDIX. 
 
 doinr/, perfonnhig sins ! Now, do they warn them against 
 committing qualities or actions? 
 
 Again: will Dr. Rice inform us what a qualit}' is, sep- 
 arate from a thing? or what a thing is, separate from its 
 qualities ? 
 
 But sin is not an event! What is an event? "Event," 
 says Webster, "is that which comes, arrives, or happens; 
 that which falls out; any incident, good or bad." 
 
 Well, now, what is sin? "Sin is the transgression of 
 the law." Query: Did it ever occur that the law was 
 transgressed? or, if Dr. Rice prefers it, did it never hap- 
 pen that an act occurred embracing a sinful quality ? if so, 
 was this an event? Then sin is an event! But, again, 
 either all sin is eternal, or sins do come to pass in time, or 
 there is no sin. But Dr. Rice says, sin does not come to 
 pass in time; therefore, there is no sin, or all sins are 
 eternal. Which will the Doctor choose ? 
 
 But again: Dr. Rice quotes the Confession of Faith, to 
 prove that the Presbyterian Church believe that God per- 
 mitted sin. What does he mean by this ? Permitted sm — 
 how? in what sense? Permitted it to come to pass? 
 Can he mean any thing else ? But he says, it is an abuse 
 of language to say sin came to pass ! Will the gentleman 
 help us here? 
 
 He says, also, concerning sin, "that God decreed to 
 order, govern, and bound them." What does he mean by 
 this? That God bounds and governs qualities, or events 
 and things — the acts of men and angels ? 
 
 But I have perpetrated a great blunder — am guilty 
 of a great abuse of language — in making sin a thing — 
 an event — in saying it comes to pass! It is not any 
 thing! It is not an event! It never did come to pass! 
 So says Dr. Rice, and he ought to know. Hencefortn 
 let it be known, sin is a quality! an abstraction! It 
 is an abuse of language to say, men commit sin, oi 
 
APPENDIX. 281 
 
 to speak of it as a thing that is effected or brought 
 to pass? What men do, or think, or purpose, are not 
 sins — nothing could be Tnore unscholarly than to say they 
 are. 
 
 But, now, if it should seem to my readers, after all, that 
 gin is something, and not nothing, my argument, by tacit 
 admission of Dr. Rice, bears unanswerably against his 
 system. 
 
 I could very easily show, that all his authors, the Con- 
 fession, and God himself, speak of sin in the same manner 
 in which I speak of it — as an event — an action ; of course, 
 the action nor event are ever stripped of their qualities. 
 But really this is too ridiculous: it shows to what an 
 extremity a man will permit himself to be driven in sup- 
 port of a bad cause. I have met with many attempts to 
 escape the difficulty; but this last, I must admit, in justice 
 to my distinguished antagonist, is the climacteric. He 
 admits that God decreed all acts and events, but not 
 their quality. Now, look at this. He decreed every blas- 
 phemy, every murder, every theft, every enormity, with 
 every intention — and his decree necessitated their occur- 
 rence; but he did not decree sin, and his decree did not 
 necessitate the occurrence of sin. Very well. Now, ad- 
 mit that sin is a quality separate from all these acts and 
 intentions — the idea of which is preposterous- — ^}^et can the 
 acts and intentions exist without the sins? Will Dr. Rice 
 say they can? If they cannot, if the thing is impossible, 
 does not the decree, which necessitates the act and inten- 
 tion, necessitate the quality of sin, also ? 
 
 I this moment observe, that Dr. Rice speaks of sin as 
 action in this very connection, showing how error causes 
 its advocates to blunder and fall in its defense. He saj^s, 
 "It is true that events come to pass, in connection with 
 whif'h men commit sin." What does this mean. Doctor? 
 Do men commit qualities, or acts? Sin is not an event — 
 24 
 
282 APPENDIX. 
 
 not an act. When men commit sin, what do they commit ^ 
 something or nothing ? 
 
 Doctor, what do you suppose candid, thoughtful men 
 must think of a system admitting no better defense than 
 you find yourself able to make here? In all candor, are 
 you not ashamed of such quibbling yourself! Come, sir, 
 come, put it away — discuss this subject, for once, in a 
 manner worthy of yourself and worthy of it. 
 
 But I thank you for admitting that God has decreed all 
 events and actions, in a manner which necessitates their 
 existence. This is making some progress, and looks as 
 though you were about to give up your subterfuge of 
 permission, and come out an up and down Calvinist. 
 Stick to this, and you will fare much better than by at- 
 tempting to defend two contradictory systems. 
 
 "2. Mr. Foster is wholly unable to understand, that 
 God may direct certain acts, without being chargeable 
 with the sin men commit in performing those acts ; and he 
 IS quite certain, that if the act can be attributed to God, 
 the feeling or motive which prompts it, must also be at- 
 tributed to him. Strange that a man should so stumble 
 and blunder concerning a principle perfectly familiar to 
 every tliinking mind. Joseph's brethren hated him, and 
 determined to kill him; but Reuben persuaded them to 
 put him in a pit, 'that he might rid him out of their 
 hands, and deliver him to his father again.' (Genesis 
 xxxvii, 21, 22.) Now, was not Reuben the author, in an 
 important sense, of the act of putting Joseph into the 
 pit? But for his influence that act would not have been 
 performed. But was he chargeable with the sin com- 
 mitted by his brothers in performing the act ? They were 
 influenced by malignant feelings; he by benevolent feel-- 
 ings. The act, so far as Reuben was concerned, was 
 good ; so far as his brothers were concerned, it was bad. 
 They would have killed him ; Reuben persuaded them 
 
APPENDIX. 283 
 
 to do a different thing, which, though it gratified their 
 revenge, offered the prospect of saving him." 
 
 Here follows a number of quotations from the Bible ; but 
 as they do not bear on the point in dispute, and as what is 
 given is a specimen, we need not insert them in full. 
 
 The Doctor here takes up what he calls my second diffi- 
 culty ; and he says *'it is to understand how God may 
 direct to certain acts, without being chargeable with the sin 
 men commit in performing those acts." Query: Why did 
 not Dr. Rice state my difficulty in my own language ? Why 
 does he scrupulously avoid giving my arguments in his 
 replies? Can any body guess? Does the Doctor know? 
 Does the Doctor know why he will not examine my repHes 
 even, if he supposes himself able, triumphantly, to defend 
 his cause? 
 
 My difficulty, which the Doctor is here trying to state 
 and remove, is this : not to distinguish between an act and 
 its morality, but to separate morality from an act and its 
 intention. My language is this: "There is a discrimination 
 between the sinful act and the sin of the act. This is cor- 
 rect. An act and its sinfulness are certainly distinct. (Act 
 is here spoken of as free from the intention.) Sin resides 
 in the intention, not the act. Well, then, is this the mean- 
 ing of our Calvinistic brethren, that, though God's decree 
 is the efficient cause of the sinful act, as an act, it is not the 
 cause of its sin ; for the sin is in the sinner's intention in 
 committing it? But, then, a question arises right here: 
 Was not the sinner's intention decreed ? If you answer me 
 no, then there is something which comes to pass which was 
 not decreed. If you answer yes, and the sin Avas in the 
 intention, then God, who was the author of the intention, 
 was author of the sin." 
 
 Now, Dr. Rice must know that the point I make here is 
 (his: that God has decreed all acts, with the intentions 
 that produced these acts, and, hence, that he decreed sin, 
 
284 APPENDIX. 
 
 bccaivse the act and the intention do constitute the sin — the 
 sinful quahty must necessarily belong to them — they aie 
 the sin itself. 
 
 It K ould be a useless task to take up the cases he intro- 
 duces to assist him, because they do not touch the point in 
 dispute between us ; but to show you how superficial th.^.y 
 are, we will take up the first. To show that an act may be 
 bad or good, in itself considered — a thing not disputed— 
 and, hence, to decree an act is not to decree its quality, he 
 takes up the case of Joseph's brethren. He says, "Now, 
 w^as not Reuben the author, in an important sense, of the 
 act of putting Joseph into the pit ? But was he chargeable 
 with the sins committed [that is, qualities committed] by 
 his brothers in performing the act? They were influenced 
 by malignant feelings ; he, by benevolent feelings. The act, 
 so far as Reuben was concerned, was good; but, so far 
 as his brothers were concerned, it was bad." Now, with 
 this statement of the Doctor I agree perfectly. But, now, 
 mark. Why was the act good in Reuben? Because his 
 intention was good. Why was the act had — acts, you see, 
 are sins — in his brothers? Because their intention was bad. 
 But whence came that intention ? Dr. Rice says God de- 
 creed it, in a manner to necessitate its existence. If God's 
 decree was the cause of the intention, and sin was in the 
 intention, who caused the sin? Doctor, will you tell us? 
 Every other case admits of the same easy answer, in a word. 
 
 " The Scriptures abound in such facts — facts which Mr. 
 Foster, soaring aloft in the airy regions of abstract logic, 
 did not think worth while to notice. His arguments are 
 not against Calvinism — they are against the inspiration of 
 the Bible. In his zeal to pull down Calvinism, he has struck 
 at the foundations of Christianity. In his anxiety to furnish 
 his Methodist brethren with arguments, he has furnished 
 the infidel with arguments no less conclusive. If we were 
 an mfidel, we could desire no better arguments against the 
 
APPENDIX, 285 
 
 truth of the Bible than those of Mr. Foster, if they are 
 at all sound. With those arguments we would prove, not 
 that Calvinism destroys man's free agency and account- 
 ability, and makes God the author of sin, but that the Biblo 
 is liable to these charges !" 
 
 The Doctor does not like my logic. I do not wonder at 
 this. It is very natural he should not. But I am at some 
 loss to know how the truths of logic and the truths of 
 Scripture conflict w*ith each other. Perhaps the Doctor 
 will enlighten us here. And as for Scripture facts, I am 
 prepared to examine any that shall be submitted upon the 
 real points at issue; and I further boldly deny, that Dr. 
 Rice can find any passage of Scripture sustaining what I 
 object to. I defy the gentleman to produce it. Let him 
 do so, before he accuses me of using logic in opposition to 
 the Bible. He says, "My arguments are not against Cal- 
 vinism — they are against the inspiration of the Bible. In 
 his zeal to pull down Calvinism, he has stnick at the 
 foundations of Christianity." I suppose the Doctor means 
 Calvinism is Christianity! I cannot perceive how other- 
 wise his strange charge is to be understood. But what a 
 posture is this for Dr. Rice, the champion of Calvinism! 
 How are the mighty fallen ! He finds he cannot answer 
 my logic, and, hence, deprecates its use. My arguments 
 are unanswerable ; and he cries the ark is in danger — " to 
 your tents, Israel!" . He says, "With those arguments 
 we would prove, not that Calvinism destroys man's free 
 agency and accountability, and makes God the author of 
 sin, but that the Bible is liable to these charges." Docs 
 the gentleman mean that the Bible is hable to these charges ? 
 If so, of course he believes them ; for he believes the Bible. 
 If not, of course he does not believe the arguments suffi- 
 cient to convict the Bible; and why, then, would he use 
 them against it? But who, besides Dr. Rice, has ever 
 imagined that my letters assailed the Bible? 
 
286 APPENDIX. 
 
 "Mr. Foster seems wholly unable to comprehend, what 
 i3 perfectly plain, that the same moral feeling may lead to 
 the commission of any one of fifty acts. And hence he 
 argues, ihat if God decreed to bring to pass a certain event, 
 he must have decreed to produce in the heart the moral 
 feeling by which that event is brought to pass. A man 
 Jiates another. Under the influence of that hatred he may 
 slander him ; he may injure his property; he may institute 
 vexatious civil suits; he may insult him; he may striki 
 him. A man is ambitious; and his ambition may be grati- 
 fied in many ways. To what particular acts it may lead 
 him, will depend entirely upon the circumstances in which 
 he may be placed. A man is covetous. His covetousness 
 makes him desire to accumulate money and property; but 
 there are many ways in which this may be done. What 
 particular acts his love of money may lead him to perform, 
 depends upon what moral principle he has, and by what 
 circumstances he may be surrounded. Now, all that Cal- 
 vinists hold on this subject, is simply, that God decreed to 
 permit the fall and sinfulness of men, and that he decreed 
 so to control their sinful dispositions, as to bring to pass his 
 wise and holy ends. That he did permit the fall and the 
 depravity of men, Mr. Foster will not deny. That he exer- 
 cises a controlling providence over the wicked, the Bible 
 most abundantly teaches. 
 
 "The enlightened Calvinist has no insuperable difficulty 
 in finding a satisfactory explanation of these things. God 
 purposed to permit the temptation and the fall of our first 
 parents. In consequence of that event all their posterity 
 are sinful. God, withdrawing from them his divine influ- 
 ence, permits them to be so ; but he does not allow them 
 to wander abroad uncontrolled. In its native freedom, * the 
 heart of a man deviscth his w^ay ;' but in his divine sover- 
 eignty * the Lord directeth his steps.' " 
 
 This paragraph is, if possible, still more remarkable than 
 
APPENDIX. 287 
 
 either of the former. I have read from Dr. Rice's pen for 
 some years; but the inaccuracies of this letter are more 
 unaccountable than in any of his former writing that has 
 come under my observation. I attribute this to the badness 
 of his cause, and his evident confusion. He says, "Mr. 
 Foster seems wholly unable to comprehend, what is per- 
 fectly plain, that the same moral feelings may lead to the 
 commission of any one of fifty acts." Where did you learn 
 this, Doctor? I assure you it is news to me. I have many 
 difficulties, upon some of which I have asked your assist- 
 ance; but this I never dreamed of in my life. "And 
 hence," he says, "he argues, that if God decreed to bring 
 to pass a certain event, he must have decreed to produce 
 in the heart the moral feeling by which that event is 
 brought to pass. A man hates another. Under the influ- 
 ence of that hatred he may slander; he may injure his 
 property; he may institute vexatious civil suits," etc. I 
 suppose the Doctor means that I argue, that if God decreed 
 the event or act, he decreed the sin. If this is his meaning, 
 I answer yes. For if God decreed all things whatsoever 
 come to pass, he decreed the act and the intention, and the 
 state of heart that produced them; for these all come to 
 pass. If he decreed that a man should slander another, or 
 kill, or any otherwise injure, and if these things proceed 
 from intention, and this intention springs from hatred, and 
 all these come to pass, he decreed them all ; for he decreed 
 whatsoever comes to pass. 
 
 The Doctor does not seem to remember, that though a 
 great diversity of bad acts can flow from one bad feeling, 
 yet not one of them can flow, as a bad act, without the 
 feeling. 
 
 He says, "The enlightened Calvinist has no insuperable 
 difficulty in finding a satisfactory explanation of these things. 
 God purposed to permit the temptation and fall of our first 
 parents." Is permitting it decreeing it. Doctor? I ai^k 
 
288 APPENDIX. 
 
 you this short question. You will never answer it! You 
 cannot ! Its answer is fatal to Calvinism. 
 
 *' Such arguments are proper weapons of infidelity ; they 
 bok exceeding badly in a Christian minister. Let hinc 
 come down from his airy logic, and grapple with Bible 
 facts, and we will hear him patiently." When Dr. Rice 
 shows that my logic is bad, it will then be time to attend 
 to Bible facts. First let us know what the system is ; then 
 inquire whether it is found in the Bible. I am ready, how- 
 ever, at any time, to hear Dr. Rice prove Calvinism from 
 the Bible. Will he ever do it ? I have no fear that any 
 of our readers will suppose that I have less reverence for 
 that book than my friend has. I am ready to show that 
 the Scriptures sustain against his system all the objections 
 I have laid. If the system is logically liable, it cannot 
 escape. This is the first question. In conclusion, I repeat 
 that I am now noticing Dr. Rice's seventh letter, diiect and 
 indirect, and as yet he wavers as to the mode and point of 
 attack. Will he ever come up to it? 
 
 NUMBER v. 
 
 Dr. Rice notices me in two columns of his last issue. He 
 reiterates the charges of slander, and misrepresentation, 
 but, as usual, without bringing a solitary proof to sustain 
 it, or attempting to refute or correct a single statement I 
 have made. But my readers will remember that I have 
 not made a single charge against him which I have not 
 sustained by numerous arguments and authorities. Why 
 does not the gentleman attend to these ? 
 
 It is a plain case. Do I sustain my charges against him ? 
 If I do, he is not slandered. If I do not, cannot Dr. Rice, 
 the acute polemic, expose the fallacy? I regret to see 
 ebullitions of feeling upon the part of the gentleman ; but 
 1 can only remind him of former times, when he was in a 
 better humor with himself — he may find comfort in the 
 reference. His appeal to Presbyterian ministers is amusing. 
 
APPENDIX. 289 
 
 vVLat, sir, have we not your Confession of Faith, and the 
 'vorks of your great men, hving and dead ? Are not these 
 tlie exponents of your creed ? The question between us, 
 and at the bar of the pubhc, is simply this: Have I cor- 
 rectly stated these authorities? What are the logical con- 
 sequences flowing from them? This is a question easily 
 settled. That you would be glad to have a jury of Presly- 
 terian preachers to settle the matter between us, I have no 
 doubt. / have great respect for these brethren, hut will 
 txcuse them, on the same principle that relatives are excused 
 in important civil suits. But I must protest that I neither 
 think them vile nor unlearned, but believe them generally a 
 pious and worthy class of men. I further believe that, if 
 they were the court, they would admit that I have correctly 
 stated their system. But they will disclaim the conse- 
 quences I deduce. But the point is not to disclaim, but to 
 disprove- This, sir, troublesome as it is — and I know it 
 exceedingly vexes you — is what you must do. 
 
 He repeats in this number the learned argument (!) about 
 sin not being a thing or event. What has been said above 
 will satisfy the gentleman on this subject; but I predict he 
 will never show it to his readers. 
 
 He next gives a long list of quotations from Calvin, dis- 
 claiming the consequences charged against him. But are 
 disclaimers arguments? Suppose a volume of such quota- 
 tions were given — a thing I could easily do myself, and so I 
 notified my readers at first — what avail would it be ? If 
 Calviif, and all Calvinistic authors, teach contradictory doc- 
 trines, or embrace premises, but deny the logical consequences, 
 are they, for this reason, to stand acquit, and those who 
 show the consequences to be accounted slanderers ? Such 
 letters as Dr. Rice's may satisfy his people — this is their 
 object. He may persuade them that somebody is greatly 
 traducing their faith ; but what will all candid men think 
 of such defense by such a man ? What a strange reluctance 
 
 25 
 
290 APPENDIX, 
 
 Dr. Rice has to make a definite issue on any point or argu- 
 ment ! Why is this ? He accuses me of slander — he deals 
 in generals — he stands aloof from all issues. Piesbyterians, 
 what do you think of such defense? Many of you will 
 think for yourselves. Will you be content witn this ? Is 
 this the strength of your champion ? Here I distinctly 
 challenge Br. Mice: he accuses me of misrepresentation; I 
 challenge him to specify in what particular. I have stated 
 fiis system, and then I have deduced logical consequences. I 
 defy the gentleman to make good his charge of misrepreseiito 
 tion. Now let him do it — let him specify. Eight replies, 
 direct and indirect, and no issue yet ! What must be the 
 confusion and trouble of Dr. Hice when such is the case ! 
 What must the strength of the argument be which keeps 
 him thus in abeyance ! 
 
 NUMBER VI. 
 
 The course of Dr. Rice, with respect to my letters, thus 
 far, has, at least, afforded some amusement to many ob- 
 servers. The amusement may, indeed, in many instances, 
 have amounted to innocent merriment. His confusion and 
 flounderings — his bold and resolute assaults and rapid re- 
 treats — his fruitless effort to escape, or cover up the points 
 in debate — his boastings, and pious horrors, and suppliant 
 entreaties — his evident bad spirits, with his endeavor to 
 seem in good heart — all taken together, combined with the 
 recollection of the man who enacts the scene, constitute an 
 exhibition provoking, at the same time, an involuntary smile 
 and a sense of pity. 
 
 First he ridicules ; then he becomes demure and morose ; 
 then he commences a stately defense, in articles regularly 
 numbered; then he stops still; then he turns round, and 
 riommences anew at No. 1 again ; then he denies and dis- 
 claims; then he attacks: thus he runs through eleven 
 'etters, without making a single intelligible issue with a 
 single proposition I have made. His best performances I 
 
APPENDIX. 291 
 
 have quoted fully to my readers, and they can judge about 
 the correctness of this representation. Verily, Calvinism 
 has found but a feeble defense in this instance. But it is 
 not Dr. Rice's fault — he wants neither the will nor the abil- 
 ity to defend it to the utmost it will admit of — it is the 
 fault of the system. He has done nobly. What more 
 could he have done? Has he not cried "misrepresen- 
 tation?" Has he not refused to meet all the issues? Has 
 he not faithfully kept all my charges from his people ? Has 
 he not done his best to divert attention? Has he not 
 praised the system, and told his readers what could be 
 done, and what has been done a thousand times ? Has he 
 not quoted sentiments, from his authors, precisely contra- 
 dictory to the sentunents I quoted from the same authors ? 
 Has he not declaimed against logic as a weapon of infi- 
 delity ? Nay, more : has he not assumed to be an outright 
 Arminian? What more could the gentleman have done? 
 I say again, if it all fails, it is not his fault. He has strug- 
 gled nobly, and with his accustomed tact. The system 
 alone is to blame. I hope Presbyterians will understand 
 tliis. Let not your wrath come down upon the Doctor. 
 He has done all that mortal could do, and you should do 
 your utmost to comfort him. Make the best of a bad 
 cause. 
 
 In his last, with admirable precision, he runs the same 
 old round of his former nine. First, he enters a denial of 
 my charges, and declares me a false accuser; but not a 
 word, not an allusion, to my arguments or authorities ! A 
 conclusive mode of reasoning, as you all know! It tears 
 arguments and authorities right up by the roots! It is 
 good old Calvinistic, Geneva logic! Then he quotes dis- 
 claimers from the authorities employed by us ! An admi- 
 rable method of meeting logical consequences! Nothing 
 could be more to the point than this! "A man," says 
 John Smith, "is a murderer; and whoever murders deserves 
 
202 APPENDIX. 
 
 to be hanged." A listener says, "Then John Sm»th de- 
 serves to be hanged." The former speaker becomes en- 
 n.ged ; says he is misrepresented — he never said John 
 Smith deserved the fate of hanging! It's logic! He is 
 not accountable for logic! It is an infidel weapon! He 
 does not believe what is charged against him! He does 
 not believe, more than his accuser, that John Smith ought 
 to be hanged! Of course, the disclaimer annihilates the 
 logic! Nobody will presume to doubt it! Nobody will 
 believe that he said or thought that John Smith ought to 
 be hanged ! 
 
 The Doctor follows his declamation with this fatal ad- 
 mission : " We denounce that doctrine [the doctrine I 
 charged upon Calvinists] as unequivocally as he does ; and 
 we readily admit that he has proved it perfectly absurd and 
 blasphemous." Thus, it will be perceived, the cogency and 
 correctness of my arguments is admitted. The doctrines I 
 antagonize, it is confessed, are shown to be perfectly absurd 
 and blasphemous/ This is Dr. Rice's judgment. Well, now, 
 my readers know perfectly well, that these very doctrines 
 are quoted alo7ie and only from the Confession of Faitli, 
 and such authors as Calvin, Edwards, Buck, Witsius, Dick, 
 etc. Are these Calvinistic authorities, or not? If so, the 
 doctrines proved to be perfectly absurd and blasp)hemous, 
 Dr. Rice himself being judge, are Calvinistic; and so 
 Calvinism, in the judgment of its champion, is absurd and 
 blasphemous! What worse than this have I said of it? 
 
 He next introduces, as wont, the doctrine of permission, 
 but, of' course, without alluding to the fact that I have tri- 
 umphantly exposed the fallacy. He has no idea of letting 
 his readers know what weakness marks his defense — what 
 contradictions he is involved in. He knows too much, as 
 an old and practiced polemic, to quote arguments which he 
 cannot answer, or to admit replies which uncover his naked- 
 ness. He never will do this. 
 
APPENDIX. 203 
 
 The learned Doctor, having thus lucidly, and creditahU 
 to himself, defended his own system, proceeds, in answer to 
 the inquiry, " Are our Methodist brethren free from diffi- 
 culty upon this subject?" to make quotations from Wesley 
 and Watson, which, Ave infer, he supposes involve us in 
 similar difficulties to those besetting his own system, which 
 he admits is shown to be absurd and blasphemous ; but I 
 confess I have not discernment enough to perceive the diffi- 
 culty. I find nothing objectional in the quotations. I find 
 no logical consequences that give me a moment's uneasiness. 
 When the gentleman names consequences, or premises, 
 which he deems objectional, we may help him. He prom- 
 ises to do this. In the meantime, will he attend to the 
 matters in hand ? Will he reheve his own system ? Come, 
 Doctor, keep in good heart. You have a troublous task, it 
 is true ; but keep up your spirits — don't get out of humor — 
 do the best you can, and, for your encouragement, always 
 remember, nobody will censure you in the event of failure 
 and defeat. Your abilities are admitted, and it will be set 
 down to the fact that you have a bad cause. 
 
 NUMBER VII. 
 
 This letter, as the former, starts out with the stereotyped 
 charge of misrepresentation. The point here named is this : 
 he says that I attach to the word necessity the idea of com- 
 pulsion; although Calvinistic writers have been careful to 
 say that they use it in no such sense — that by the word 
 necessity they mean only certainty. To this statement I 
 reply, 1. It is not correct in point of fact. Calvinists do 
 not attach the simple idea of certainty to necessity — and 
 here I will join particular issue with Dr. Rice whenever he 
 chooses — ^but they do attach to their use of the term 
 necessity the idea of an inevitable effect following a pre- 
 ceding cause. 2. I deny that Calvinists, as a class, have 
 been careful to state that they use it in no such sense. 
 3. I assert, they cannot, in consistency with their system. 
 
204 APPENDIX. 
 
 employ it simply in this sense. Dr. Rice cannot sustain his 
 issue. Let him try it. 
 
 He next proceeds to discuss the doctrine of election. Ho 
 makes his statement of the doctrine ; and, though there is 
 an evident effort to obscure or vail its fiercer features, he 
 admits all that we could desire, to warrant our statement 
 of this point, deduced from other and more distinguished 
 authors. He says, *'What is the doctrine of election? 1. 
 Not that God, from eternity, determined to save any of the 
 human race in their sins, but that he determined to work in 
 a great number to will and to do — to call them, by his word 
 and Spirit, out of darkness into his marvelous light — to 
 sanctify and to save them. 2. Not that he determined to 
 prevent others from repenting and believing in Christ, but 
 simply to pass them by, leaving them to their own free choice. 
 3. Not that he determined to punish any, without regard 
 to their moral character, but only for their sins. 4. Not 
 that God has not the best reasons for choosing some to 
 life, and passing by others, but that the reasons are not 
 found in the foreseen goodness of the formei', and are not 
 revealed to us. 5. Not that the atonement of Christ -is 
 not, in its nature, sufficient for all, or is not offered to all 
 Avho hear the Gospel, but that he particularly desig^icd by 
 it to redeem to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good 
 works'' Every one will admire the prudence and precau- 
 tion, not to say timidity, with which the Doctor has selected 
 his ground. But, in despite of all his pains to cover it up 
 with a lamb's skin, or invest it in a dove's feathers, the 
 claws and teeth of the monster will appear. He does nobly 
 to keep them out of view ; but it is of no avail. After all, 
 it is the same old monster, which the honest Calvin ex- 
 hibited without a covering, labeled election and reprobation, 
 which he admitted himself was most horrible. Election, 
 Dr. Rice says, "is the determination, from eternity, to work 
 in a great number to will and to do — to sanctify and save 
 
APPENDIX. 295 
 
 them." Of course, their salvation is inevitable, or the de- 
 termination of God must fail. All the consequences charged 
 m my letters follow. But, again : election is the determina- 
 tion, from eternity, ''to pass by" those not elected, "leaving 
 them to their own choice." Of course, if they were passed 
 by, they could not be saved; and, if they could not be 
 saved, they must necessarily and inevitably be damned; 
 and so, again, all the consequences charged in my letters 
 follow. If they are punished simply for their sins, they 
 are punished for what was inevitable to them; because, 
 being passed by, they could not avoid sinning. So the 
 Doctor, notwithstanding all his effort to soften down the 
 asperities of the doctrine, beheves outright in eternal elec- 
 tion and reprobation ; that is, that a certain definite number 
 of the human race were elected, by a determination which 
 cannot fail, to be saved — ^that another definite number were 
 reprobated to be damned, being so passed by, that they 
 could not, by any possibility, avoid damnation. The gen- 
 tleman has committed himself here ; and now, how perfectly 
 ridiculous his former disclaimers, when, by his own state- 
 ment, he is involved in the very worst consequences charged 
 upon him! But, again: election "is not that the atonement 
 is not sufficient for all, but that he particularly designed by 
 it to redeem to himself a peculiar people." Here, again, 
 in defiance of an effort to keep in the dark his beloved tenet 
 of Umited atonement, it will exhibit its deformities. The 
 atonement, though sufficient in itself for all, was not made 
 or designed for any but the peculiar people — the elect; for 
 the residue it was not an atonement, though sufficient to be 
 Df unlimited efficacy — ^it was not hmited in its sufficiency, 
 Dut in the will of God. All the consequences charged in 
 my letters follow. Those for whom it was not designed 
 cannot enjoy it — they are under an eternal necessity to be 
 damned. The gentleman never will state my objections on 
 this point, and attempt to remove them. His policy will be 
 
296 APPENDIX. 
 
 to Strike at tliem in a general manner, without letting his 
 readers know what they are, and close by telling them that 
 he has entirely met them. 
 
 Let the reader now remember, that Dr. Rice is convicted 
 upon his own statement — and I defy the gentleman to 
 escape — of beheving and teaching, that, by a determination 
 of God, from eternity, a certain number of men were as- 
 signed to eternal life, and a certain other number to eternal 
 death, in a way that the event must answer the determina- 
 tion : then let him refer to the many objections urged in our 
 letters against him, and it will be seen how dreadful is his 
 system, and how hopelessly he is involved in contradictions, 
 or, as he has unwittingly admitted, on another point, in ah- 
 surdity and hlasphemy. 
 
 He proceeds, having stated the doctrine of election, as 
 given above, to inquire how far Methodists and Calvinists 
 are agreed upon the subject. Upon this point I find no oc- 
 casion to make any remarks. If they agreed exactly, it 
 would not, in the slightest degree, relieve his system. But 
 though the statement he makes is, to some extent, inaccu- 
 rate, it is so innocent it needs no correction. If he wishes 
 to involve Methodism in the dilemmas which encompass 
 himself, he must strike more severely than this. We have 
 not been able yet even to feel the thrust. When he pre- 
 monished us several times of the "bottled thunder "he had 
 in reservation for us, we began to think, may-be, he had 
 discovered some crevice, or seam, where he would make 
 deadly onset ; but, when the threatened storm bursts, it is 
 but the cooing of the dove! We find no alarm! Twist 
 your cords again. Doctor, and lay on harder, or vre shall 
 not realize that the attack has commenced. 
 
 Having run the parallel, he next proceeds to take up the 
 objections urged in my letters. For once, he seems really 
 as though he were going to work like a man. He com- 
 mences at objection first; and you would imagine that now 
 
APPENDIX. * 297 
 
 comes the tug of war; but, lo! without delaying for a 
 moment to make battle, he says, "This objection is based 
 upon the false view of the doctrine of decrees," and, with 
 this masterly blow, flies from it as from the face of pesti- 
 lence. Wliat a Hercules! How masterly this mode of 
 argumentation ! 
 
 He then takes up objection second ; but here, as he can- 
 not but perceive, the point of the argument is misstated. 
 Our point is this: that persons are elected to salvation, 
 and decreed to damnation, irrespective of any conditions; 
 so that, as an unavoidable consequence, the event of their 
 salvation or damnation is in no sense under their control, 
 but is inevitably fixed, independently of them. They have 
 nothing whatever to do with it, as it was all fixed before 
 they had an existence, and for causes independent of them. 
 Let the gentleman meet this point, and he will meet one 
 point of difficulty. Will he grapple this objection ? If he 
 admits the point I make, he admits that neither sin nor 
 holiness were taken into the account, in the decree of elec- 
 tion and reprobation, unless sin and hohness are inevitable 
 to the subjects of them. If he denies the point, he, by- 
 necessary consequence, admits that the decree proceeded 
 upon foresight, and in consequence of some voluntary act 
 of the creature. The former involves him in all that I 
 charged in my letters — the latter is a desertion of Cal- 
 vinism. He says, "All that our Confession teaches upon 
 the subject is, that God chose to pass thein by, and punish 
 them for their sins." This is all we ask to justify all the 
 objections we have urged — this is unconditional reproba- 
 tion enough for us; and the gentleman will struggle till 
 doomsday to escape, and struggle in vain. Hear his feeble 
 attempt to sustain this position. I give it because it re- 
 sembles the forms of an argument, and looks as if he had 
 not forgotten that there is such a thing as reasoning. 
 
 "Now, was it unjust to pass them by, and not renew 
 
298 » APPENDIX. 
 
 their hearts? If so, God is bound to offer salvation to 
 men, and to exert upon them divine influence to induce 
 them to accept it; and then the whole plan is simply a 
 matter of justice, and not of grace toward men. If not, 
 who has the right to object to it as unjust?" This is a 
 refreshing specimen, I say> because it looks as though the 
 gentleman had some respect to rules of reasoning. But, 
 upon examination, it will appear that his logic is about 
 as objectionable as his theology. In the first place, the 
 premise does not contain the issue. It is not pretended 
 in our letters that it is unjust "to pass them by> and not 
 renew their hearts;'' but this is the point where injustice is 
 charged — the jMSsinff men hy, and leaving them ifi a state in 
 which it is impossible for them to have their hearts renewed, 
 and then damning them for not performing the impossibility. 
 This correction of the premises being made, the "if so/' 
 and "if not," of course, are not legitimate, ^nd the at- 
 tempted argument falls to the ground. The plan of sal- 
 vation is not a scheme of mere justice, and such a conse- 
 quence cannot be shown to result from the premises ; but if 
 it is not a plan of mere justice, so neither is it contrary to 
 justice — it is a scheme of mercy in harmony with justice. 
 The plan of Calvinists, as is abundantly shown, is neither 
 a plan of justice nor mercy, but is alike cruel and unjust. 
 Take another specimen of logic. I do not wonder that the 
 gentleman is on bad terms with logic ! I think it is on no 
 better terms with him ! He says, " Again : either the finally 
 impenitent will deserve eternal punishment for then* sins, or 
 they will not. If not, the penalty of God's law, which will 
 be executed upon them, is unjust; if so, Mr. Foster rep- 
 resents it as horrible that God should do what is perfectly 
 just." What is this argument intended and competent to 
 prove? This : that the final destruction of the impenitent 
 will be perfectly just. Who has ever questioned this ? No 
 Arminian. Not a word in my letters. On the contrary, 
 
APPENDIX. 299 
 
 1 contend that the damnation of the finally impenitent will 
 be perfectly just; and, because it will, I contend that 
 Calvinism is totally false. The gentleman supplies me with 
 a premise which overthrows his system. Here is my argu- 
 ment : the damnation of the finally impenitent is perfectly 
 just. But if that damnation were for a cause over which 
 the subject of it had no possible control, then it would be 
 unjust; for it would be damnation for not performing an 
 impossibility. But Calvinism teaches that the sinner's 
 damnation is for sins which he had no power to avoid; 
 hence, that it is unjust. Therefore, Calvinism is false, 
 because it makes the sinner's damnation unjust. Doctor, 
 try your hand on this logic : see how it suits you. 
 
 He next takes up my third objection, " that the doctrine 
 makes God a partial being, and destroys entirely the foun- 
 dation for the doctrine of grace;" and he absolutely/ refers 
 to my letter! He says, "See Letter VHI!" but where 
 shall his readers find it ? He is too shrewd to show them 
 any part of it ! He never would have told them to see it, 
 only he knew that most of them could not, and that his 
 reference would seem to imply a willingness on his part, 
 if it were possible — a show of confidence. To the objec- 
 tion, that his doctrine makes God a partial being, ne 
 attempts an answer, by giving AValker's definition of par- 
 tial: "A partial being is one who is inclined to favor 
 one party or person above another without reason." He 
 denies that God favors one above another without a rea- 
 6on. My readers must judge of this themselves, see- 
 ing what the system actually teaches, namely, that God 
 viewed all men as sinners, without a particle of difference 
 between them — in all respects exactly alike; and thus 
 beholding them, he chose A., B., C, and D. to eternal 
 life, and consigned E., F., G., and H. to an eternal hell. 
 Now, if this does not imply partiality, then I admit Cal- 
 vinism does not make God partial — he has not favored 
 
300 ' APPENDIX. 
 
 one person above another without reasons, such as acquit 
 him from partiahty — he has been equally kind to all. It 
 is a plain case : you will judge for yourselves. 
 
 He next attempts to show that the difficulty lies against 
 Methodism. Noav, if he could sustain this, he does not 
 help his own case; and his attempt shows evidence of 
 conscious weakness. He denies that his creed shows par- 
 tiality in God. He then endeavors to show that Meth- 
 odism is as liable as himself; but what he charges to 
 Methodism he believes, and much more : how then can he 
 pretend that Methodism is guilty, when he assumes that 
 he is not ? But his attempt to involve Methodism in this, 
 as in the former case, is fruitless. The particular in his 
 creed, on which we base the charge of partiality, Meth- 
 odists do not believe. If the charge lays against it justly, 
 it does not lay against Methodists, for Methodists do not 
 embrace it. If there are other things which the Metho- 
 dists do believe, in common with Calvinists, against which 
 the charge of partiality justly lays, then my objection is 
 still true, for the Calvinists are guilty with the Methodists. 
 But I defy the gentleman to sustain the charge against 
 Methodism, even in common with himself — ^much more do 
 I defy him to escape the odium of the charge, as bearing 
 specially against the doctrine of Calvinian election and 
 reprobation. The gentleman asks, in view of the fact 
 admitted by all, that there is a manifest difference in the 
 condition of men and nations, "How great a difference 
 may God make before he is chargeable with partiahty?" 
 He asks this question as though he thought it would be 
 difficult to answer, and as if it bore more upon others than 
 himself. I will answer it for him. God, as an impartial 
 being, is bound to deal with all men upon the same great, 
 immutable principles of wisdom, goodness, and justice — 
 never to deal unwisely, unkindly, or unjustly by any one — 
 not to be influenced by one set of principles toward one, 
 
APPENDIX. 301 
 
 and another set toward another. If the gentleman will 
 show that such is not the fact, he will show that God is a 
 partial being. I have shown that his system teaches that 
 such is not the fact, and, hence, that it is liable to the 
 charge of making God partial. . If he will show any thing 
 in Methodism that renders us liable, he will involve us, 
 together with himself, but will not relieve himself in the 
 slightest degree. The point for Dr. Rice, at present, is 
 either to admit the truth of my charge or escape from it. 
 But he never will do either. 
 
 I could wish, for the sake of Dr. Rice's reputation, and 
 the edification of our readers, that he would, in a more 
 sturdy manner, meet arguments ; but I suppose this is like 
 requiring impossibilities, and I must not do this. The char- 
 acter of his replies must explain the style of my rejoinders. 
 
 NUMBER VIII. 
 
 In the first part of this letter, the Doctor continues to 
 urge that Methodists are not free from difficulties on the 
 subject of election. To this I paid sufficient attention in 
 my last letter, as it forms no part of the present issue. 
 Indeed, as yet I see no occasion to vindicate our views upon 
 this subject— his remarks are so perfectly harmless. When 
 we see Methodism trembling under potent assault, we might 
 even turn aside from the point in debate to defend it; but 
 w^e cannot be decoyed without something more serious than 
 has yet been submitted. Our apprehensions are yet all 
 asleep. 
 
 The Doctor continues: "Mr. Foster, in his ninth letter, 
 presses with great earnestness the objection, that the doc- 
 trine of election is inconsistent with all those passages of 
 Scripture which teach that Christ died for all men. Now, 
 he ought to know that the word for, like all other preposi- 
 tions, has a number of meanings. What, then, does he 
 mean, when he affirms that Christ died for all men? Does 
 he mean, simply, that the atonement made by Christ is 
 
302 APPENDIX. 
 
 sufficient to save all men, if they would believe? If so, 
 we heartily agree with him. Does he mean that God de- 
 signed freely to offer salvation to all men, without distinc- 
 tion, through the atonement ? If so, we have no controversy 
 with him." To the above interrogations, abating the word 
 simply, as it occurs in them, I will answer, yes. We believe 
 that, in this sense, Christ died for all. But we believe 
 more than this. But, as our faith is, not the matter in 
 controversy, we need not name it. It is known of all men ; 
 it has no equivocations; it ^ simple and one. We are 
 under no necessity to resort to far-fetched explanations to 
 protect it, or make it understood. But I shall now show 
 you what difficulty he has involved himself in by his ad- 
 missions. He states just what I stated for him, in my 
 regular letter on this point; and all the difficulties there 
 named bear against him, and I defy the gentleman to 
 escape them. Corroborating the statement above, and im- 
 mediately following it, he says: "The Calvinistic doctrine 
 of election is, 1. The atonement of Christ is of infinite 
 value. 2 . Salvation, through Christ, is freely offered to 
 all." He admits these two propositions. But, now, mark : 
 lie believes, 3. That Christ died only for the elect, in the 
 eternal purpose of God — in other words, that his death 
 was limited, in the design of God, to a part of mankind, 
 and did not extend to the rest, in such a sense as to make 
 their salvation possible under the circumstances. I def}' 
 the gentleman to deny this statement. He dares not do it 
 He dares not say that Christ died for all men in such 
 manner, all the circumstances included, as to make their 
 salvation possible. Will he come out here? Here is the 
 precise point where we call upon him for light. 
 
 But, now, mark the difficulties resulting from his admis- 
 sions. " He believes that the atonement is of infinite value, 
 sufficient for all, if they would believe," What does the 
 gentleman mean, when he says the atonement is of infinite 
 
APPENDIX. 303 
 
 value — is sufficient for all? Does he mean that it was 
 sufficient to remove all the hinderances in the way of tho 
 salvation of all ? — that it was competent to save all ? Then 
 the question arises, why does it not save all? The gentle- 
 man must answer, because it was not desicfned for all ; the 
 limitation, then, is in the design of God. Is this so? then 
 the damnation of some arises purely from the sovereign 
 design, or will of God, that they should be damned. Look 
 at this. There was a sufficient atonement for all ; nothing 
 more was necessary. But God, of his own will, limited 
 what was sufficient for all to a part. Is it withheld from 
 any? it is because it is the will of God. Are they con-^ 
 sequently damned? it is because it is the will of God. 
 But, again: what does he mean when he says, "if they 
 would believe?" Does he know and teach that they cannot 
 believe, because Christ did not die for them ? Wh}^, then, 
 does he speak of faith in them as possible, "if they would 
 believe," when he knows they cannot? That very want of 
 faith is, according to his creed, the proof that Christ did 
 not die for them. His death was sufficient, but it never 
 was intended for them; God limited it to these, not to 
 them. It was no more possible to the reprobates than to 
 the devils; it was no more an atonement for them, than it 
 was for the devils. Now, Dr. Rice, no dodging here. If 
 you have the courage, come out and meet this point can- 
 didly, and in such a way, as to show where you stand. 
 Sir, at the risk of being called immodest, I say, you will not 
 dare to defend your ground here. You cannot escape by 
 an old trick — and it is well to remind you of it — by saying 
 that they are not saved because of unbelief. For, accord- 
 ing to your system, the very reason why they do not believe, 
 is, Christ did not die for them. Their unbelief is an effect 
 of the previous cause, that they were not atoned for — the 
 first cause why they are not saved is the want of an atone- 
 ment for them. 
 
J?04 APPENDIX. 
 
 And now, sir, we come to the second point: "Salvation 
 is freelj offered to all who hear the Gospel." You believe 
 all are invited to come to Christ. I ask, how they can be 
 invited to come, when Christ did not die for them; you 
 answer, "All may come, and all are, therefore, invited." 
 Now, here, again, I urge you, by your love of truth and 
 consistency, to meet this point openly and fairly. You say 
 that "all are invited to come to Christ, because all may 
 come." Dr. Rice, hear me patiently, when I say you do 
 not believe this proposition ; you cannot; you have imposed 
 upon yourself. In your zeal to reconcile your creed with 
 the Scriptures which antagonize it, you have overstepped 
 yourself — not intentionally, but certainly. This will appear 
 to yourself, if you will attempt to answer to yourself — and 
 I should like for you to answer them to the public — a few 
 questions. Is it possible for all men to come to Christ and 
 be saved? If you answer, yes, then it must be possible 
 for all men to have the will to come; for no man can 
 come without the will, and if any cannot have the will to 
 come, they cannot come. But you do not believe it possi- 
 ble for all to have the will to come, unless you believe 
 that it is possible for some to have a will different from that 
 which they actually have, under the circumstances, which 
 you know is not your faith. But, again : do you not believe 
 thatj though the atonement is sufficient for all in itself, yet 
 that it is limited, in the design of God, to a part — and that 
 another part are passed by, to whom it is not purposed to 
 be applied ? To this you must answer, yes. Well, if it is 
 limited, in the design of God, to a part, can those to whom 
 it is not extended ever enjoy it ? If you say, yes, then the 
 design of God must change or fail. If you say, no, then 
 you admit they cannot come. But, again: do you not 
 believe that the atonement is sovereignly applied to those 
 for whom it was made, before t\\Qj can come to Christ, m 
 their regeneration? You must answer, yes. Well, then, 
 
APPENDIX. 305 
 
 can those to whom it is not thus applied come to him ? If 
 you say, yes, you say a man may turn himself to God and 
 be saved; if you say, no, you say that none but those tc 
 whom it is sovereignly applied can come. 
 
 But, again : some of the human race will finally be lost. 
 Do you believe that those persons, who will so be lost, 
 ever had the power to come to Christ and be saved, undei 
 the circumstances and influences in which they were placed ? 
 If you answer, yes, then you admit that their salvation was 
 in their own power, and might have been achieved by their 
 own exertions. If you answer, no, you admit that these 
 persons never could come to Christ. 
 
 But, again: you believe that a definite number of the 
 human race were elected unto everlasting life, and a definite 
 number not elected. Now, answer me this question: do 
 you believe that any but the elect can be saved? You 
 must answer me, no or yes. If yes, then a man may be 
 saved whom God passed by, and never chose to be saved ; 
 if no, then those passed by could not, cannot, come to 
 Christ, to be saved ; the thing is impossible. 
 
 If you still say the thing is impossible, because of the 
 will, I charge you, as you dread to mislead and deceive the 
 ignorant, that you say, at the same time, that the will to 
 come is not possible to the creature unless it is given ; and 
 it is only given to those for whom Christ died, and, there- 
 fore, that those who have not the will, have it not because 
 Christ did not die for them. 
 
 Sir, you know, that those for whom Christ did not die, 
 m the 2'>urpose of God, cannot come to him. How, then, I 
 ask you, in the name of all that a Christian, above all, a 
 Christian minister, should hold dear — how can you say you 
 invite them, because they may come? There is a feast 
 spread for a thousand guests, but is designed for only 
 five hundred particular persons: it is impossible that any 
 others should come. These five hundred are vonder, in au 
 26 
 
306 APPENDIX. 
 
 assemblage of a thousand. Now, how can the master of 
 the feast send his servant to mvite the thousand, without 
 the charge of insincerity ? Again : suppose that, of the one 
 thousand, the five hundred for whom the feast is not in- 
 tended are chained, so that they cannot move until the 
 master of the feast unloose them — ^how can they be invited 
 to come without sheer mockery? The cases are precisely 
 analogous if you add, that, for not complying with the base, 
 heartless invitation, those who refuse are to be doomed to 
 nameless tortures! 
 
 But if Christ did not die for all, why are reprobates 
 commanded lo beheve? Dr. Rice undertakes to answer 
 this question He says, " Because it is their duty to be- 
 lieve." Let us look at this. What is it that is required 
 of the reprobates ? To believe on Jesus Christ, in order to 
 salvation. This, Dr. Rice says, is their duty. Now, if 
 Jesus Christ did not, in the design of God, die for these 
 persons, which Dr. Rice contends is the fact, then it is cer- 
 tain he is not their Savior — he has no salvation for them. 
 If he has, it is contrary to the design of God ; but if he 
 has not, then. Dr. Rice says, it is the duty of reprobates to 
 believe a lie ; and, for not believing a lie, they are damned ! 
 Will the gentleman inform us how he escapes this ? But, 
 further, if it is the duty of reprobates to believe in Christ, 
 they either can believe, or they cannot. If they can, they 
 may come to Christ ; and they will be either saved or not. 
 If they will be saved, they will be saved by beheving a he, 
 and by a Savior who never died for them ; if not, they will 
 faisify Dr. Rice's creed and the Scriptures, which equally 
 teach that whosoever believeth shall be saved ! Will the 
 Doctor help us here ? If they are not able to beheve in 
 Christ, and yet it is made their duty to believe in hun, 
 then it is made their duty to do an impossibiUty ; and if 
 they are damned for not performing their duty, they are 
 damned for not doing an impossibility ! 
 
APPENDIX. 307 
 
 What a most remarkable sentence is the following, to 
 come from the pen of Dr. Rice ! " Since salvation is freely 
 offered to all, and all are free to accept or reject it, there is 
 no inconsistency in inviting all, and no injustice in the con- 
 demnation of those who abide in unbelief." Look at this. 
 If salvation is freely offered to all, and if Christ did not die 
 for all, then salvation is freely offered to some for whom 
 there is no salvation, or else there is salvation for some for 
 whom Christ did not die ! What an offer is this ! Is it not 
 hypocritical and empty ? Can it be any thing else ? And 
 who makes it? The God worshiped by Dr. Rice! 
 
 But, again: are all free to accept it? Then are some 
 free to accept what has no existence! What absurdities 
 beset this most miserable system at every point! When 
 will Dr. Rice extricate himself from the diflBculties he has 
 thus invested himself with ? Never ! He will not try — he 
 knows the thing is impossible! But this comes of his 
 fruitless effort so far. It is now proved by himself, that 
 my statements of his creed were true and correct, and that 
 the difficulties alledged are insuperable. 
 
 The Doctor proceeds to state, in his bland and Christian 
 manner, that " a more outrageous misrepresentation of 
 Calvinism was never made — more glaring injustice to 
 authors was never done. Our business has been that of 
 correction much more than argument ; for the correction of 
 misrepresentations is the best answer to arguments founded 
 upon them." Now, to this statement I find but one objec- 
 tion. Its style and spirit, of course, are unobjectionable! 
 Shall I say commendable ? The objection I make is this : 
 it is quite a small matter — it only relates to one word — ^the 
 Doctor, I think, will admit it, and then it will be a fine 
 paragraph. Let him strike out the word correction, and 
 substitute assertion; then it will be perfect. It will read, 
 " My business has been that of assertion much more than 
 argument." That is true, Doctor. No one who has been at 
 
308 APPENDIX. 
 
 the pains to read your singular replies, will doubt it for a 
 moment. But as for con-ections, I have yet to find a single 
 one. I defy you, sir, to name it. You have rej)eatedly 
 asserted that I misrepresented you, but, sir, you have nci. 
 corrected one of my statements; unless you consider your 
 assertions corrections ! I suppose this is your meaning. 
 
 In closing up this volume, I cannot avoid expressing 
 astonishment, that Calvinism should find favor and ad- 
 vocacy with wise and good men. It is most strange that 
 it should be so. No system is so encompassed with serious 
 difficulties. It is not less beset with contradictions than 
 Atheism itself. It is less defensible than Deism or Univer- 
 salism. Bhnd, universal skepticism would be a refuge to 
 reason and religion compared with it. Let it be under- 
 stood, we now speak of Calvinism proper — not of the 
 systems of faith in which it is included — not of the com- 
 munities embracing it. Calvinism, in the creeds of the 
 various Churches entertaining it, is surrounded with many 
 wholesome and saving truths — with, indeed, whatever is 
 essential to be believed ; but itself is an unmitigated blotch. 
 
 This is the reason why an effort is always made by its 
 advocates to disguise it — to explain it away — to mystify it. 
 This is the reason why it is reserved for special occasions — 
 why it is kept for the study, not for the pulpit — why, 
 when persons become troubled on account of it, they are 
 told th'i it is not a suitable subject for them to seek to 
 understand — ^why it is not made a condition of member- 
 ship in the Church — why, in a word, it has been debated 
 by its defenders whether or not it ought to be preached. 
 This is the reason why Dr. Rice has been so anxious to 
 escape from its examination — why he has perpetually de- 
 claimed about our misrepresentation — why he has avoided 
 to discuss the case upon its merits. He knows full well 
 it will not bear the light — that it can only be kept in 
 countenance by keeping the deceptive cover on it — that 
 
APPENDIX. 309 
 
 to stacc it is to damn it. Hence his fruitless attempt at 
 defense. His abilities — great, confessedly — liave failed him 
 in the support of such a cause. The cause has put him to 
 shame. 
 
 It has been no pleasure, but, on the contrary, extremely 
 painful to me, to make the plain statements contained in 
 the foregoing pages. Nothing but a provocation, which 
 it would have been unchristian to endure longer, could 
 have induced it — unchristian, because truth and righteous- 
 ness were suffering, and likely to suffer more by silence. 
 We would have been content to let this controversy slum- 
 ber for ever, leaving truth to work out error by a peaceable 
 process, which it was doing> rather than to have caused 
 pain to a single disciple of Christ — ^much more, rather than 
 to involve two large Christian bodies in unpleasant conflict. 
 We were willing for our friends to hold their opinions, 
 though we believed them erroneous, rather than to insult 
 and wound them, and provoke unkind feelings between 
 those who ought to be friends, leaving time and progress 
 to correct them. But nothing would do but controversy. 
 We, therefore, reluctantly yielded to the necessity. We 
 have spoken plainly, that we might be understood, and 
 sometimes, it would seem, severely; but God is our wit- 
 ness, we have not intended to be unkind — we do not feel 
 it in our hearts. We do not call in question the piety of 
 our opponents. They hold much truth. Many of them 
 have been, in the Church, high and shining lights. But as 
 the sun may have its spots, and yet be brilliant, so may 
 the wise and good err in judgment. We love the Pres- 
 byterian Church, and will still try to love it, and the 
 reverend Doctor with whom we have been engaged, just 
 as well as though nothing had passed. 
 
 We believe them in error, and have given our reasons; 
 but we claim no infaUibility — we dogmatize our opinions 
 upon nobody — they are uttered only in self-defense, and 
 
810 APPENDIX. 
 
 in defense of what we believe to be truth. Our readers 
 will judge for themselves of the merits of the perform- 
 ance. And, now, may God bless our humble endeavors 
 to do good, and bring both writer and reader to that 
 world, where we shall see as we are seen, and know as 
 we are known! Amen. 
 
 THB SND. 
 
Date Due 
 
 S '• - 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 V. 
 
 / 
 
 
 1 
 
 i.i«w*«»*^ 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 , K^V<''»^ 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 JUN3I 
 
 I2t50!' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MAY 8 
 
 ?on4 
 
 
 i 
 
 ^Ris; 
 
 !00S 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 • 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer 
 
 1 1012 01002 9397