'’’EOLOGl IP f \ V«Mu BT 20 . H377 Harris, D. Fisk. Calvinism Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/calvinismcontrar00harr_0 CALVINISM Contrary to God’s Word AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. BY y D. FISK HARRIS. "It is too frequent a custom of many readers to applaud or censure a book very highly , according to the opinion it favors , not according to the reason or argu¬ ment it produces. If the opinion be agreeable to the sentiments and language of any particular party which the reader has chosen , the arguments , though ever so common or trifling , are pronounced strong and cogent. On the other hand , if the opinion happen to be near akin to those of a contrary sect , then the arguments brought to support it are all trifling. The author is a heretic, and therefore his reasonings must needs be all weak and insufficient if not, dangerous and destructive." — Isaac Watts. Copyrighted and Published by the Author. 1890. Electrotyped and Printed by Woman’s Temperance Publishing Association, 161 Ea Salle St., Chicago. PREFACE. The title of this work sufficiently explains the author’s purpose. How far he has succeeded, the candid reader must judge. Were it not for the conviction that each generation must examine for itself the foundations upon which its faith rests ; that the times demand a reinvestigation of the cardinal prin¬ ciples of theology, and that he has something to say on these important themes, the author would not have obtruded himself upon the attention of the public. A few words concerning the methods employed. Calvinism has been, and even now is, so variously interpreted, that it has been deemed necessary to devote not a few pages to its legiti¬ mate exposition. Knowing that it is easy to misrepresent an opponent by carelessly quoting his opinions, the author has verified the greater number of references. Where this was impossible he has taken them from reliable sources. The arguments against Calvinism are cumulative. While each chapter combats a specific fallacy or unscriptural position, the reader is requested to waive his decision for or against the work until he has fairly considered the aggregated results. The work is necessarily polemical. Yet the author joy¬ ously remembers the holy character and unceasing Christian activities of his theological opponents. He would say in the words of John Wesley, “Though we can not think alike, may we not love alike ? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion ? ” Harmar) Ohio. CONTENTS. PART I. Page- What is Calvinism ? - - - - - n CHAPTER I. Calvinism and Augnstinianism the same in their Essen¬ tial Characteristics, - - - - 14 CHAPTER II. Are God’s Decrees Conditioned on His Foreknowledge, 1 7 CHAPTER III. Is God Able to Prevent Sin ? - - - 31 CHAPTER IV. Why are the Finally Impenitent Lost ? Is it Because God Can not save Them? - - - - 41 PART II. Calvinism Contrary to God’s Word, - - * 53 CHAPTER I. Calvinism Teaches a Limited Atonement, 55 Section i. Terms Defined — The Problem Stated, - 56 Section ii. Concessions of Calvinists — Illustrating Certain Passages of Scripture, - 61 Section hi. Are the Gospel Invitations Sincere ? - 67 Section iv. The Atonement an Expression of God’s Universal Love, 75 6 CONTENTS. Section v. The Salvation of all Men the Pleasure and Will of God, - - - - 84 CHAPTER II. Calvinism Teaches Infant Damnation, - - - no Section i. Does the Westminster Confession of Faith Teach Infant Damnation ? - - in Section 11. No Proof that only Elect Infants Die, 115 Section iii. Infant Condemnation was Taught Prior to the Westminster Assembly, - - 118 Section iv. Infant Condemnation Taught by the West¬ minster Assembly, - - - 12c Section v. The Doctrine More or Less Distinctly Taught Since the Westminster Assem¬ bly, ..... 1 22 CHAPTER III. Calvinism Contradicts the Bible by Declaring Saving Faith to b>e a Direct Gift of God, - - - 126 Section i. Calvinism Declares that Faith is not a Condition of Salvation, - - - 127 Section ii. The Importance of Faith, - - 130 Section iii. The Nature of Faith, - - - 136 Section iv. The Language of Scripture Presupposes and Asserts that P'aith which Worketh by Love is a Radical Condition of Sal¬ vation, ----- 137 Section v. How is Faith Obtained ? How does it Come ?----- 143 Section iv. Objections Considered, - - - 146 CHAPTER IV. For What are the Non-Elect Eternally Punished? - 168 Section 1. Can the Non Elect be Saved? - - 169 Section ii. How Certain Calvinists Vindicate the Di¬ vine Justice and Sincerity, - - 176 CONTENTS. 7 Section iii. Calvinism Teaches that the Non-Elect are Rejected and Condemned Irrespective of their Wicked Deeds or Character, 205 Section iv. The Doctrine Denied, and yet Granted by Some Calvinists, - - - - 212 Section v. The Doctrine Denied by some Calvinists, but Logically Necessitated by their Fundamental Position, - - 217 Section vi. The Bible Argument, ... 224 CHAPTER V. The Foreknowledge of God. How Related to His Will, 246 Section i. Is Divine Foreknowledge Possible ? - 247 Section ii. Calvinism Limits God’s Omniscience, 277 Section iii. The Bible Testimony Concerning the Di¬ vine Prescience and Will, - - 292 Note I., - - - - - - 311 Note II., ------- 312 PART III. Calvinism Contrary to Man’s Moral Nature, - - 319 CHAPTER I. Calvinism Makes God the Author of Sin, - - - 321 Section i. No Absolute Evil in the Universe, - 321 Section ii. God the Efficient Cause of Sin, - - 323 Section iii. The Infra or Sublapsarians declare that the Views of the Supralapsarians legiti¬ mately make God the Author of Sin, 325 Section iv. How some Calvinists Show that God is not the Author of Sin, - 327 Section v. God’s Will not the Criterion of Right, 340 Section vi. The Infralapsarian Scheme. Does it Solve the Problem ? 348 8 CONTENTS. Section vii. My Position Confirmed by Eminent Cal¬ vinists, - - - 35 2 Section viii. God not Guiltless, if He Permits, when He Could Prevent Sin, ... 358 Section ix. Some Objections Considered, - - 365 CHAPTER II. * Calvinism Contradicts Conscience, - 374 Section i. Calvinism Denies the Truthfulness of Re¬ morse, ----- 375 Section ii. Calvinism Contradicts the Ought of Con¬ science, - 380 Secton hi. In Denying the Ought of Conscience, Calvinism Contradicts the Divine Law, 387 CHAPTER III. Calvinism an Ally of Universalism, - - . 392 Section i. Calvinism and Universalism agree Con¬ cerning God’s Power, - - 394 Section ii. Calvinism and Universalism Substantially Agree Concerning the Good Uses of Sin and the Denial of Freedom, - - 398 Section hi. To a Large Extent Universalism is a Re¬ action Against Calvinism, - - 400 Section iv. As Universalism Becomes more Biblical, the Fundamental doctrine of Calvinism is Denied, ----- 403 Note III., ------- 408 PART I. WHAT IS CALVINISM? ‘ ‘ It can not be said that the slightest departure from the statements of Calvin is an abandonment of Calvinism. And yet there are some principles so distinctive, that if they be given up the system is abandoned.” — Alvan Tobey. ' . - ' ■ ' PART I. What is Calvinism? Among the friends of Calvinism two views exten¬ sively prevail. The first regards the system as con¬ siderably modified since the sixteenth century ; hence, any harsh statement made by an opponent is charac¬ terized as a misrepresentation. Possibly such things were once taught, but are not now, and therefore, they should not be designated as Calvinism. Again, it is constantly affirmed by others equally friendly, that Calvinism has not changed ; that its distinctive doctrines are taught now, as formerly, at the seminary and in the pulpit. Here, it would seem is conflicting testimony ; yet, possibly both parties are right. It is quite suggestive that the first position is more generally held by laymen, who, somewhat conscious of the repulsive features of Calvinism, desire to commend its doctrines. The other view extensively prevails among minis¬ ters and theologians ; hence, the divergence may be explained on the supposition that while the theology is held in its substantial integrity at the seminaries, and by all, or nearly all ministers at their ordination, yet as it is heard by the people, as it is preached by the majority of pastors, its most objectionable features have been greatly modified so as to mean almost noth¬ ing, or so explained as to teach Arminianism. ii 12 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD The present discussion in the Presbyterian church concerning the revision of the Westminster Confession has already clearly revealed the existence of these conflicting opinions.1 The following exposition of Calvinism by its ablest defenders is worthy the reader’s careful attention. l At a special meeting of the Presbytery of New York, Nov. 4, 1889, Dr. Sehaff read a paper oil Revision of the Westminster Confession. Dur¬ ing the reading he asked the brethren present if any of them ever preached on the decree of reprobation to manifest it by rising. No one rose. — Maga¬ zine of Christian Literature, Jan., 1S90, p. 204. CHAPTER I. Calvinism and Augustinianism the Same in Their Essential Characteristics. ‘ ‘ Our fathers had much discussion over the doctrine of decrees ; and, indeed, it is a wonder that we do not have more, for whoever looks into the mighty themes of a theodicy must regard election, decrees, foreordination, freewill, fate, these matters concern¬ ing which the angfels debated in Milton’s ‘ Paradise Lost,’ as really supreme topics of philosophy as well as of religious science.” — Joseph Cook . CHAPTER I. Calvinism and Augustinianism the Same in their Essential Characteristics. “Much of Calvin’s theology is common to him with all evangelical divines, and in the parts which are more peculiar to him and his school he follows closely in the steps of Augustine.” 1 In an article on “ The Position of Calvinism,” Rev. Robert Aikman, D. D., uses the following lan¬ guage : “It will be in order just here to state what is the Augustinian theology, or Calvinism, which is the same thing.” 2 3 Says Dr. Charles Hodge, “ Such is the great scheme of doctrine known in history as the Pauline, Augus¬ tinian, or Calvinistic, taught as we believe, in the Scriptures.” :i On the other hand, both Lutherans and Calvinists, following the example of Augustine, rejected the notion of the freedom of the will, and denied every co-operation on the part of man. Nevertheless it is a striking fact that the Lutherans avoided the strict con¬ sequences of the Augustinian system and asserted that the decrees of God are conditional, while the Calvin¬ ists not only admitted the necessity of those conse¬ quences, but having once determined the idea of 1 W. L- Alexander, D.D., “ Encyclopaedia Brit.” 2 “ Meth. Review,” 1873, p. 301. 3 “Systematic Theol.,” Vol. II., p. 333. 14 AND MAN’S MORAL, NATURK. 15 predestination, went so far as to maintain that the fall of man itself was predestinated by God.” 1 Professor George P. Fisher, D. D., says: “The particulars in which Calvin varied from Augustine are these, Augustine made the fall of Adam, the first sin, the object of a permissive decree. Calvin was not sat¬ isfied with a bare passive permission on the part of God, and makes statements which tend to the supra- lapsarian idea. This view was developed by Beza and a section of the Calvinists. But infralapsarian or Augustinian Calvinism has had the suffrages of a majority. It is found in the Westminster Confession, and even the creed of the Synod of Dort does not go beyond it. Augustine held to the praeterition, instead of the reprobation of the wicked ; or rather to their reprobation, not to sin, but to the punishment of sin . High Calvinists held to a positive decree of reprobation, analogous to that of election; yet denied that God is the author of sin. Calvin dif¬ fered from Augustine in holding to the perseverance of all believers ; that is, that none but the elect ever exercise saving faith. Augustine attributed to the sacraments a greater effect on the non-elect. Thus he held that all baptized infants are saved. This sacra¬ mental tenet is often declared to be a feature of the Anglican system, as opposed to that of Calvin.”2 1 Hagenbach’s “ History of Doctrine,’' Vol. II., p. 254. 2 “ History of the Reformation,” p. 337, note. CHAPTER II. Are God’s Decrees Conditioned on His Fore* KNOWLEDGE ? “The great Genevan Reformer with consistent in¬ trepidity, was in truth, so far as doctrine is concerned, the highest of the high. Fearlessly pushing his principles to their full legitimate extent, he at once maintained, without any restriction or disguise, both the dogma of reprobation and the theory of supralap- sarianism.’’ — G. S. Faber, D. D. 16 CHAPTER II. Are God’s Decrees Conditioned on His Fore¬ knowledge ? This is the crucial question concerning the doctrine of Divine decrees. The following pages will clearly disclose the fact that Calvinism has but one answer to the question. “ Augustine accounts for the fact that some men are renewed, and some are not, because of the uncon¬ ditional decree ( ' decretum absolutum) . Its ground and reason is God’s wise good pleasure, and not a foreseen faith upon the part of the individual man.” 1 The following is a concise and clear presentation of the doctrine as formulated by Gottschalk : “ The peculiarity in the doctrine of Gottschalk consisted in this, that he applied the notion of predestination not merely, as was commonly done, to the pious and to salvation, but also to the reprobate and to everlasting punishment. He affirmed a preedestinatio duplex , by virtue of which God decreed eternal life to the elect, and the elect to eternal life, and so also everlasting punishment to the reprobate, and the reprobate to everlasting punishment. This doctrine seems to him important, because it enabled him to hold fast the unchangeableness of the divine decrees, and their entire independence of that which takes place in time. i Dr. W. G. T. Shedd’s “ History of Doctrine,” Vol. I., pp. 70, 71 17 1 8 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD In reference to the works of God, foreknowledge and foreordination are one ; his knowledge being one with his will, and this will creative.” 1 .... “Thomas Aquinas, in opposition to those who supposed a grace conditioned on the right use of freewill, and a predes¬ tination conditioned on the divine foreknowledge with regard to this right use, maintained that all this is already comprised among the effects of predestination and presupposed by it.” 2 Beza “ adopted the supralapsarian statement of the doctrine of predestination which renders the doctrine more austere and repelling than the infralapsarian representation.” 3 “The Second Helvetic Confession says, ‘ God, from eternity, predestinated or elected freely, and of his own mere grace, with no respect of men’s character, the saints whom he would save in Christ.’ ” 4 “ No one can deny but God foreknew Adam’s fall, and foreknew it because he had ordained it so by his own decree. ” 5 “ The decision of the Synod of Dort, condemnatory of the Arminian doctrines, was unanimous . In accordance with the acknowl¬ edged symbols of that church (the Reformed) the Synod decided . (2 ) ‘ That God out of the human race, fallen by their fault into sin and destruc¬ tion, according to the most free good pleasure of his own will, and of mere grace, chose a certain number of men, neither better nor worthier than others. . . . to salvation in Christ.’”6 “Although God knows 1 Neander’s “ Church History,” Vol. III., p. 474. 2 Ibid., Vol. IV., p. 478. 3 Shedd’s “ History of Doctrine,” Vol. II., p. 192. 4 Ibid., p. 470, Chap. XXIII., Sec. 7. 5 Calvin’s “ Inst.,” Book III. 6 Chas. Hodge. “ Theology,” Voi. II., p. 724. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 19 whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all sup¬ posed conditions ; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions . 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 coun¬ sel 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 thereunto ; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.” 1 “Others there are who have taught that God’s electing of these and rejecting the other, dependeth wholly on the will of men themselves, and not on the decree or will of God : and that there is none rejected of God till by their own contempt, themselves do first reject God, and by their willful obstinacy refuse his grace which is offered unto them. How evidently do these men oppugn the Scriptures of God ! For if election and rejection depend on the actions of men after they are born, how can it be true which the apostle teacheth, that we are elected before the foun¬ dation of the world ?” 2 “That he foreknew the futurity of it (the fall) is undeniable, for he laid in for a remedy against the evil effects of it, respecting his elect, having chosen them in Christ before the foundation of the world, 1 “ Westminster Confession of Faith,” pp. 26-28. 2” A Sermon on Predestination.” Rev. Rich. Crakanthorp, D.D., Eondon, 1623, pp. 10, 11. 20 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD (Eph. 1:4,) which foreknowledge could have no ground, but in his purpose, the thing being in itself contingent.” 1 Toplady says : ‘ ‘ Those who are ordained unto eternal life were not so ordained on account of any worthiness foreseen in them, or of any good works to be wrought by them, not yet for their future faith, but purely and solely, of free sovereign grace, and accord¬ ing to the mere good pleasure of God.” 2 “ God decreeth to give us His grace and be the chief cause of all our holiness ; and doth not elect us to salvation on foresight that we will do his will, or be sanctified by ourselves without him. It is strange that any should think that God would undertake so great a work as man’s redemption, and not effectually secure the success by his own will and wisdom : but leave all to the lubricous will of man.” 3 “The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination sup¬ poses that holiness of heart and life are as much the object of divine appointment as future happiness, and that this connection can never be broken.” 4 Speaking of the elect, Charnock says, “Nor could it be any foresight of works to be done in time by them, or of faith that might determine God to choose them.” 5 “When we say that God acts in an absolute and sovereign manner, the meaning is, that he acts upon the best and strongest reasons and for the noblest and most excellent ends : but which are, many or most of them beyond our reach and comprehension, and par- 1 Sam’l Willard, “Complete Body of Divinity,” 1726, p. 178. 2 “Works,” London, 1857, p. 694. 3 The Genius, Works, and Times, ot Baxter,” 1845, Vol. I., p. 45. 4 A. Fuller’s 11 Works.” Bohn’s Lib’y, p. 364. 5 “ Attributes of God,” London, 1842, p. 662. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 2 1 tieularly, that there is not the least foundation for supposing that the reasons of preference are taken from comparative human merit. ’ ’ 1 “ St. Paul exhibits this subject in a happier man¬ ner : ‘ Whom he foreknew, ’ says the apostle, ‘ he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son.’ By this declaration, we are not to understand that the predestination spoken of followed the foreknowledge, any more than that the foreknowledge followed the predestination. The Apostle says: ‘Whom he fore¬ knew,’ not after he had foreknown them.” 2 ‘ ‘ Those who would account for the foreknowledge of God without his decrees, have always found the subject dark and incomprehensible. But there is nothing dark, unintelligible or incomprehensible in the foreknowledge of God as founded on his decrees. If God formed all his purposes from eternity, he must necessarily have known all things from the beginning of the world. For if the foreknowledge of God be not founded upon his decrees, it has no foundation : it is an effect without a cause.” 3 Says Dr. Samuel Hopkins: “Foreknowledge is not only to be distinguished from the decree, but must be considered, as, in the order of nature, consequent upon the determination and purpose of God ; and de- pendeth upon it. For the futurition or futurity of all things depends upon the decrees of God. By these, every created existence and every event, with all their circumstances, are fixed and made certain ; and in 1 Dr. Witherspoon. “ Works.” Vol. I., p. 189. 2 Dr. Timothy Dwight. “ Works.” Vol. I., p. 240. 3 Dr. N. Emmons. “Works.” Ide’s Ed., Vol. II., pp. 326, 327. 22 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD consequence of their being thus decreed, they are the objects of foreknowledge.” 4 Says Dr. E. D. Griffin, “Faith (the condition of salvation) and holiness generally, instead of being in¬ dependent acts of the creature under the persuasions of the Spirit, are the gift of God . The choice of the elect was made, not in view of the foreseen op¬ erations of the determining power, but by the sovereign will of God decreeing to make them holy ; and they are made holy in consequence of that decree.” 5 6 The following is from Dr. John Dick : “I remark once more that the decrees of God are absolute and unconditional. . . . Here we have many opponents. Lutherans, Arminians, Jesuits ; all, in a word, who have not adopted those views of the subject which are usually called Calvinistic . When he decreed to save those who should believe, he decreed to give them faith . That any decree is conditional in the sense of our opponents, that it depends upon the will of man, of which he is sovereign, so that he may will or not will as he pleases — we deny ” 0 Says Dr. John Howe, “ Lastly, it is very evident, that as to communications of grace and favor, God doth dis¬ pense very differently : and therefore must be under¬ stood to intend so to do, and to have always intended it.” 7 “Thus we think, that the decree and the fore¬ knowledge of God are inseparably connected together: and that, according to human conceptions, the decree, in point of order, must precede foreknowledge. The 4 “Works,” Vol. I., p. 70. 5 “ The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency,” pp. 127-145. 6 “ Lectures,” New York, 1856, p. 357. “ Works,” London, 1862, p. 1139. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 23 reverse of all this is the doctrine of the Arminians. They say that the foreknowledge of God is the ground of his decree.” 8 “ But although God was not moved in the election of his people by the foresight of their faith or good works, but chose them out of his mere love ; I re¬ mark (3) In his sovereign and gracious purpose of election all the means that are necessary to their sal¬ vation are included or were provided for.”9 ‘‘But why was this salvation confined to a certain favored number called the elect ? This doctrine of the sov¬ ereignty of divine grace, has from the beginning been offensive to human reason. The selection of men and not of angels, as the object of redemption, can be borne with ; but that, out of the same mass some should be taken, confessedly no better than others by nature ; and that many should be reprobated or left, no worse than those elected, has ever been a stum¬ bling block to multitudes.” 1 “ ’Tis true, many who are too proud to be indebted for their eternal salvation to the free favor of God, in¬ sist that the election by which he distinguishes sinners from sinners, is grounded upon good disposition ; upon faith and holiness foreseen in the objects of that elec¬ tion. But if men be allowed to interpolate divine revelation and to add to the oracles of Jehovah the figments of their own invention, we may lay aside our Bibles.” 2 “ With respect to the doctrine of election, I would 8 Dr. Ashbel Green. “ Lectures on the Shorter Catechism,” p. 178. 9 Dr. G. W. Musgrave. “ Tracts on the Doctrines, Order and Polity of Presbyterian Church,” Vol. III., p. 205. 1 Dr. A. Alexander. “ Compend. of Bible Truth,” p. toi. 2 Dr. J. M. Mason. “ Complete Works,” 1849, Vol. III., p.405. 24 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD state it in Scripture terms, and obviate the Antinomian interpretation, by remarking that man, as man, is said to be chosen to obedience, to be conformed to the im¬ age of his Son, etc., and not on a foresight of his faith or obedience ; as also that the distinction be¬ tween true believers and others is often expressly ascribed to God.” 3 “ Election is the choice of certain persons by God, from all eternity, to grace and glory. The reason why men are elected is not because Christ has shed his blood for them, redeemed and saved them ; but Christ has done all this for them, because they are elected. It is wholly owing to the will and pleasure of God, and not to the faith, holiness, obedi¬ ence and good works of men ; nor to a foresight of all or any of these. It is absolute and unconditional, irrespective of anything in man as the cause and con¬ dition of it.”4 ‘‘The decrees of God are to be dis¬ tinguished from his prescience or foreknowledge. Foreknowledge and decrees are intimately connected, but not identical . Foreknowledge is condi¬ tioned on, or founded in decrees.”5 “ This relation of God’s knowledge and foreknowl¬ edge to his purpose is important to a just conception of his sovereignty. God could not foreknow an event which was dependent on his positive or permissive will until he had purposed to accomplish or permit it.”6 Speaking of the views of Dr. N. W. Taylor and President Finney, Rev. Jas. Wood, D. D. says, “ They 3 Robt. Hall. “ Works,” Vol. III., p. 231. 4 Dr. John Gill, Quoted by Dan’l T. Fiske in “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XIV.,, P- 359- 5 Article by Dan’l T. Fiske. " Bib. Sacra.” Vol. XIX, pp. 403, 413. 6 H- A. Lawrence. “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XX., p. 340. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURK. 25 involve the denial of divine decrees ; for if (5od does not possess such absolute control over his creatures that he can govern them according to his pleasure, how could he have decreed anything unconditionally concerning them, since it might happen, that in the exercise of their free agency, they would act contrary to the divine purpose ? On the same principle, they virtually reject the Calvinistic doctrine of election and make election depend upon the foreknowledge of God, and the will of the creature.” 7 “You will observe that the Confession only says that he did not decree anything because he foresaw it; that is, his foreknowledge is not the ground or cau.se of his decrees. Still they are inseparably connected. His decrees are not dependent upon his foreknowledge, nor identical with it ; but his foreknowledge is rather dependent upon his decrees, though perfectly distinct from them.” 8 “ Speaking of the simple intelligence and determin¬ ate knowledge of the Deity, Robt. J. Breckenridge, D. D., IvD.D., remarks, “ By the latter, which involves the divine will, God knows from eternity all things that would actually exist in the system of the universe. This is called foreknowledge. God, as we have shown, knows all possible things whether considered sepa¬ rately or in systems ; hence he knows all things that are possible under all possible systems. And all things that will be actual, he knows as being deter¬ mined by his will.” 9 “Again, if election were according to faith and 7 “ Old and New Theology,” p. 31. 8 Wm. D. Smith. “ What is Calvinism ? ” p. 39. “ 9 The Knowledge of God, Objectively Considered,” 1858, p. 277. 26 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD works foreseen, there would be no difficulty in answer¬ ing the question, why God chooses one and not an¬ other? It would be because God foresaw that the former would believe and that the latter would remain in unbelief : yet we nowhere read of this in Paul, nor in the other sacred writers ; on the contrary it is ex¬ pressly declared that it is not of him that willeth.” 1 “ New-school Presbyterians do not affirm that faith foreseen is the condition with God for his decree of election, much less an}^ good works.”2 ‘‘With regard to unconditional election, it must be wholly without foreseen merit in the creature. This is the perfection of grace, that God seeks his creatures and they do not seek him. Nullum elegit dignum ; nullum tamen pimit indignum. This we can not modify ; this stands essential to the doctrine. We pass into another system if we cross the line which separates the two problems.” 3 “ On the most obvious principles of reason, there¬ fore, the divine foreknowledge of events must have been founded on the divine will in framing the uni¬ versal structure of things and impressing upon them respectively the laws of their action.” 4 ‘‘It is not true that he first knows who will repent, and then determines to give them repentance. He knows men will not repent, unless by his Spirit, he gives them repentance.” 5 1 Pictet’s “Theology.” Reyroux’s Translation. Presby. Board, pp. 204, 205. 2 Geo. Duffield, D. D. “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XX., p. 632. 3 Leonard Withington, D. D. “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XXI., p. 792. 4 Samuel S. Smith, D. D., LL-IL “ Natural and Revealed Religion,” 1816, pp. 259-260. 5 Leonard Woods, D. D. “ Works.” Vol. I., p. 511. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 27 Says Dr. Venema: “ The act of the decree is abso¬ lute ; not uncertain or doubtful. It is not suspended on any condition on the part of man.” 6 Commenting on Rom. ix. 11, Dr. Albert Barnes says : “It was not because they had formed a char¬ acter and manifested qualities which made this distinc¬ tion proper. It was laid back of any such character and therefore had its foundation in the purpose or plan of God.” 1 “ The idea that God elected some because he fore¬ saw that they would repent is not sustained when we consider that God could not foresee anything which was not certain ; and that nothing but God’s decree makes it certain.” 2 “ Holy practice is not the ground and reason of election, as is supposed by the Arminians, who im¬ agine that God elects men to everlasting life upon a foresight of their good works : but it is the aim and end of election. God does not elect men because he foresees that they will be holy, but that he may make them, and that they may be holy.” 3 “Our opponents would have it, that all whom he foreknew would be penitent, or virtuous, or obedient, them He did predestinate to eternal life — thus subor¬ dinating the decrees of God to the doings of men. But unfortunately for their view, the predestination here is a predestination in the first instance to the character of saints, ere they should be translated to the glory of the inheritance of saints, so as very clearly c “ Institutes of Theology,” 1853, p. 289. 1“ Commentary.” 2 Nehemiah Adams, D. D. “ Evenings With The Doctrines,” p. 256. 3 Pres. Edwards. “ Christian Eove,” p. 321. 28 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD to subordinate the doings and the moral state of men to the preordination of God.” 4 Controverting the views of Professor John Forbes, D. D., L,E-D., of Edinburgh, Dr. Lyman H. Atwater in “The Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review,” remarks : ‘ ‘ He frequently argues as if it were Supra- lapsarianism not to hold that the decree of election or reprobation is conditioned on a foresight of consent to, or stubborn rejection of, salvation in Christ. This latter doctrine, however, is not Supralapsarianism, but simple Arminianism.” 5 “ From the mass of fallen men God elected a num¬ ber innumerable to eternal life, and left the rest of mankind to the just recompense of their sins. That the ground of this election is not the foresight of any¬ thing in the one class to distinguish them favorably from the members of the other class, but the good pleasure of God.”6 The following is from “ Outlines of Theology,” by Dr. A. A. Hodge : “ The truth is that God, eternally and unchangeably, by one comprehensive act of will, willed all that happened to Adam from beginning to end in the precise order and succession in which each event occurred. God’s will is suspended upon no con¬ dition, but he eternally wills the event as suspended upon its condition, and its condition as determining the event . Calvinists admit that the all com¬ prehensive decree of God determines all events accord¬ ing to their inherent nature, the actions of free agents as free, and the operations of necessary causes, neces- 4 Dr. T. Chalmers. “ Inst, of Theologj', Vol. II., p. 390. 5 1873, p. 165. 6 Dr. Chas. Hodge " Systematic Theology,” Vol. II., p. 333. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 29 sary. It also comprehends the whole system of causes and effects of every kind ; of the motives and conditions of free actions as well as the necessary causes of necessary events. God decreed salvation upon the condition of faith, yet in the very same act he decreed the faith of those persons whose salvation he has determined.” Again, “ They are sovereign in the sense that while they determine absolutely what¬ ever occurs without God, their whole reason and motive is within the divine nature, and they are neither suggested nor occasioned by nor conditioned upon anything whatsoever without him.” 7 7 Pages 1 18, 119, 167, 166 CHAPTER III. Is God Able to Prevent Sin ? “ Men persist in regarding sin, and especially theii own sin, as a trivial matter, and excuse it, and palliate it, and construct philosophical systems representing it as on the whole for the best. But apart from human philosophy and speculation, and that perverted theo¬ logical teaching which makes ‘ sin the necessary means of the greatest good ’ ; apart also, from the schemes of infidel men, to accommodate matters to their own wicked conduct, and so to arrange the administration of the Almighty, that they can live prayerless and godless lives here, and yet come out safe in the end apart from such things, there is no countenance given either from reason, or revelation, or the workings of God’s providence in the world, or from any source whatever, to the idea, that God has any other views or feelings about sin than those of unmitigated loath¬ ing, and an infinite preference that no one of his moral creatures should ever have committed it.” — “ Law and Pe?ialty Endless." 30 CHAPTER HI. Is God Able to Prevent Sin ? “Augustine teaches that God ordains sin, but does not produce it.” 1 2 The following is from Calvin : ‘ ‘ The will of God is the supreme and first cause of things . He does not remain an idle spectator, determining to permit anything ; there is an intervention of an actual voli¬ tion, if I may be allowed the expression, which other¬ wise could never be considered a cause.” :2 Speaking of Adam’s relation to God, John Howe says : “ He did not purpose to confirm him at first in that good state wherein he made him, so as to make it impossible for him to fall : for we find he did fall, and is in a lapsed state : therefore it was purposed that his fall should not be prevented, that it should not be hindered.” 3 “ The permission of the fall doth not reflect on the divine purity . God is an omnipotent good, and it is his peculiar glory to bring good out of evil, that by the opposition and lustre of contraries his goodness might be the more conspicuous . Now the evil of sin God permitted as a fit occasion for the more glo¬ rious discovery of his attributes, in sending his Son 1 Shedd’s “ History of Doctrine,” Vol. I., p. 85. 2 "Institutes.” B. I., Chap. XVI. * " Works.” London, 1862, p. 1135. 3i 32 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD into the world to repair his image which was de¬ faced, and to raise man from an earthly to celestial happiness.”4 “He can so permit sin as that it should infallibly be, and yet not so affect it as that it shall be any stain to his holiness in the least. As the sun is not defiled by shining upon the most dirty, stinking places, though they stink the more for its shining upon them ; so God is then most holy when he is giving of men up to sin. He can so order it that Absalom shall com¬ mit the most horrid abomination, without being a blamable cause of it. He can harden Pharaoh’s heart and yet very justly punish him for that hardness of his.” 5 “So God by his absolute power, might have pre¬ vented the sin of the fallen angels, and so have pre¬ served them in their first habitation . Sin, in itself is a disorder, and therefore God doth not permit sin for itself ; for in its own nature it hath nothing of amiableness, but he wills it for some righteous end, which belongs to the manifestation of his glory, which is his aim in all the acts of his will . God willed sin, that is, he willed to permit it, that he might com¬ municate himself to the creature in the most excellent manner.” (’ “Having, in his infinite but incomprehensible wisdom and righteousness, permitted the fall and apostacy of man, he looked upon the whole human species as deserving of destruction and meet for it.” 7 4 Win. Bates. “The Harmony of the Divine Attributes.” Presby. Board, pp. 50,51, 52. 5 Sam’l Willard. “Complete Body of Divinity,” Boston, 1726, p. 134. 6 Charnoek. “ Attributes of God,” London, 1842, pp. 401, 345, 347. 7 Scott's “ Comprehensive Commentary,” p. 215. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 33 “God was either willing that Adam should fall, or unwilling, or indifferent about it. If God was un¬ willing that Adam should transgress how came it to pass that he did ? Is man stronger, and is Satan wiser than he that made them? Surely no. Again : could not God, had it so pleased him, have hindered the tempter’s access to paradise ? or have created man as he did the elect angels, with a will invariably de¬ termined to good only, and incapable of being biased to evil ? Or at least have made the grace and strength, with which he indued Adam, actually effectual to the resisting of all solicitations to sin ? None but Atheists would answer these questions in the negative. Surely, if God had not willed the fall, he could, and no doubt would have prevented it : but he did not prevent it : ergo, he willed it. And if he willed it, he certainly decreed it : for the decree of God is nothing else but the seal and ratification of his will. ’ ’ 8 “ Our first par¬ ents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.’’9 Speaking of President Edwards’ theology, President Noah Porter says, “The exist¬ ence of moral evil, in consistency with the divine perfections, is explained by the principles announced in the Treatise on the Will, viz.: that the Divine Being is not the author of sin, but only disposes things in such a manner that sin will certainly ensue. If this certainty is not inconsistent with human liberty, then it is not inconsistent with this liberty that God 8 Toplady’s “ Works.” London, 1857, p. 691. 9 "Westminster Confession of Faith,” p. 42. 34 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD should be the cause of this certainty, and in that sense be the author of sin.”1 “All things, both beings and events, exist in exact accordance with the pur- noses, pleasure, or what is commonly called, The De¬ crees of God.” .... God ‘‘does according to his will, independently and irresistibly . That God could not prevent the existence of sin can not be main¬ tained.” 2 “ I believe that God could have prevented sin, and would, had he not seen it a means of blessing the universe by filling it with his glory. ” 3 ‘‘There can nothing take place under the care and government of an infinitely powerful, wise and good Being that is not on the whole wisest and best ; that is, for the general good ; therefore, though there be things which are in themselves evil, even in their own nature and tendency, such are sin and misery ; yet, considered in their connection with the whole, and as they are necessary in the best system to accomplish the greatest good, the most important and best ends ; they are in this view desirable good, and not evil. And in this view there is no absolute evil in the uni¬ verse ! There are evils in themselves considered, but considered as connected with the whole, they are not evil but good.” 4 ‘‘The first Cause of all things must have decreed all things. If God has not decreed, he has not caused all things. And if he has not caused all things what reason is there to believe that he has caused anything ? 1 Ueberweg’s “ History of Philosophy.” Vol. II., p. 448. 3 T. Dwight’s “ Theology.” Vol. I., pp. 238, 241, 253. 3 IJ. D. Griffin ‘‘The Doctrine of Divine IJffieiency,” p. 32. 4 Samuel Hopkins’. “Theology,” Vol. I., p. 92. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 35 .... His power is absolutely unlimited and irresisti¬ ble.” 5 Speaking of moral evils, President Samuel Stanhope Smith says, “ To say that they have been merely per¬ mitted, without any interference, or concern of Al¬ mighty God in the actions of men, is only attempting, by the illusion of a word, to throw the difficulty out of sight, not to solve it.” 6 Dr. Ashbel Green declares, “ Evil he permits to take place, and efficaciously overrules it for good for the promotion of his glory.”7 In “Tracts on the Doctrines, Order and Polity of the Presbyterian Church ’ ’ we have the following testimony : ‘ ‘ The conclusion is, therefore, to our minds irresistible, that if God be infinitely wise, benevolent and powerful, and perfectly foreknew what beings and events would, on the whole, be best, he must have chosen and or¬ dained that they should exist, or be permitted to occur ; and that consequently everything that does actually come to pass in time, has been eternally and unchangeably foreordained ; and is either the effect of the divine efficiency, or the result of his predetermined permission.” 8 In volume fifth of the same work we are told, “Our doctrine, then, is simply this. By positive and permissive decrees, God, in wisdom and in love, man¬ ages the affairs of the universe, directs and controls all things and all events, all creatures and all their actions. It must be so, for suppose an event to take 5 Nathanael Emmons’ “ Works,” i860, Vol. II., pp. 343, 546. 6 “ Natural and Revealed Religion,” p. 269. 7 “ Lectures on the Shorter Catechism,” p. 177. s Vol. III., G. W. Musgrave, p. 199. 36 CALVINISM CONTRARY, TO GOD’S WORD place without the divine permission, for example, then it must be either because God is not aware of it, or can not prevent it. If not aware of it, he can not be omniscient ; if he can not prevent it, then he is not omnipotent ; and then, of course, in the last cause ‘ there must be a power behind the throne greater than the throne itself ’ which thought would be frightful.” 9 Dr. Bellamy taught: ‘‘The doctrine of the wisdom of God, in the permission of sin, supposes sin in itself, and in all its natural tendencies to be infinitely evil, infinitely contrary to the honor of God and the good of the system. For herein consists the wisdom of God in the affair, not in bringing good out of good, but in bringing infinite good out of infinite evil ; and never suffering one sin to happen in all his dominions but which, notwithstanding its infinitely evil nature and tendency, infinite wisdom can and will overrule for greater good on the whole. ” 1 “The decrees of God relate to all future things without exception : Whatever is done in time was foreordained before the beginning of time. His purpose was concerned with everything, whether great or small, whether good or evil ; although in reference to the latter it may be necessary to dis¬ tinguish between appointment and permission.” 2 “All things that happen, happen by the will of God, whether that will be permissive, directing or executive.”3 “ Now, though sin is hateful to God, it constantly takes place in his government ; and it is atheism to say he could not prevent it, for he is not 9 Dan’l Baker, Tract XXI. 1 As quoted with approval by Bennett Tyler, D. D., in “ kectures on Theology,” 1859, p. 218. 2 John Dick, “ keetures on Theology,” 1856, p. 353. 3 Venema. “ Institutes of Theology,” 1853, p. 271. AND MAN’S MORAR NATURE. 37 God if he can not govern the world. We must, there¬ fore, conclude, he permits it for reasons unknown to us.” 4 “It will not do for us to say absolutely that God could not have bestowed upon Adam strength adequate to his trial ; all we can say is that this could not be done upon the principles of the precise trial then made.” 5 6 Says Pictet, “Since nothing can hap¬ pen contrary to the knowledge and will of God, we say that he permits evil, though he in no way ap¬ proves of it.” 0 Dr. A. Alexander says, “ The reason, then, why sin was permitted to exist was, that God might have an opportunity of manifesting his own glory to all intelligent creatures more conspicuously, which is the great end of all his works and dispen¬ sations.” 7 “The decrees of God are not merely his purpose to permit events to take place as they do. Some hold that, with regard to the existence of sin we can only affirm that the divine decrees extend to it in the sense that God determines to permit it, that is, not to prevent it. But this language does not seem to ex¬ press the whole truth. God might, indeed, be said to decree the existence of whatever he could have prevented, but determined not to prevent. But the decrees of God are not mere negatives. They are purposes to do something and to do that which ren¬ ders certain the existence of all events, sin included.” 8 “ God permitted the introduction of sin, not because he was unable to prevent it consistently with the 4 Wm. D. Smith. “What is Calvinism?” p. 29. s Dr. Breckinridge. “The Knowledge of God, Objectively Consid¬ ered,” p. 494. 6 “ Theology,” Reyroux’s Translation, p. 115. V “ Compend. of Bible Truth,” pp. 74, 75. 8 Dan’l T. Fiske. “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XIX., p. 404. 38 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and be¬ nevolent reasons, which he has not revealed.” 9 “ The Old School have charged the New with be¬ lieving that God could have prevented the existence of sin in the world, but not without destroying the freedom of the human will ; and that sin is inciden¬ tal to any moral system. To this the latter reply, that God permitted the entrance of sin, but not be¬ cause he was unable to prevent it ; but for wise and benevolent reasons which he hath not revealed.” 1 Speaking of the hardening effects of the divine dealings with the Egyptians and Canaanites, Pres¬ ident Jeremiah Day remarks, “ Will it be said, that God merely permitted their hearts to be hardened ; or permitted them to harden their own hearts ? If this be conceded, it must be still understood, that he had power to prevent this result. What sort of permis¬ sion is a mere inability to prevent that which is per¬ mitted ?” 2 “ Our doctrine, then, concerning the first sin committed by man, and in which the human race was involved, is simply, that God for wise reasons decreed or purposed, first, to permit, and secondly, to overrule it for his glory.”3 “ Whatever occurs, he, for wise reasons permits to occur. He can prevent whatever he sees fit to prevent. If, therefore, sin occurs, it was God’s design that it should occur. If misery follows in the train of sin, such was God’s purpose.” 4 9 “The Auburn Declaration, “1837. 1 Geo. Duffield, D. D.” Bib. Sacra, Vol. XX., pp. 630,631. 2 “ An Inquiry Respecting the Self-Determining Power of the Will,” p. 192. 3 N. D. Rice, “ God Sovereign and Man Free,” p. 31. 4 Dr. Charles Hodge. “ Systematic Theol.” Vol. II., p. 332. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 39 Says Dr. Leonard Woods, “Evil does exist. . . . It exists in a world formed by him who possesses infinite wisdom and power, and who, if he had chosen, could have formed and governed the world so as to exclude it. ” 5 “ The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely wise, powerful and holy God is a great mystery of which no explanation can be given . The whole difficulty lies in the awful fact that sin exists. If God foresaw it and yet created the agent, and placed him in the very circumstances under which he did foresee the sin would be committed, then he did predetermine it. If he did not foresee it, or fore¬ seeing it, could not prevent it, then he is not infinite in knowledge and in power, but is surprised and pre¬ vented by his creatures.” 6 5 " Works.” Vol. I., p. 529. 0 Dr. A. A. Hodge. *' Outlines of Theology,” p. 171. CHAPTER IV. Why Are the Finally Impenitent Lost? Is it Because God Can not Save Them ? “ But how, it may be asked, when God is an omnipotent sovereign, can sin so come in and not implicate him in either his participation or neglect ? We answer, according to our theory of Rectitude, by this general hypothesis, and yet, when clearly appre¬ hended, we hardly deem it can be held merely as hypothesis, but as exact truth ; that sin, in some form and extent, will be a certain result of God’s dealings with his creatures according to what is due to himself. In other words, if God always deals with finite spirits according to principles of ‘ honor and right,’ there will be sin . With a goodness infinitely higher than any craving of a benevolent susceptibility or prompt¬ ing of nature for happiness, and of a wholly distinct kind, even in the broad sense of goodness that would have all that was worthy for Infinite Excellency to receive — he planned and executed the work of the sinner’s redemption, and only fails of attaining uni¬ versal salvation in it, from the perverse rejection of sinners, in whose behalf his own honor will not allow his power and grace to work any longer nor any further.” — A. P. Hickok , D. D.y LL.D. 40 CHAPTER IV. Why Are the Finarry Impenitent Lost ? Is it Because God Can not Save Them ? “ Thus, the Augustinian system with rigorous self' consistence formed itself as follows : All men before regeneration, and since Adam’s fall, which corrupted human nature, both physically and morally, are in essentially one and the same state of alienation from God, of spiritual enmity towards him, and of con¬ demnation by him. This state is one of self-will without the power to the contrary, and hence fallen man, as such, can do nothing but evil. He can be delivered from this state only by the grace of God, who imparts the principle of holiness and progressive sanctification through the medium of faith in Christ. This grace (as gratia irresistibilis ) with internal and almighty power overcomes the utmost intensity of man’s self-will and aversion, and the recipient of it is eternally saved.”1 “The wills of men are so gov¬ erned by the will of God that they are carried on straight to the mark which he has foreordained.” 2 The Synod of Dort “held that regenerating as distinct from common grace is able to subdue all oppo¬ sition of the sinful will, and therefore can not be re¬ sisted in the sense of being defeated or overcome.” 3 1 Guericke’s ’‘Church History.” Shedd’s Translatation, p. 379. 2 Calvin’s “ Institutes.” B. I., Chap. XVI. Sec. 8. 3 Shedd’s “ Hist, of Doctrine.” Vol. II., p. 497. 4i 42 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD “ To all those for whom Christ hath purchased re¬ demption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same : Making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation ; effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey ; and govern¬ ing their hearts by his word and Spirit.” 4 “ Luther compared man to a saw, which is a passive instrument in the hands of the carpenter.”5 “Wherefore, if God would not at all have the death and destruction of those vessels of wrath which are of old ordained to condemnation, as St. Luke speaketh, then certainly, though all the armies, both in heaven and earth should band together, yet could they not all effect the death of the meanest or weakest of them ; for who is able to resist his will, who is Al¬ mighty ? And who saith of himself, ‘ My counsel shall stand and I will do whatsoever I will.’ Unless then we deny the first article of our faith, which is the Omnipotency of God, we must needs confess, that the death and damnation of those vessels of wrath cometh to pass by the will of the Almighty : for if he willed it not, he could, nay, he would have hindered it ten thousand ways.” 6 In a work entitled “ A Defence of Some of the Im¬ portant Doctrines of the Gospel,” the following testi¬ mony is given : “ If election is an absolute purpose of God to save any independent of any conditions to be performed by them which may render this purpose effectual to their salvation, then it must be unchange- 4 Westminster Confession of Faith,” p. 61. 5 Hagetibach’s “ Hist, of Doctrine.” Vol. II., p. 258. 6 Richard Crakanthorp’s “ Sermon on Predestination.” AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 43 able ; and if it is an unchangeable purpose of God to save, then all those whom he thus purposed to save, must necessarily and infallibly be saved. Nothing can hinder, prevent or disannul their salvation.” 7 “ We shall now inquire whether the grace of God, in the renewing of a sinner, may be frustrated, or set aside, by the opposition of the creature. And here we are to remember it is God’s work, and therefore must be perfect, since he can and will do all his pleas¬ ure. To say that he can not, though he would, change the sinner’s heart, by an immediate act of his own power, is to challenge his omnipotence. So that the question is not whether God can do this or no : but whether it is worthy of him, and how far it is really the case ? .... If the soul is passive in the im¬ planting the principle of grace, as we have endeavored to prove, then there can be no resistance in regenera¬ tion.” 8 Charnock, in speaking of the relation of God to sin, says, “If he did in no sort will it, it would not be committed by his creature : sin entered the world, either God willing the permission of it, or not willing the permission of it. The latter can not be said : for then the creature is more powerful than God, and can do that which God will not permit. God can, if he be pleased, banish all sin in a moment out of the world.” 9 “God never designed to save every individ¬ ual ; since, if he had, every individual would and must be saved, for his counsel shall stand, and he will v John Sladen, p. 97. 8 Sam’l Wilson, pp. 319, 320. 9 “ Attributes of God,” p. 493. 44 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD do all his pleasure.” 1 “ Now, God’s eternal election is the first ground of the bestowment of saving grace. And some have such saving grace, and others do not have it because some are from eternity chosen of God, and others are not chosen.” 2 Dr. Ashbel Green, in explaining the doctrine of reprobation says, “ Or will you say that he gave equal grace to both ; but the one improved it and the other did not? For the sake of the argument, let this for a moment be admitted. But then I ask could he not have given grace that certainly would have been effect¬ ual to him who remains without religion ? You will not so limit God and his grace, as to say he could not. But he actually did not. He left the person in ques¬ tion without effectual grace. And here is all the doc¬ trine of reprobation which we hold.” 3 Dr. Nathanael Emmons says of God, “ He decreed the existence, the character, the conduct and the state of all moral be¬ ings both in time and eternity. He decreed that some should be the monuments of his goodness, some the monuments of his justice ; and some the monuments of his mercy. And he decreed all the means by which his rational creatures should be brought to their final and eternal condition . It is his secret will that all the elect shall repent and believe ; and that all the non-elect shall live and die in impenitence and unbe¬ lief.”4 In the same spirit Dr. E. D. Griffin taught, . . . . ‘ ‘ God has the absolute control of mind in all its common operations, else how could he govern the 1 Toplady’s “ Works,” p. 692. 2 Edwards’ “ Christian hove,” p. 321. 3 “ Lectures on the Shorter Catechism,” p. 288. 4 ” Works.” Vol. II., pp. 333-346. AND MAN'S MORAR NATURE. 45 world ? Whether he does this by the mere force of motives adapted to the existing temper, or sometimes by a lower sort of efficienc}^ not, however, productive of sin, I will not determine. But the fact is incon¬ trovertible . Even in the motions of sin (though only permissively I suppose), his government is effect¬ ual.” 5 The following is from Dr. John Dick : “ The term predestination, includes the decrease of election and reprobation. Some, indeed, confine it to election ; but there seems to be no sufficient reason for not ex¬ tending it to the one as well as to the other ; as in both the final condition of man is pre-appointed or predestinated . They (the non-elect) were ap¬ pointed to wrath for their sins ; but it was not for their sins as we have shown, but in the exercise of sovereignty, that they were rejected.”6 Commenting on the passage “ Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee,” Dr. Samuel Hopkins says, . . . . “ God does superintend and direct with regard to every instance of sin. He orders how much sin there shall be, and effectually restrains and prevents all that which he would not have take place. Men are, with respect to this, absolutely under his direction and control.” 7 “ When any are lost, we do not hesitate to say that they perish by their own de¬ serts, although God could have mercifully saved them had it pleased him.”8 “ He carries on all beings to their end, and so rules them as that now misseth it. There is a peculiar subordinate end, and there is an 5 “The Doctrine of Divine Efficiency,” pp. 95, 98. 6 “ Eectures on Theology,” pp. 360, 373. 7 “Works.” Vol. I., p. 98. 8 Pictet’s “ Theology,” p. 213. 46 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD universal, general and last end : the creature may miss the former but not the latter.” 9 ‘ ‘ So that if we admit that the works of God are known to him from the beginning of the world, it can never be true that in his eternal counsels, Christ died to save those, who after all that he hath done shall be miserable forever. ‘ He is a rock — his work is perfect. ’ His design never could be frustrated.” 1 “ God has purposed by a positive act of his will, not only to con¬ demn unbelievers, but also to withhold from some sufficient grace, on which withholding, as we shall see, when we come to treat of the doctrine of repro¬ bation, depends the final ruin of the impenitent. Com- mon grace, of which even those who perish partake, consists in the offer of Christ, made in the Gospel, an offer which is intended by God to be made to all, and in which no one at least is excluded. But besides this common grace, there is particular and efficacious grace which is bestowed only on some, and which is so inti¬ mately connected with salvation that it begets faith in those to whom it is given, i. e ., the elect. This grace, as we shall afterwards show, is irresistible. ” 2 In the celebrated Auburn Declaration of 1837, which was a peace-offering from the New to the Old School Pres¬ byterians, we are told : “ While repentance for sin and faith in Christ are indispensable to salvation, all who are saved are indebted from first to last to the grace and spirit of God. And the reason that God does not save all is not that he wants the power to do it, but that in his wisdom he does not see fit to exert that 9 Willard. “Complete Body of Divinity,” p. 143. 1 John Witherspoon. “ Works,” Vol. I., p. 342. 2 Venema’s “ Institutes of Theology,” pp. 297, 298, 299. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 47 power further than he actually does . While all such as reject the gospel of Christ do it not by coer¬ cion but freely, and all who embrace it, do it not by coercion but freely, the reason why some differ from others is that God has made them to differ.” 8 The following from the “ Princeton Essays,” con¬ demns Arminianism and gives the true Calvinistic doctrine. “ These views of human agency are such, that God is virtually represented as unable to control the moral exercises of his creatures ; that notwith¬ standing all that he can do they may yet act counter to his wishes, and sin on in despite of all the influence which he can exert over them consistently with their free agency. If this be not to emancipate the whole intelligent universe from the control of God and destroy all the foundations of our hopes in his promises we know not what it is. When sinners are thus repre¬ sented as depending on themselves, God having done all he can, exhausted all his power in vain for their conversion — how they can be made to feel that they are in his hands, depending on his sovereign grace, we can not conceive.” 4 “Effectual calling is a work of God’s infinite grace, executed by his Almighty power . The moving and original cause of our personal salvation, and so of our effectual calling of God is not at all nor in any degree anything in us ; but is the free and especial love of God for his elect according to his eternal purpose and grace in Jesus Christ . In this work of divine renovation, man is wholly passive. . . . . I have said repeatedly that the absolute domin- 3 As quoted by Geo. Duffield, D. D., in “ Bib. Sacra,” July, 1863, 4 “ Princeton Review,” 1846, p. 303. 48 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ion of God ever man, and the absolute dependence of man on God. are the fundamental truths that control all the relations between God and man.” 5 “If God could as easily have saved all as a part, why did he not manifest his goodness in doing so ? To which it may be answered, that we do not know the reasons of the divine conduct in this matter. He, as an absolute Sovereign, has a right to do as seemeth good with his own.” 6 Speaking of man’s ignorance of, and his inability to grasp divine things, Professor B. B. Ed¬ wards says, “If he undertakes to examine the mode of operation in any of the works of God, he will be baffled at every step. His curiosity prompts him to do this, but his powers are incompetent. He has a strong desire to know the manner in which God works in the world of mind — how he controls free agents, while yet they are conscious of perfect freedom — why God elects some, in his mere sovereign pleasure unto everlasting life, why he did not long since communi¬ cate the blessings of salvation to the whole family of man.” 7 “ In regeneration men are wholly passive ; as they also are in the first moment of conversion, but by it become active. Regeneration is an irresistible act of God’s grace ; no more resistance can be made to it, than there could be by the first matter in its creation, or by a dead man in his resurrection.” 8 “ The operations of the Spirit in regeneration are efficacidus or invincible. By this I mean what the old 5R. J. Breckenridge. “The Knowledge of God Subjectively Consid¬ ered,” pp. 132, 156, 55. 6 Dr. A. Alexander. “ Compend of Bible Truth,” p. 102. < “ Writings,” Vol. I., p. 283 SAlvan Tobey. “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XVIII., p. 382. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 49 divines meant by irresistible grace . He who subdued the heart of the persecuting Saul, and who cast seven devils out of Mary Magdalene, can, if he please, make any sinner a trophy of his grace.” * “The whole matter, therefore, resolves itself into the two questions : i . Can God exercise over men a particular providence so as to bring to pass his wise purposes, without destroying or impairing their free agency ? 2. Can God exert upon the minds of men, providentially and by his Spirit, a Divine influence that will certainly lead them to Christ, and induce them to persevere in his service, without interfering with their liberty ? These questions have already been answered. We have seen that the providence of God extends to all things and events, and that he can so govern even wicked men as to fulfill his purposes without interfering with their freedom of choice.” 1 Leaving a sinner to his own evil way is, according to Dr. Albert Barnes, . . . “an act of sovereignty on the part of God, .... and in not putting forth that in¬ fluence by which he could be saved from death.” Speaking of the passage “ For there is no respect of persons with God,” he says, “ It does not imply that he may not bestow his favors where he pleases, where all are undeserving ; or that he may not make a dif¬ ference in the characters of men by his providence and by the agency of his Spirit.”2 Combating the Armin- ian doctrine that God saves all whom he can, Dr. Nehemiah Adams affirms “ This can not be. We can not fully revere one whom we pity. We prefer to 9 Bennett Tyler. “Lectures on Theology," p. 359. 1 N. L. Rice, D. D. “God Sovereign and Man Free," p. 83. 2 “Commentary" on Romans, pp. 197, 58. 50 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD place every man, angel and devil, with every holy and sinful act, and the eternal happiness or misery of every one of us in the hands of an infinitely wise and power¬ ful God and pray that he would order everything with a view to the highest interest of his universal Kingdom.” 3 For the following, we are indebted to Dr. Charles Hodge. It gives no uncertain sound. “ If some men only are saved, while others perish, such must have entered into the all-comprehending purpose of God.” Again, speaking of common grace and the non-elect, he says, “That while the Holy Spirit, in his common operations, is present with every man, so long as he lives, restraining evil and exciting good, his certainly efficacious and saving power is exercised only in behalf of the elect.” 4 Dr. A. A. Hodge says “ It rests only with God himself to save all, many, few or none.” He informs us that “ Reprobation is the aspect which God’s eternal decree presents in its relation to that portion of the human race which shall be finally condemned for their sins. It is first, negative, inasmuch as it consists in passing over these, and refusing to elect them to life ; and second, positive, inasmuch as they are con¬ demned to eternal misery. In respect to its negative element, reprobation is simply sovereign, since those passed over were no worse than those elected, and the simple reason both for the choosing and for the pass¬ ing over, was the sovereign good pleasure of God.” 5 The reader is now in a position where he can read- 3 "Evenings with the Doctrines,” p. 255. 4 “ Systematic Theology,” Vol. II., pp. 332, 333. 5 “ Outlines of Theology,” pp. 181, 184. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 51 ily and intelligently judge of the true nature of Cal¬ vinism. All minor points in the system have been avoided beeause (1) They are logically involved in the preceding principles. Hence such doctrines as Original Sin, and Imputation, or the Federal Head-ship of Adam, are but means to an end ; intermediate steps by which the unconditional sovereignty of God is made to appear less repulsive and more reasonable. Once grant that God can decree or has eternally decreed a man’s destiny irrespective of divine foresight of what that person’s character shall freely be, you have logic¬ ally conceded all : the other doctrines simply explain how the result is reached. (2) Tike other theological systems, Calvinism in its minor doctrines is variously interpreted. Prof. Henry B. Smith has said, “ Cal¬ vinism, in its historical growth, has assumed a variety of forms. It has been prolific in systems.” 6 Hence Old and New School Calvinism, while agreeing on God’s sovereignty, differently explain such doctrines as Original Sin, Imputation and Ability. Thus Dr. Albert Barnes was tried for heresy because he did not accept among other doctrines the Old School view of Imputation.7 6 “ Faith and Philosophy,” p. 225. 7 “ To say that I am blameworthy, or ill deserving for a sin in which I had no agency, is no explanation, but is involving me in an additional dif¬ ficulty still more perplexing to ascertain how such a doctrine can possibly be just.” “Commentary.” Rom., p.122. PART II. CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD. “ Let it be remembered as a very just and very im¬ portant remark of Doddridge, that the plain sense of the Scriptures, or that which naturally strikes the minds of plain men as the real meaning is almost of course the true sense.” — Timothy Dwight , D. D. 53 — / PART II. CHAPTER I. Calvinism Teaches a Rimited Atonement. In a discussion where the Scriptures are the crite¬ rion, it is certainly appropriate to consider the leading principles of Biblical interpretation. Not a few in all ages have considered the Bible a book of contradic¬ tions. Almost every heresy in theology and many disorders in society have possessed advocates who have claimed protection from the Scriptures. Thus the crime of slavery was prolonged for centuries ; the pretended revelations of Mormonism — that festering and contaminating sore on the body politic — have been, and are now accepted by not a few, because of their alleged agreement with the word of God. Hence there are men that, perplexed by the many different theories and systems of thought ; and not possessing sufficient time and skill to expose the soph¬ isms, grow skeptical concerning the authority of the Bible, and like Pilate, cry despairingly “What is truth ? ’ ’ But beyond all successful contradiction the Bible is God’s revelation. It is for the instruction and guid¬ ance of the human race. A unity pervades its pages. It was meant to teach something : not anything and everything. While it contains “ some things hard to 55 56 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD be understood,” while it teaches mysteries which the human reason can not fathom, yet the underlying principles, the essentials of salvation are so clearly revealed that “ the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.” Jesus Christ is “the true Light which ligliteth every man that cometh into the world ’ ’ : consequently he affirmed concerning the unbelieving Jews, “ If I had not come and spoken unto them , they had not had sin ; but now they have no cloke for their sin.” The Calvinist has been justly admired for his ad¬ herence to the divine Word. The spirit which prompts him to go to the Law and the Prophets to search the Scriptures for the reason of the hope which is within him is worthy of all emulation. While it is hoped the same spirit will animate the present discussion, the methods of interpretation adopted may be designated as follows: (i) The clearly revealed Scriptures are to have the pre-eminence ; hence (2) The less clearly re¬ vealed Scriptures are to be interpreted by the former. (3) The context must be allowed its full weight ; and (4) the Analogy of Faith, or general harmony of Script¬ ure must be preserved. SECTION 1. Terms Defined. The Problem Stated. In this discussion the term atonement is used in its broadest sense. Objectively considered it refers to the vicarious sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ as satisfy¬ ing the divine law. Considered subjectively it refers to the results of Christ’s [perfect life and] sacrificial death which may be called salvation or redemption AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 57 from sin. This salvation is possible, and actual even as it is, or is not appropriated by the individual. Says Dr. Samuel D. Cochran : “This substitutional, expia¬ tory, righteous act of Christ, having this infinite value, is provisional for all human sinners, but made actual only for those who appropriate it by faith.”1 Hence the atonement objectively considered is the ground on which salvation is offered to all. By the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, God’s veracity and justice are exalted, and his infinite hatred of sin, but boundless love for the sinner wondrously revealed. God’s gov¬ ernment is honored while at the same time his mercy is freely extended to all. But all men do not accept this mercy : therefore the question before us is, For whom did Christ die ? For all men, or for a certain number called the “ elect ” ? Was it the will of God that Christ should die for all in a certain sense — so that all may and do receive benefits therefrom, but only for the elect in a saving or efficacious sense ? Or did he die for all men in the same sense? Calvinists answer these questions by saying : “ Christ died meri¬ toriously for all, efficaciously only for the elect.” To this effect is the declaration of the Westminster Con¬ fession of Faith. “ 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 there¬ unto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by 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 by Christ, effectually 1 “ The Moral System and the Atonement,” p. 245. 58 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only.”2 The following is from Dr. Lyman Atwater. ‘ ‘ All who know anything of the Westminster standards, know that they represent Christ as the ‘ Redeemer of God’s elect,’ and that they limit the redemptive effi¬ cacy of his death to his people.”3 “Our Saviour, likewise, in the course of his preaching, taught the doctrine of reprobation in plain and pointed terms. % He told some of his obstinate hearers that he came into the world to save the elect, and destroy the non¬ elect.”4 New England, or modern Calvinism differs from that of the Westminster symbol concerning the extent of the atonement. Dr. H. B. Smith says of Emmons : “He symbolized with the younger Edwards and Hop¬ kins, and opposed the older Calvinism as to the extent of the atonement, proclaiming it to be universal in its provisions.” To the Arminian, this is a distinction without any essential difference ; for while the methods are diverse, the results reached by both systems of Calvinism are the same. The old view conceives God as really inviting none but the elect, while according to the new school theo¬ logy, the entire human race is urged to accept salva¬ tion. The latter certainly appears more reasonable : but as it is explained by new school advocates it is mere logomachy. Thus Dr. Barnes says of the tenth chapter of Romans, “ In the closing part of this chap¬ ter the great doctrine is brought forth and defended, 2 p. 29. 3 “Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XXI., p. 116. 4 Emmons. “Works,” Vol. II., p. 396. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 59 that the way of salvation is open for all the world.”5 But how is the way of salvation open to all the world ? In the sense that it was the purpose of God to save all whom the divine foresight saw would freely accept Jesus ? By no means ; for as we have seen, Dr. Barnes, with all consistent Calvinists, denies foresight as the ground or basis of election. Here are his words as he explained his position before the Philadelphia Synod : ‘‘I may safely challenge any man to point out the place in the whole book (the Confession of Faith) where it is affirmed that the work of Christ in its original applicability is necessarily confined to any number or class of men.” Once more : “ To the Re¬ deemer’s sufferings and death contemplated apart from the actual purpose to apply his merits, I chose, in accordance with many writers, to apply the word atonement. The actual application of his work, I supposed might be appropriately expressed by the word redemption. It was not thought that this was a departure from Scripture usage. The word atonement occurs but once, as applicable to the death of Christ in the New Testament : the word redemption often, and this latter word always with reference to the pur¬ pose to apply it. It did not seem then, to be a gross violation of the Scripture usage to describe by the word atonement a thing which may and must be con¬ templated the highest and best gift of God — the suf¬ ferer, the bleeding victim, the atoning sacrifice ; still less can it be seen how this usage can be construed into an offense against the Confession of Faith. In all our standards of doctrine the word atonement never occurs. Nor is it the purpose of the standards to 5 i Com. 60 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD describe the thing which I wished to express by the word, the original, independent applicability of the sufferings of Christ. The Confession of Faith states only its application. For that it uses the word re¬ demption. It affirms of that, that it is limited and was intended to be limited. That the sermon never denied.” c Certainly a most wonderful, and to the present discussion, valuable confession. It shows (i) Dr. Barnes’ essential agreement with the Confession of Faith. (2) When he declares “that the way of salvation is open to all ’ ’ he means that the atonement, the objective atonement is applicable to all ; and as thus applicable to all is but once mentioned in the New Testament: and (3) That redemption which often occurs in the New Testament is limited — is meant to be limited to the elect. The problem is now clearly before the reader. The Arminian declaring, and the Calvinist denying that so far as the death of Jesus Christ is concerned, it had an equal reference to every man, and thus is the basis of God’s offer of mercy to the entire race. Over the gates of Plato’s school were the words, ‘ ‘ Fet no one not a geometrician enter here ’ ’ ; but the Word says, “ Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.” (Isa. lv. 1. ) 6 “ Christian Spectator,” 1831, pp. 294, 295. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 6l SECTION II. Concessions of Calvmists. Illustrating Certain Passages of Scrip hire. According to Dr. William Smith “election em¬ braces no decree or purpose that hinders any one from coming to Christ and being saved if they would. There is nothing that hinders their salvation but their own aversion to holiness and their love of sin ; and it is for this that God has purposed to damn them.’’ 7 Dr. Milner says “All men may be saved if they please. There wants the will only. But such is our natural enmity against God, that though the blood of his Son was freely spilt for all men without exception, not one soul would return to God by true repentance, were it not for his blessed and adorable purpose of election, which before the foundation of the world, determined that some souls should be benefited by his universal redemption and led to repentance toward God, to faith toward our Tord Jesus Christ.” 8 Speaking of the election of some, Dr. Nehemiah Adams affirms “ No injustice is done to those who are left : salvation is consistently offered to them, and their state is no worse than though all like them had perished.” 9 Dr. H. B. Smith, speaking of the differ¬ ences between the Old and New School Calvinists says, ‘ 1 And as to the limits of the atonement if we do not raise the intricate questions of the order of the decrees and the specific terms of the covenant of redemption, little more than a verbal dispute remains so soon as 7 “ What is Calvinism ? ” p. 50. 8 As quoted by G. S. Faber. “The Primitive Doctrine of Election,’’ London, 1862. p. 43. 9 “Evenings with the Doctrines,” p. 246. 62 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD we agree that the oblation made by Christ is sufficient for all, is to be offered to all, enhances the guilt of those who reject it ; and also had some special respect in the comprehensive divine purpose to the elect.” 1 The difficulties pertaining to Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees and the gospel invitations constrained Dr. John Dick to speak as follows: “There is a greater difficulty here than orthodox divines sometimes seem willing to acknowledge and the mode in which they meet it, is not always satisfactory . He who sees no difficulty here, has not, as he possibly imagines, more understanding than other men, but less.” 2 Dr. Isaac Watts is more positive and presents a view, which to some is quite plausible. Of the non¬ elect he says, “God himself has put no effectual and insurmountable bar, or rather no bar at all, in their way, to prevent their acceptance of his grace. His choosing other persons, to make them certain par¬ takers of this grace, is no hindrance to those who were not chosen, from accepting the same. It is my opin¬ ion that there is such a thing as a general sufficiency of pardon, grace and happiness provided for all man¬ kind by Jesus Christ. And it is left to their own nat¬ ural powers under common helps to accept or refuse it.” Then follow the reasons for the above. “ It is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed God, or his Son, in their universal offers of grace and salva¬ tion to men, and their sending ministers with such messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there be no such a conditional pardon and salvation pro¬ vided for them . It is hard to suppose that the 1 “ Faith and Philosophy.1' p. 286. 2 “ Lectures on Theology,” p. 375. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 63 great God, who is truth itself, and sincere and faithful in all his dealings, should call upon dying men to trust in a Saviour for eternal life, when this Saviour has not eternal life intrusted with him to give them, if they do repent. It is hard to conceive how the great Gov¬ ernor of the world can be sincere in inviting and re¬ quiring sinners who are on the brink of hell to cast themselves upon an empty word of invitation — a mere shadow and appearance of support if there be nothing real to bear them up from those deeps of destruction, and nothing but mere words and empty invitations.” Yet he says, ‘ ‘ It seems evident to me from several texts of the Word of God that Christ did not die with an equal design for all men ; but that there is a special number whom the Father chose and gave to the Son, whose salvation is absolutely secured by the death and intercession of Christ.” 3 Agreeing with Dr. Watts, Dr. Venerna says, “ Common grace, of which even those who perish par¬ take, consists in the offer of Christ made in the gospel, an offer which is intended by God to be made to all, and in which no one at least is excluded. .... All have common grace, and it is possible for all to believe ; and if they will believe they will be saved.” This is called a general predestination ; or, ‘ ‘ a general purpose on the part of God to save those who believe — a pur¬ pose which had reference also to those who rejected it.” If God has not such a general decree or purpose, “ then we can not hold that God seriously wills that all men should receive the proposition made to them. If, however, he does so will, then it must have refer¬ ence to all who read or hear it, and the purpose by 3 “ Works,” needs edition, Vol. III., p. 468. 64 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD which he has ordained a connection between faith and salvation must be general. We are aware, indeed, that there is a particular connection which has refer¬ ence only to the elect. Yet this proposition is made to all without distinction. For it would be absurd to suppose that God says to all ‘ believe and ye shall be saved’ ; and yet that he does not will that they should believe and be saved.” 4 Alluding to the relation of conviction and practice, President Edwards remarks,” And so if men are really convinced of the truth of the things they are told in the gospel, about an eternal world, and the everlasting salvation that Christ has purchased for all that will accept it, it will influence their practice.”5 Dr. Hodge sa}\s, “The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect ; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of jus¬ tification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide ? 6 4 “Institutes.” pp. 278, 303-305. This, as I said of the theory of Dr. Watts, is plausible to some minds. Beneath the surface, however, there is the true Calvinistic doctrine that faith — without which no one can be saved — is a gift of God, given to some, withheld from others. 5 “ Christian Love,” p. 333. 6 “Theology.” Vol. II., p.555, “ If any of the elect.” This is a wise provision, for elsewhere Dr. Hodge says that the death of Christ renders “ the ultimate salvation of the elect absolutely certain. Of the non-elect, he declares they are “ in a state of condemnation, sin and misery, from which they are utterly unable to deliver themselves.” Surely, this is extremely magnanimous. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 65 In the “ Practical Sermons ” of Dr. Barnes we find the following: “ It is not my purpose in this discourse — though my text (Rev. xxii. 17) might seem to invite it— to dwell on the fact that the gospel is offered to all men ; that the Redeemer died for all ; that the eternal Father is willing to save all ; or that ample provision is made for all who will come. On these points, it is sufficient for my present purpose to say, that my text declares that ‘ whosoever will may take the water of life freely.’ ” 7 But of all Calvinists, Dr. Chalmers is, perhaps, the most enthusiastic advocate of the freeness of the gospel. The thought is so fresh and forcible that I can not forbear quoting at some length: “ I can not but think that the doctrine of Particular Redemption has been expounded by many of its defenders in such a way as to give an unfortunate aspect to the Christian dispensation. As often treated, we hold it to be a most unpractical and useless theory, and not easy to be vindicated, without the infliction of an unnatural violence on many passages of Scripture. . . . . But far its worst effect is, that it acts as a drag and a deduction from the freeness of the gospel. Its ministers are made to feel the chilling influence of a limitation upon their warrant. If Christ died only for the elect, and not for all, they are puzzled to under¬ stand how they should proceed with the calls and invitations of the gospel. They feel themselves dis¬ abled from addressing them to all ; and this, in their ignorance of the elect and the reprobate individually, seems tantamount to their being disabled from address¬ ing them to any . There must be a sad misun¬ derstanding somewhere. The commission put into 1 P. 8. 66 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD our hands is to go and preach the gospel to every creat¬ ure under heaven ; and the announcement sounded forth on the world from heaven’s vault was, peace on earth, good-will to men. There is no freezing limita¬ tion here, but a largeness and munificence of mercy boundless as space, free and open as the expanse of the firmament. We hope, therefore, the gospel, the real gospel, is as unlike the views of some of its interpre¬ ters, as creation in all its boundlessness and beauty is unlike to the paltry scheme of some wretched scholas¬ tic in the Middle Ages . In the gospel, the flag of invitation waves in sight of the whole species. It is not inscribed there, ‘ Whosoever of the elect will ’ ; but ‘ Whosoever will, let him come and drink of the waters of life freely.’ Neither do we read, ‘ Look unto me, ye specified and selected few ’ ; but ‘ Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved.’ It is not in the capacity of an elect sinner, but in the capacity of a sinner, that he who is eventually saved entertains the overtures of reconciliation. These overtures are not made to him as one of the children of election ; they are made to him as one of the children of humanity. It is on the stepping-stone of a universal offer that each man reaches and realizes his own particular sal¬ vation . The advocates of universal redemption are quite at one with ourselves as to the reception which the universal offer should meet with from all men. It should meet with universal acceptance, and should be pressed, too, on universal acceptance.” 8 Professor Tyndall has confessed to the world that his religious doubts were strongest in moments of intellectual despondency ; that his faith in God’s ex- 8 “Theology.” Vol. II., pp. 418, 419, 421. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 67 istence grew firmer in proportion as he came into the clear sunlight of mental conviction. Possibly the experience of the scientist will explain the position of the theologians whose views we have been considering. Certain it is, these writers believe in and contend for a free gospel— an unlimited salvation — a redemption from sin, which every son of Adam ought to accept. They establish the fact beyond all controversy that God does invite, nay, urge every sinful soul to accept the gift of salvation. SECTION III. Are the Gospel bivitations Sincere ? I much prefer to assume, and not to discuss this question. The very thought shocks our moral senti¬ ments. If long entertained it not only impairs the authority of the Scriptures, but attacks and gradually undermines the very citadel of personal religion — faith in the essential righteousness of God. But there is no alternative. The issue is forced upon the student of theology by the position of the Calvinists. As it has been shown (see Chapters in. and iv. of Part I ) one of the fundamental doctrines of Calvinism is the absolute omnipotence of God. In this respect all con¬ sistent Calvinists must follow in the footsteps of their great leader ; as a recent writer has expressed it, “As we read the Institutes of Calvin, we see that the corner-stone of the whole structure is his doctrine of the Sovereignty of God.” 9 Hence, the logical con¬ sistency of their position that if God were so disposed he could save every soul in the world. 9 Rev. James B. Gregg. “ New Englander,” 1880, p. 454. 68 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD All modern Calvinists agree in declaring the uni¬ versality of the gospel invitations. God can, but does not save all whom He invites. Consequently arises the difficulty concerning which Dr. Chalmers says “ there must be a sad misunderstanding somewhere,” while Dr. Dick declares that the Calvinist, who is determined to see “no difficulty here, has not, as he probably imagines, more understanding than other men, but less.” “The many declarations in which God exhorts man to keep his commandments, appear to him ironical, as if a father were to say to his child, ‘ Come,’ while he knows that he can not come! ” 1 Of those to whom God does not give efficacious grace, Calvin says, “ 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 blind ; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that they may be more besotted ; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be healed.” 2 Rev. John Sladen informs his hearers, “All that God designed to save he saves ; but he actually saves some only, therefore, he designed to save only some of fallen Adam’s children, for, if we consider God as infinite in wisdom, and of almighty power, there can not be a more rational way of arguing than from his acts to his designs.”3 This is similar to Symimgton’s argument, who says in behalf of a limited atonement, “ The event is the best interpreter of the divine inten¬ tion.” 4 Dr. Nehemiah Adams says, “ Not one more, 1 Said of Luther. Hagenbach’s “Hist, of Doc.,” Vol. II., p. 259. 2 “ Institutes.” B. III., Chap. XXIV., Sec. 13 3 “A Defence of Gospel Doc.,” p. 78 4 As quoted in Bledsoe’s “Theodicy,” p. 235 AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 69 not one less will be saved than God purposed.” 5 “ God never designed to save every individual ; since, if he had, every individual would and must be saved ; for his counsel shall stand and he will do all his pleas¬ ure.” f> It is now evident that if Calvinists have correctly interpreted the Scriptures, the universal invitations which constantly meet the e)^e of sinners, such as, “Ho, everyone that thirsteth,” “ Come unto me all ye that labor ; ” “ The spirit and the bride say, Come ; And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst, Come, And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely,” do not and can not mean what the plain, ordinary readers in all ages have understood by them. With Justin Martyr, Ambrose and Chrysostom of the early Church, and with many thousands of modern Christians, I had ignorantly thought that the uni¬ versal invitations to the gospel feast meant what they said — expressed the real sentiments and sincere desires of God. But such is not the case — if Calvinism be correct — for while the everlasting Father does invite all through his revealed will, his secret will — his real desire is that only a certain number shall accept his overtures of mercy. Thus speaks Dr. Lyman Atwater, who says, “ It results from the universality of God’s decrees, as now set forth, that they who accept it, must also accept the distinction between the decretive and the preceptive will of God, i. e., inasmuch as many things occur contrary to his commands, while yet he foreordains all things, it must be that in these cases 5 “Evenings with the Doctrines,” p. 257 6 Toplady “Works,” p. 692. 70 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD he proposes one thing and commands another. This can not be evaded by any who admit the universality of his decrees or purposes.” 7 Commenting on Rom. ix. 19, Dr. K. D. Griffin says, “His decretive will in distinction from his preceptive — a distinction which the apostle here brings into view and does not deny, but in the context clearly affirms.” 8 Concerning the secret will of God, Dr. Emmons declares that it “solely respects the taking place of those things which he determined from eternity should take place, without any regard to the nature of them, whether morally good or morally evil. It was his secret will that not only holiness and happiness, but that sin and misery also should take place among his intelligent creatures. It is his secret will that all the elect shall repent and believe, and that all the non-elect shall live and die in impenitence and un¬ belief : though he loves faith and repentance and hates impenitence and unbelief.” 9 In the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1856 there is a Review of Toplady’s Theology by Prof. Geo. N. Boardman, D. D. Wesley’s great opponent says, “Although the will of God, considered in itself, is simply one and the same ; yet in condescension to the present capacities of men, the Divine Will is very properly distinguished into secret and revealed. Thus it was his revealed will that Pharaoh should let the Israelites go : that 7 “ Bib. Sacra," Vol. XXI., p. 82. The invasion has been attempted by one of Dr. Atwater’s friends. With what success will appear further on. Doubtless, the logic of Dr. Atwater is correct in maintaining that he who accepts liis premises ought to grant his conclusion. Strange that he does not question and deny the soundness of his premises. 8 “ Divine Efficiency,” p. 147. 9 “ Works.” Vol. II., p. 346. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 7 1 Abraham should sacrifice his son ; that Peter should not deny Christ ; but as was proved by the event, it was his secret will that Pharaoh should not let Israel go ; that Abraham should not sacrifice Isaac, and that Peter should deny his Lord.” To this Professor Boardman adds, as an explanation, “It must not be inferred from this that God’s will is ever contrary to itself. The secret will of God is in reality his will : while that which is revealed has reference to the various circumstances of men. The hidden will is peremptory and absolute.” 1 Here we have new light. It must be confessed the rays therefrom are cold, freezing cold, but it can not be denied that the truth as it is in Jesus has burst upon and overwhelmed us. As the sincerity of Almighty Love was eluding us, as it was getting every moment less and less real, I had hoped — doubtless, with the reader, that our un¬ erring interpreters of the Bible would leave untouched, the only remaining comfort of the non-elect, viz.: an eternal antagonism between the two Divine wills. But no ; even this small hope vanishes as the truth is forced upon me that the universal invitations of the gospel are no more to be relied upon than are the dreams of a madman ; for as these theologians tell us, they are in no sense the real expression of the Divine will. These invitations are made out of gracious con¬ descension to our finite capacities : they convey no truth, they express no reality, for in all cases “the secret will of God, is in reality, his will.” The reasoning of this school of Calvinists when explaining the doctrine of a limited atonement, irre- 1 Pages, 812, 813. 72 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD sistibly leads to a flat denial of the Divine sincerity. To them it may appear reasonable and satisfactory ; but to other Calvinists it does not. Thus President R. L. Dabney, while claiming “that there is a just distinction between God’s decretive and preceptive will,” says “but let the question be stated thus: Do all the solemn and tender entreaties of God to sinners express no more, as to the non-elect, than a purpose in God, uncompassionate and merely rectoral, to acquit himself of his legislative function towards them ? To speak after the manner of men, have all these apparently touching appeals after all no heart in them ? We can not but deem it an unfortunate logic which constrains a man to take this view of them. How much more simple and satisfactory to take them for just what they express? evidences of a true com¬ passion, which yet is restrained, in the case of the unknown class, the non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regen¬ erate.” The average reader will agree with Dr. Dabney that there must be some heart in the gospel invitations ; that the Divine compassion for lost souls which is constantly breaking forth in such expressions as “ Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed ; and make you a new heart and a new spirit ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?” must be rooted in everlasting sincerity. But let us see if Dr. Dabney has, in any essential degree, abetter solution. After declaring that “the plain Christian mind will ever stumble on this fatal question, How can a truthful and consistent God have two opposite wills about the same object?” he adds. “It is far more Scriptural, and, as we trust, has AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 73 been shown, far more logical to say, that an immutable and sovereign God never had but one will (one pur¬ pose, or volition), as to this lost man ; as a faithful God would never publish any other volition than the one he entertained, but that it was entirely consistent for God to compassionate where he never purposed nor promised to save, because this sincere compassion was restrained within the limits God announced by his own wisdom.”2 Certainly this is a remarkable solu¬ tion. Dr. Dabney believes in, and contends for, God’s real compassion for the non-elect ; yet he gravely tells us that this yearning of the Father for the return of his lost children does not lead to salvation because “ He never purposed nor promised to save.” If this signifies anything, it must mean that the universal invitations of the gospel were never intended by God as promises to the non-elect. True, the same language between man and man would always be understood as a promise ; is so under¬ stood by every ordinary reader of the Bible through¬ out Christendom : but nevertheless it is all a mistake. God has never purposed nor promised to save the non¬ elect ; he has simply announced to the world that he really pities, sincerely compassionates them. Beyond all controversy Dr. Dabney and Dr. Toplady are in the same dilemma. They simply differ in the choice of the horn on which they shall be impaled. Dr. Toplady says God’s universal invitations are not real, because they are in no essential sense the expression of his will. Dr. Dabney replies, “ No, you are mis¬ taken, Dr. Toplady. Your logic is at fault ; these invitations of God are sincere ; they express his reai 2 “ Princeton Review,” July, 1878, p. 59. 74 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD compassion, you err in supposing them to be promises ; that, they are not and were never intended to be. One moment’s serious thought will explode these sophisms. The universal invitations of the gospel are sincere, not only because they express God’s real com¬ passion, but because they are his promises to be fulfilled the instant the conditions are truly met. There is not one declaration within the pages of the Bible, offering peace and salvation to the troubled soul that is not a promise to any and every one who reads. As Dr. Chalmers has said : “In no place in the Bible is pardon addressed to any man on the footing that he is one of the elect ; but in all places of the Bible pardon is addressed to every man on the footing that he is one of the species. On the former footing, there would be no warrant to any for the faith of the gospel, for no man knows at the commencement of his Christianity that he is one of the elect. On the latter footing, there is a distinct warrant to all, if they so choose, for the faith of the gospel — for every man knows that he is one of the human race. It is most assuredly in his latter capacity and not in his former, that the calls and offers and entreaties of the gospel are brought to his door.’’3 He who was “ the Way, the Truth, and the Life,’’ who was a perfect scourge to all hypocrites, and who declared that every idle word shall be brought to judgment, meant exactly, without any qualifications or evasions whatsoever, what his words seem to mean when he said “ Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. ’’ 3 “Theology,” Vol. II., p. 422. AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 75 (Matt. xi. 28, 29). Anything short of this is unmit¬ igated hypocrisy. SECTION IV. The Atonement, An Expression of God's Universal Love. Beyond all controversy the attributes and charac¬ ter of Deity should be considered with veiled faces and in the spirit of profound reverence. We can not “find out the Almighty unto perfection,” for as the heavens are higher than the earth,” so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts. Hence as the devout theologian analyzes the Divine Attributes he has no intention of unduly magnifying one above another. Like the subsistences in the Godhead, each is perfect in its sphere, while of necessity all are related by a governing principle. What this central attribute of Deity is, has been va¬ riously defined, just as the student of theology has been most influenced by natural or by moral ideas of God’s government. As we have seen, Calvinism has always taken the natural as the central principle of the Divine procedure, and consequently the omnipo¬ tence of God is the key which unlocks the mysteries of Calvinistic theology. Hence this attribute has been called “the first article of our Faith,” while those who deny it are charged with being “Atheists.” Against this false view of the Divine character many thoughtful men have always rebelled. Nor do the Scriptures speak with any uncertainty. So far as any one term can express the governing attribute in the nature of God, it is not power, nor wisdom, but love. “ He that loveth not, knoweth not God ; for God is 76 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD love . And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love ; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.” (i. Tohn iv. 8-16.) It will be interesting and profitable to notice a few of the many comments on this passage. Says Alford, “Love is the very essence, not merely an attribute, of God. It is co-essential with Him.” Cowles remarks “ Inform, the statement seems abstract, metaphysical; for observe, it is not that God is kind, affectionate, evermore manifesting his good will ; but that he is love itself — the very impersonation of love ; all love, and nothing else but love. It is of course compre¬ hensive, all embracing. It means that there can never be anything in him, nothing coming from him, that is not loving — an outgoing of His love. Christlieb declares, “. . . . As spirituality is the vital foundation of his physical and intellectual perfec¬ tions, so holy love is the internal basis of all his moral perfections, and a necessary deduction from the true idea of the absolute.” 4 Delitzsch says, “. . . . When the apostle says of God, not that he is the love, but that he is love, i. e., that he is love in the deepest ground and entire circuit of his nature living itself forth, we obtain the disclosure — which follows, besides, from the fact, that he is light, absolutely free from darkness (i. John i. 5) — that the will which is the root of his being has love as its impulse, and is thus the will of love.” 5 This all controlling characteristic of the Divine Nature clearly and beautifully explains the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is not only “ the Lamb of God 4 “ Modern Doubt and Christian Belief,” p. 222. 5 “ Biblical Psychology,” p. 203. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 77 which taketh away the sin of the world,” but he is the very Incarnation of the Father’s love for every one whom he has created. “ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlast¬ ing life.” All attempts of the Calvinists to change the obvious meaning of this passage so as to favor their doctrine of a limited atonement have signally failed. The object of God’s love was the world, the entire human race, and it was the same to all, not re¬ stricted to a certain class otherwise designated as ‘ ‘ the elect.” The same doctrine is expounded by the Apos¬ tle Paul. “ For the love of Christ constraineth us ; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead : And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” (n. Cor. v. 14-15.) On this passage, Dr. Barnes says, ‘ ‘ The phrase ‘ for all ’ evidently means for all mankind ; for every man. This is an exceedingly im¬ portant expression in regard to the extent of the atone¬ ment . It demonstrates that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation and no particular reference to any one class or condi¬ tion of men, and no particular applicability to one class more than another.” Speaking of the ministry of reconciliation, Paul says “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them : ” (verse 19). Tange says the ‘ ‘ world ” “ signifies the human race, and as it is here without the article, it means perhaps a ‘ whole world. ’ ’ ’ “ Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time;” (1. Tim. ii. 6). “ For, therefore, we 78 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe” (iv. io). Of the former passage Alford says, ‘ ‘ This oneness of the Mediator, involving in itself the universality of Redemption, was the great subject of Christian testimony.” “ For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath ap¬ peared to all men ” . (Titus ii. n). “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor ; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man” (Heb. ii. 9). Commenting on this Dr. Charles Hodge says, “ Christ tasted death for every one of the objects of redemption ” thus contradicting the plain sense of the passage ; for allowing full scope for all differences of opinion concerning the gender, the “ all ” is incontestably declared. The same truth is taught in Rom. v. 18: “Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to con¬ demnation ; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” While this passage gives no hope to Universalism, it positively condemns the doctrine of a restricted atone¬ ment. “ And he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world” ( 1. John ii. 2). “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up : That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John iii. I4„i5). The historic scene to which the Master here alludes is familiar to all. The Israelites were in a spirit of wicked distrust and bitter murmurings. As a punishment the Ford sent fiery serpents which de- AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE}. 79 stroyed many of the people. The infliction had the desired effect : the people were humbled and sought the intercession of Moses. ‘ ‘ And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole ; and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole ; and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass he lived.” Here the intention and the provision were as wide as the disease. So, according to Jesus is the divine remedy. Hence, sorrowing men in all ages have found comfort in reading that wonderful prophecy — the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. It speaks with no uncertainty of the universal provisions of the gospel, declaring “ All we, like sheep, have gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” According to Neander, the Parable of the Prodigal Son reveals the Father’s love for the sinful and rebukes s< not merely the JewT- ish exclusiveness, but all those limitations of God’s purposes for the salvation of the human race, whether before or after Christ, which the arbitrary creeds of men have attributed to the divine decrees. The par¬ able clearly implies that the love of the Father contem¬ plates the salvation of all his fallen children among all generations of men.” 6 It will now be in order to notice one or two objec¬ tions often urged against the Arminian view of these and other passages, (i) It may be said, as President Dabney has affirmed, that these expressions of love mean nothing more than “ a propension of benevolence 6 “ Life of Christ,” p. 214. 8o CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD not matured into the volition to redeem, of which Christ’s mission is a sincere manifestation to all sin¬ ners.” Without anticipating the consideration of this solution upon which Dr. .Dabney so confidently relies, I may say, in passing, that it radically fails to ac¬ count for the plain, unequivocal language of the Bible. In all of these passages there is but one class of men considered. That class embraces all who are lost in sin. For them God has an infinite love. Christ came as the incarnation of that love to die for them that they through Him might be saved. The ex¬ pressions of God’s love have, or have not a reference to “the elect.” Dr. Dabney may take his choice. Whatever is declared of one is declared of all. This is substantially the same answer which is to be made to the second objection, namely, “ Christ’s death was sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect.” Thus Dr. N. L. Rice remarks, “ It is objected again, that according to the Calvinistic view, Christ made no atonement for the non-elect, and our Armin- ian friends have urged against the doctrine all those passages of Scripture which represent Christ as having died for all men. But the word ‘ for,’ like all other prepositions, has a number of meanings. What, then, do they mean by affirming that Christ died for all men? Do they mean that he made an atonement, which, in consequence of his infinite dignity, is suffi¬ cient for all men ? If so, we have no controversy with them ; for we hold that the Atonement is of infinite value, and that no one is lost because its virtue is exhausted. Do they mean that in making an atone¬ ment Christ designed to offer salvation indiscriminately to all men ? If so, we agree with them. Our views of AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 8 1 the gospel require us to preach it ‘ to every creature.’ Do they mean that Christ really purposed to save all men by his death ? They can not mean this ; for, in the first place, multitudes were forever lost before he died, and it will scarcely be pretended that he designed to save them. In the second place, he certainly knew who would believe and be saved : for he knew all things ; and it would be absurd to say that he designed to save those he knew he never would save. ” 7 I have purposely quoted this author at some length that his argument may be fairly analyzed. Notice (a) Dr. Rice confesses that Christ did not really purpose to save all men ; yet (£) Christ offers “ salvation indiscrimin¬ ately to all men.” Query: Is Christ divided in that he offers a thing while at the same time he never really purposes to give it ? This must be, or else Dr. Rice uses the word “ purposed ” in the double sense of sin¬ cere desire, or honest intention and positive volition. The Arminian readily answers the question by saying Christ really purposed to save all who would freely yield themselves to the influences of the Holy Spirit. So far, the “ purpose ” is as wide as the race. But if the question of divine knowledge or foreknowledge is brought into the problem — which Dr. Rice raises, and by-the-way, one can not help wondering why a Calvin¬ ist should confound the divine purpose, or decree to save, with the knowledge of who would believe, — then the intention or purpose of Christ passes into the posi¬ tive volition to save those only who are foreseen to be obedient. If this is what Dr. Rice means by say¬ ing Christ “ certainly knew who would believe and be saved ” he has passed into the domain of Arminian V “ God Sovereign and Man Free,” p. 1 1 8, 82 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD theology. If not, then this part of his argument not only amounts to nothing, but it makes Jesus offer to all men that which he never purposed to bestow, — which is usually designated as hypocrisy. But (V) Dr. Rice is generous in saying the atonement “ is sufficient for all men.” Doubtless it is ; but of what account in the saving of sinners is its mere sufficiency unless applied by the divine purpose ? Moreover, this language is not biblical. I gladly challenge any Calvinist to pro¬ duce one passage of God’s Word declaring Christ did not die for all, or affirming that while his death is suf¬ ficient for all it is efficacious only for the elect. The proposition is of that scholastic spirit which can “ The hair divide Between the west and southwest side,” and would never have been thought of were it not that a pet theory demanded an additional prop. Dr. Jenkyn has truly said, “An all-sufficiency, yet not intended for all who are invited to partake of it, is such an awful imposture that I grudge the very ink that mentions it in connection with the Gospel of Truth.” 8 (3) With all Calvinists, Dr. Charles Hodge argues a limited atonement from the Express Declarations of Scripture. These are such passages as “Even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it” (Eph. v. 25). “As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep” (John x. 15). “ Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John xv. 13). The reader will notice that these expressions are of the same general character as Paul’s 8 “ The Rxtent of the Atonement,” p. 104. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 83 words to Timothy — previously quoted — where God is declared to be the Saviour “of all men, .specially of those that believe.” Of necessity there is a more inti¬ mate and vital relation existing between Jesus Christ and his followers, than there can be between him and those who have not exercised saving faith. To deny this is to affirm the unreality of all spiritual distinc¬ tions ; hence Paul appropriately notices this relation by saying that while God is the Saviour of all men, yet he is specially so of those who love him. As Alford remarks, “He is the same Saviour towards, and of all ; but these alone appropriate his salvation.” Now as Scripture best explains Scripture, it is certainly fair to say that the passages adduced by Dr. Hodge do not mean anything essentially different from those which we have been considering. If the clearly expressed parts of the Bible are to have the preference, if they are to interpret the more obscure passages, then the many clear and unequivocal affirmations of the uni¬ versal extent of the atonement are not to be interpreted by such tantalizing words as ‘ ‘ the Atonement was suf¬ ficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect.” Moreover, the terms “church,” “sheep” and “ friends ” are susceptible of a different meaning from that conveyed by Dr. Hodge, namely, those foreseen to be true believers. As thus considered, they do sus¬ tain a peculiar relation to the Saviour — as Paul de¬ clares, and as already explained — while at the same time the truth for which I am here contending is fully vindicated. 84 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD SECTION V. The Salvation of All Men , the Pleasure a7id Will of God. This proposition is a logical deduction from the universality of God’s love. But not satisfied with the statement that the Father of Mercies “with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning’’ has an infinite love for every sinful soul, the Bible unmistakably declares that the salvation of all men is according to the pleasure and will of God. “Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed ; and make you a new heart and a new spirit ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel ? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God : wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye’’ (Ezek. xviii. 31, 32). “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from his way and live : turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways ; for why will ye die, O house of Israel ? ’’ (Ezek. xxxiii. 11). “For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men’’ (Lamentations iii. 33). Paul exhorts that “supplications, prayers, interces¬ sions, and givingof thanks, be made for all men,” giv¬ ing as a reason, “ For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1. Tim. ii. 3, 4). Of this passage Calvin says, “ By this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of of men.” 9 If I should say this was far from expressing 9 “ Institutes,” B. III., ch. xxiv., Sec. 16. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 85 the meaning of the passage, and that indicates a lament¬ able lack of exegetical fairness on the part of the great Reformer, the reader might possibly charge me with being prejudiced. Ret Alford speak, who certainly can not be charged with Arminian tendencies. “ Cal¬ vin most unworthily shuffles out of the decisive testi¬ mony borne by this passage to universal redemption, saying, ‘ The Apostle simply means, that no people or rank in the world is excluded from salvation.’ ” The testimony of Dr. Albert Barnes is equally explicit. “ This verse (4th) proves ( 1 ) that salvation is provided for all : for if God wished all men to be saved, he would undoubtedly make provision for their salvation; and if he had not made such provision, it could not be said that he desired their salvation, since no one can doubt that he has power to provide for the salvation of all ; (2) that salvation should be offered to all men; for if God desires it, it is right for his ministers to announce that desire, and if he desires it, it is not proper for them to announce anything contrary to this: (3) that men are to blame if they are not saved. If God did not wish their salvation, and if he had made no provision for it, they could not be to blame if they rejected the gospel. If God wishes it, and has made provision for it, and they are not saved, the sin must be their own. ’ ’ This is anything but sound Calvinism, but nevertheless it rings with good common sense and is Scripturally consistent. “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness ; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (11. Peter iii. 9). A brief resutnd of the Bible argument on this 86 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD subject may assist the reader in determining the cor¬ rectness of the position here maintained. We have found (i) that all men are invited to partake of a common salvation, Calvinists themselves being the judges. (2) That these universal invitations are uttered in all Godly sincerity. (3) That they are thus offered because Jesus Christ has made an unlim¬ ited atonement, has tasted death for every man. (4) That this universal atonement is the expression of the sincere pleasure and will of God, who is “ not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” This naturally leads us to the consideration of the question, What is meant by the “will of God” as used in the above passages ? In the Princeton Review of July, 1878, President Robert T. Dabney considered this question in an article entitled “ God’s Indiscrimi¬ nate Proposals of Mercy as Related to His Power, Wisdom and Sincerity.” It is the best Calvinistic solution with which I am acquainted, and I should be constrained to accept it were I not convinced that its foundation principles are decidedly fallacious. In former pages I have alluded to, and quoted a few .sen¬ tences from this article. I now propose to examine it more thoroughly, and, so far as possible, fairly test it upon its own merits. Commencing his article, Dr. Dabney says, “ If God makes proposals of mercy to men, who, he foresees, will certainly reject them and perish, and whom he immutably purposes to leave without effectual calling, how can his power and wisdom be cleared, save at the expense of his sincerity ? or his sincerity at the ex¬ pense of his wisdom or power ? This is obviously the AND MAN’S MORAU NATURE. 87 point in the Reformed or Augustinian theology most difficult of adjustment . The occasion for call¬ ing in question either God’s sincerity, or his wisdom, or power, upon the supposition of an unconditional decree, arises from three classes of Scriptures. One is the indiscriminate offer of salvation. Another is the ascription of Christ’s sacrifice to love for ‘ the world ’ as its motive, and the calling of him the ‘ Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world,’ ‘ giveth himself for the world,’ etc. The third is composed of those which present God as pitying all sinners, and even those who are never saved. Every reader’s mind will suggest texts of each class. Now, it is notorious that these furnish the armory from which the Arminians equip their most pertinacious attacks on Calvinism ; that it is on these texts the Calvinistic exegesis labors most and displays the most uncertainty ; and that the usual Calvinistic solutions of them are scornfully denounced as inadequate by their opponents. These facts, of course, do not prove that the Arminians are right ; but they evince the occasion for, and utility of, more satisfactory discus¬ sion.” 1 Doubtless the reader rejoices with me in knowing that President Dabney is not of that class of Calvinists who think their theology beyond improvement. He has clearly and satisfactorily stated the problem. He has confessed the seeming strength of the Arminian posi¬ tion, and the corresponding difficulties of the “ usual Calvinistic solutions.” Let us now candidly examine his argument in behalf of a limited atonement. 1 Pages 33, 34 88 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD The main point in the solution is “ best indicated by an analogical instance.” Thus he says, “A hu¬ man ruler may have full power and authority over the punishment of a culprit, may declare consistently his sincere compassion for him, and may yet freely elect to destroy him.” Washington is selected as the ruler and Major Andre as the culprit. Chief-Justice Mar¬ shall in his “ Tife of Washington ” speaks of this historic scene as follows : “ Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy.” Commenting on this, Dr. Dabney sa}^s, “ Washington had plenary power to kill or to save alive. His com¬ passion for the criminal was real and profound. Yet he signed his death-warrant with spontaneous decis¬ ion. The solution is not the least difficult either for philosphy or common sense. ’ ’ After analyzing human volitions, Dr. Dabney returns to the analogy. He says “ Washinton’s volition to sign the death-warrant of Andre did not arise from the fact that his compas¬ sion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments and propensions of wisdom, duty, patriot¬ ism, and moral indignation.” “Tet us suppose that one of Andre’s intercessors (and he had them — even among the Americans) standing by, and hearing the commanding general say, as he took up the pen to sign the fatal paper, ‘ I do this with the deepest reluc¬ tance and pity ; 5 should have retorted : ‘ Since you are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily abil¬ ity to throw down that pen, we shall know by your signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical ! * The petulance of this charge would have been equal AND MAN’S MORAR NATURE. 89 to its folly. The pity was real ; but was restrained by superior elements of motive : Washington had official and bodily power to discharge the criminal ; but he had not the sanction of his own wisdom and justice. Thus his pity was genuine, and yet his volition not to indulge it free and sovereign.” This is followed by an exposition of the Arminian and the ordinary Cal- vinistic views, which are to “be exploded by explain¬ ing the nature of motive and free rational volition.” Here the principle is applied to the question at issue. “ The correct answer to the Arminian is to show him that the existence of a real and unfeigned pity in God for ‘ him that dieth ’ does not imply that God has ex¬ hausted his divine power in vain to renew the creat¬ ure’s ‘ free will ’ in a way consistent with its nature, because the pity may have been truly in God, and yet countervailed by superior motives, so that he did not will to exert his omnipotence for that sinner’s re¬ newal.” ‘ ‘ The other extreme receives the same reply : the absence of an omnipotent (and inevitably efficient) volition to renew that soul does not prove the absence of a true compassion in God for him ; and for the same reason the propension may have been in God, but restrained from rising into a volition by superior rational motives.”2 It is quite probable that Dr. Dabney has made himself sufficiently clear to the reader ; but desiring to have the principle thoroughly understood I will conclude this part of the argument in his own words, namely, “that God does have com¬ passion for the reprobate, but not express volition to save them, because his infinite wisdom regulates his 2 Pages 36, 37, 38. 90 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) all its active principles.” :5 To our author “ the supposed obstacles ” against the adoption of this solution, ‘‘seem to class them¬ selves under three heads. ( i ) The difference between a finite and an infinite almighty governor makes the parallel worthless. (2) Such a theory of motive and free agency may not be applied to the divine will, because of God’s absolute simplicity of being, and the unity of his attributes with his essence, the total lack of ‘ passive powers ’ in his glorious nature, and the unity and eternity of his whole will as to all events. It is feared that the parallel would misrepresent God’s activities of will by a vicious anthropomorphism. (3) No such balancing of subjective motives takes place without inward strivings, which would be inconsistent with God’s immutability and blessedness.” 4 Not wishing to forget the real question at issue I shall rest the case on the first objection suggested by Dr. Dabney, namely, ‘‘The difference between a finite and an infinite almighty governor makes the parallel worthless.” Our author disposes of this objection by affirming two propositions, namely: (1) That incase of the lost there are other reasons known only by God, than indifference to their fate, or a conscious inability to save. (2) That the ultimate end of God’s govern¬ ment is his own glory. To all intents and purposes the first statement belongs to the second. This is conceded by Dr. Dabney. Speaking of the ultimate ends of God’s government as not including ‘‘the happiness of the 3 p. 61. 4 Page 38. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 91 largest possible number of sinners, but something else still more worthy of God ; ” he says, “ When we have admitted this, we have virtually admitted that God may see, in his own omniscience, a rational ground other than inability for restraining his actual propen¬ sion of pity towards a given sinner.” The argument, therefore, is restricted to the one consideration whether optimism is, or is not, a correct philosophical solution of God’s government. Upon this question there is a great diversity of opinion even among eminent Calvinists. Speaking of the hypothesis of Leibnitz, Dr. Chalmers says: “If it be not an offensive weapon with which we may beat down and demolish the strongholds of the sceptic, it is, at least, an armor of defense with which we may cause all his shafts to fall harmless at our feet.” 5 Dr. Fitch of New Haven fame sneaks much more M. positively saying, “ Show us a God who, able to ad¬ vance the holiness of the universe forever and to pro¬ tect it from all the inroads of sin, does nevertheless, in the choice of his heart respecting a whole universe, actually reject such protection, and prefer to gratify his subjects with a mere exhibition at the expense of the sin and misery of one or many of his subjects ; and we shall always see him purposely leading off the holy into sin and preferring their rebellion to obedience.” c Beyond all question this is a radical departure from Old School theology. It is in the right direction ; for whether we accept or reject the philosophical termin¬ ology of optimism the substantial truth of the doctrine is rapidly gaining acceptance. As it is a question 5 As quoted by Bledsoe. “ Theodicy,” p. 185. As quoted in Griffin’s Divine Efficiency, p. 31. 92 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD upon which even Calvinists do not agree, and as it involves a critical study of the Intuitions, I shall dismiss it by affirming that which I regard as a moral axiom, namely, God’s glory can never ignore the rights of his creatures. Inasmuch as the above objection is the only one noticed by Dr. Dabney as vitiating his analogy, I sup¬ pose it never occurred to him that there were other objections far more serious. They will now be con¬ sidered. The analogy is fallacious because it offers no just comparison between Washington and the spy on one hand, and God and the non-elect on the other. Of course I do not claim that the analogy must be perfect in all respects. By no means. Allowing for all reasonable divergencies, I yet claim that the anal¬ ogy is radically defective, because (i) The language of Washington is essentially different from that used by the Tord God. I agree with Dr. Dabney that Washington’s pity for Andre was sincere ; but observe, the commanding- general never conveyed, by word or hint, to any one the idea that he could and would save the unfortunate officer. On the contrary, he made the one impression on Andre’s friends that the spy must die. Had he told the officer or his friends that he should be saved, had he made the impression over and over again that the spy could be saved, while, at the same time, knowing that it was not true, then it would have been in order for Dr. Dabney to have spoken of Washington’s supposed ^sincerity. But while the commander-in-chief did not thus speak, God has so declared to the world. He has not only expressed sympathy and pity for the non-elect, but he has in¬ vited them to the same salvation which is given to the AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 93 •% elect. He urges them to accept, tells them that Jesus died that they might live, makes the impression upon all of them that he is waiting for them to come that he may bestow the gift of eternal life upon them, while at the same time, according to Dr. Dabney, God has never “ purposed ” any such thing. If this would not be insincerity, then I confess I do not know what it could be. Nor do I see how the so-called ‘ ‘ solution ’ ’ adds one ray of light. Nay, it is like the theology of Job’s friends which “ darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge ” in that it creates a new difficulty in trying to solve an old one. The sincerity of God’s pity is saved at the expense of his sincerity in offer¬ ing salvation to all. But possibly the reader may say that I have misunderstood Dr. Dabney in supposing him to teach that God does promise salvation to all : I reply, if this be so, then so much the worse for the theory. Beyond all controversy God offers salvation to all. This, as we have seen in a previous section, is conceded by nearly all Calvinists. If this truth is denied by Dr. Dabney, then a “ Thus saith the Lord ” will be sufficient to silence him. But he does not deny it : on the contrary he repeatedly asserts it. In the first place, the very title of the article proves it — “ God’s indiscriminate proposals of mercy.” Again, he says, “ Let us now represent to ourselves the large number of texts in which God entreats sinners to turn from the ways of destruction. They are addressed by him to all men, without distinction of elect and non¬ elect. When, for instance, the Redeemer commands us to ‘ preach the gospel to every creature ’ it is im¬ possible by any exegetical pressure to make the words mean ‘ every elect creature ’ because he adds in the 94 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD " * next verse (Mark xvi. 16), ‘ He that believeth not shall be damned.’ This possible subject is among the ‘ every creature ’ body to whom the overtures of mercy are to be made. But no ‘ elect creature ’ can be damned. Now, no straightforward mind can ever be satisfied that the utterance of entreaties to shun de¬ struction are not the expression of compassion, if they come from a sincere person. The explanations of the gospel calls to the non-elect which do not candidly recognize this truth, must ever carry a fatal weight with the great body of Christians.” 7 Doubtless this confession is sufficient. God does make “ indiscriminate proposals of mercy ” : he does offer Jesus Christ as a Redeemer to every creature : he does entreat every creature ‘ ‘ to shun destruction ’ ’ ; he does make the impression upon every creature that he may be saved : and yet, this is all one grand mis¬ take, a stupendous delusion, for he has “never pur¬ posed nor promised to save ” all. I do not know how Dr. Dabney would define a “promise,” but it seems to me his solution involves a serious self-contradiction. (2) Equally fallacious is the analogy between Andre and the non-elect. The spy is justly called a “culprit,” a “ criminal ” ; of course the 11011-elect are not only assumed to be such, but are declared to be worthy of eternal condemnation. If this were true, if the decree of passing by the 11011-elect is conditioned on the divine foreknowledge of their character, then so far Dr. Dabney would remain untouched by this argument. All Calvinists are supralapsarians or sub- lapsarians. In a subsequent chapter more than a pass¬ ing thought will be given to these terms. At present ’ p. 58. AND MAN’S MORAE NATURE. 95 let it suffice to say the supralapsarians affirm that before creation, and hence before the existence of any human moral character, God determined to save some and to pass others by. The sublapsarians declare this doctrine harsh and unreasonable, and maintain that God’s decree to save or not to save presupposes the race as fallen ; and therefore as deserving of condemnation. Concern¬ ing this Dr. Dabney says, supralapsarians retort that this scheme makes God’s decree as truly conditioned on the creature’s action as the Arminian, though on a different condition. So the debate proceeds.” 8 Now it is evident that if Dr. Dabney had claimed to be a Sublapsarian Calvinist, so far my second argu¬ ment would not be valid. But he makes no such claim. On the contrary, he thinks the distinction is useless and should never have been made. ‘ ‘ But he who apprehends the action of the infinite mind reasonably and Scripturally at once, sees that, while the sublapsarian is right in his spirit and aim, both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which should never have been raised . One result decreed is to depend on another result decreed. But as the decree is God’s consciousness, all is equally primary. Thus there will be neither supra- nor infra- lapsarian, and no room for their debate.”9 Consequently I am strictly within the bounds of Chris¬ tian fairness when I say that the analogy of Dr. Dab¬ ney is radically wrong in assuming the criminal state of the non-elect. Andre was a spy : as such he was extremely dangerous to the American cause. As a patriot, Washington was bound, by every sacred im- 8 P. 47- 9 P. 47. g6 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD pulse, by the dictates of sober judgment, to sign the death-warrant. But no such language can be used in reference to the non-elect. As yet they have no exist¬ ence : hence they have no moral character. Conse¬ quently where is the reason, where is the sense of justice which must be satisfied by the eternally decreed rejection of the non-elect ? Truly we search in vain for it, as it nowhere exists except in the Calvinistic dogma that God’s glory demands the eternal condem¬ nation of the non-elect. This brings us to the consideration of the third objection against Dr. Dabney’s argument : namely (3) It is grounded on the Arminian doctrine of Fore¬ knowledge. Of course this is a serious charge to bring against a Calvinistic writer. Nor do I suppose for a moment that Dr. Dabney will admit its correctness, but I doubt not the reader will be able to judge of the merits of the case, and to him, therefore, I leave the issue. In different parts of the article we are told “ that God’s election to life is unconditioned,” “ that God’s selection of Jacob was not conditioned on his foreseen penitence or faith.” 1 Rejecting divine foresight as the condition of elec¬ tion, it is more than probable that Dr. Dabney also rejects it as the condition why some men are not elected: because (a) This, as we have seen, (see Chap¬ ter 11. of Part I.) is consistent Calvinism. Calvin says, “ No one can deny but God foreknew Adam’s fall, and foreknew it because he had ordained it by his own decree.” Equally explicit is the Westminster Confes¬ sion of Faith. “ Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed condi- 1 Pages 50, 51. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURK. 97 tions ; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.” IyUther taught “All things whatever, arise from, and depend upon the divine appointment ; whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life, and who should dis¬ believe it ; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them : who should be justified and who condemned.” Much more might be said, but doubtless I have quoted enough to show that Calvinism has always denied that the decree to pass by the non-elect was conditioned on man’s fore¬ seen rejection. (£) Dr. Dabney tells us that to the supralapsarians the order of the decrees adopted by the sublapsarians is “as truly conditioned on the creat¬ ure’s action as the Arminian, though on a different condition.” This recognizes the essentially Arminian tendency of making some condition the basis of the decrees, (c) Dr. Dabney declares that the terms ‘ ‘ supralapsarian ’ ’ and ‘ ‘ sublapsarian ’’—the only place where there is any possible reason for mentioning the decrees in connection with foresight — are wrong, and the issue “should never have been raised.” (d) Moreover, the decrees are one. ‘ ‘ The decree which determines so vast a multitude of parts is itself a unit. The whole all-comprehending thought is one, co-eta- neous intuition, the whole decree one act of the will.” This clearly shows that if it is wrong to say that elec¬ tion is based on divine foresight, it is equally wrong to say it of reprobation. Hence, I ask in all serious¬ ness, What right has Dr. Dabney to speak so often and fluently of the divine foresight ? He does this repeat¬ edly. The first sentence in his article begins with the 98 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD assumption, ‘ ‘ If God makes proposals of mercy to men, who he foresees will certainly reject them, and perish. ” Speaking of Jacob’s sins and of his election, he asks “ Did not God feel, notwithstanding this prop¬ erly overruling rational motive, the abhorrence for Jacob’s foreseen original sin and actual meanness, suitable for an infinitely holy nature to feel, and nat¬ urally tending, had it not been counterpoised, to Jacob’s righteous rejection ? Again, “ God doubtless felt then a similar moral reprehension for Jacob’s fore¬ seen, supplanting falsehood to that which he felt for Esau’s heady self-will.” “ We dare not say that God could distinctly foresee all Jacob’s supplanting false¬ hood, and feel no disapprobation whatever ; it would come near to blasphemy.” 2 “Foresee,” indeed! Why not say, decreed or determined “ falsehood ” ? Doubtless because it would not only come near to being, but would be blasphemy. Yet the latter is the real meaning of Dr. Dabney ; or at least what his position logically and irresistibly means. I trust the reader now sees the justness of my charge against Dr. Dabney. His article is permeated with, and many of his assump¬ tions are based upon, the divine foresight of men’s actions. As a Calvinistic argument it is extremely fallacious : yet it is important because it shows the constant tendency of Calvinists to leave their position, and adopt one-half of the Arminian’s. (4) Another objection against the solution which we are considering, is that it makes a radical antagon¬ ism between God and Jesus Christ. As we have seen, President Dabney claims that God has never purposed nor promised to save the 11011-elect. He is an earnest 2 Pages 35, 52, 53, 55. AND MAN’S. MORAL NATURK. 99 advocate of the divine sincerity in the expressions of compassion ; but he always maintains ‘ ‘ that an im¬ mutable and sovereign God never had but one will (one purpose or volition) as to this lost man ; as a faith¬ ful God would never publish any other volition than the one he entertained, but that it was entirely consistent for God to compassionate where he never pur¬ posed nor promised to save, because this sincere com¬ passion was restrained within the limits God announced by his own wisdom.” Granting this — for the sake of the argument — I affirm that Jesus Christ went far beyond it, teaching that so far as his purpose or will was concerned it was thwarted by the unbelief of men. Although the truth is quite prominently revealed in the Gospels, yet perhaps it is most impressively taught in the lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem. “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the proph¬ ets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” ( Matt, xxiii. 37). It is true, Dr. Dabney not only notices this passage but also shows the absurdities of many Calvinistic interpretations : but while this is justly admired by all Arminians, they can not escape the conviction that the new solution makes the Father and the Son antagonistic. Beyond all controversy the tears which Jesus shed upon this occasion were the outward manifestation of sincere pity. Had the Saviour remained silent, so far forth as this scene is concerned, Dr. Dabney’s position might be correct. But such was not the fact. The Master spoke, declaring that his intention would have resulted in their salvation had they not prevented. Beyond all IOO CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD dispute, this event reveals the wicked intention, pur¬ pose or will of the Jews as opposing and thwarting the intention, purpose or will of the Saviour. Thus says Neander, “ The earnest exclamation of Christ, recorded in Luke xiii. 34, Matt, xxiii. 37, distinctly implies that he had ofte?i endeavored, by his personal teaching in Jerusalem, to rouse the people to repentance and conversion that they might be saved from the ruin then impending over them. ’ ’ 3 Dr. Dabney truly says: “It is our happiness to believe that when we see Jesus weeping over lost Jeru¬ salem, we ‘ have seen the Father ’ ; we have received an insight into the divine benevolence and pity.” No less truly do the words of Jesus reveal the Father’s purpose or volition to save, thwarted by the perversity of determined sinners. I11 a different sense from that meant by Dr. Dabney do I quote his words, saying : “Some better solution must be found, then, of this wondrous and blessed paradox, of omnipotent love lamenting those whom yet it did not save.” 4 Unless Dr. Dabney can purify his solution of the four objec¬ tions which are now before the reader, that which he rejects as Pelagian — “ freewill ” — is yet to be triumph¬ ant. Concerning the will of God I ask, in the words of Dr. Dabney, “Why not let the Scriptures mean what they so plainly strive to declare? ” In them the will of God is revealed in two different aspects, namely, the actual and the ideal. The ideal will of God is the unconditioned expression of his sincere desires. It is that which he wishes to do, and would accomplish 3 “Life of Christ,” p. 157. 4 p. 61. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. IOI were he not prevented by some exterior cause or causes. Thus it is God’s will, volition, or purpose, ideally ex¬ pressed, that the wicked should not perish, but that all should come to repentance. For this goal he strives with all the influences at his command. Yet infallibly knowing who will yield to the influences of the Holy Spirit, his actual will, purpose, or volition, is completely realized in the salvation of all true be¬ lievers. Hence, the atonement, is — in one sense — limited, but the limitation is manward instead of God- ward. As has been admirably said by Dr. John Miley : “ Nothing respecting the atonement is more certain than the real conditionality of its saving grace. Hence, it is a mere assumption that the atonement is necessarily saving, and, therefore, that the actual sav¬ ing is the extent of it . With an atonement in vicarious suffering sufficient for all, but really condi¬ tional in the saving result, its universality is in full logical accord with a limited actual salvation. .... Hence, eternal destinies are determined according as the gospel is received or rejected.” 5 At this stage of the discussion — while in the full light of the atoning love of the Lord Jesus Christ — it is proper to notice the recent theological movement among evangelical Congregationalists. It is variously designated. Opponents have called it “ The Andover Controversy,” “The New Departure.” For conven- 5 “ The Atonement In Christ,” pp. 320, 324, 326. “ There is but one ex¬ planation of the helpless position and ethical poverty of newborn man, and of his subjection to the law of gradual development, to-wit : that over him and his being, neither divine omnipotence nor divine love holds un¬ divided sway , but his own freedom is a co-operative factor, and his own acts condition both the operations and communications of God ” Dorner. ‘‘ Bib. Sacra,” 1879, p. 54. 102 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ience its friends have adopted the term “ New Theol¬ ogy,” or have described it as a “Renaissance.” It has two important features — the positive and the neg¬ ative. It believes and therefore speaks. It doubts, and therefore questions. Hence its relative strength and weakness. Its affirmations are not new. As has been said by an able advocate, “ they prevailed in the first centuries of the church, while the stream ran clear from the near fountain, and they have appeared all along in individual minds and schools, as the higher peaks of a mountain range catch the sunshine, while the base is enveloped in mist and shadow — not many, and often far separate, but enough to .show the trend and to bear witness to the light. ’ ’ 0 Hence the “New Theology” is a strong protest against, and a radical abandonment of Calvinism. In some important respects it affiliates with Arminianism. The chief antagonisms with the latter are in its prin¬ ciples of Eschatology, which, while drawn from va¬ rious sources may be more directly traced to Dr. Dorner, He teaches that salvation is conditioned on the personal acceptance of the Saviour. All human beings of whatever age or condition who have not exercised a bona fide determination for or against the historic Christ, will have this opportunity in the future life. This acceptance or rejection — before or after death — is necessary to decide the eternal destiny of the soul. 7 What that destiny will be, is not affirmed by Dor¬ ner nor by his American allies. He concedes that “ the exegetical grounds for the statement that some will be forever lost, are indeed preponderant,” In his G Rev. T. T. Munger. “ The Freedom of Faith,” p. 3. ? See “ System of Christian Doctrine,” Vol. IV., pp. 409, 412. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 103 ‘ 1 Orthodox theology of To-Day,” Dr. Newman Smyth says the Scriptures ‘ ‘ hold up no promise of the here¬ after to any man who here and now determines him¬ self against the Spirit of Christ.” Answering some questions propounded by members of the Ecclesiasti¬ cal Council at New Haven, Sept. 20, 1882, he said, “ There is nothing definite in the Scripture with re¬ gard to a possible future probation.” Consequently, so far as the “New Theology” postulates a future probation, it finds its justification in the moral axiom that a fair or “ decisive probation ” is the condition of a divine condemnation ; and from a few obscure pas¬ sages of Scripture, notably 1. Pet. iii. 19, 20, and iv. 6. But it is by no means certain that Peter teaches this doctrine. Scholars of equal piety and learning do not agree. Each side may justly claim a large number of distinguished exegetes. But granting all that may be fairly claimed by the advocates of a future probation, their position is Scripturally untenable ; the most that can be claimed from these passages is that Christ preached the gospel of salvation to all who lived before his advent. As we know nothing of the reasons for the supposed proclamation ; as there is not the least hint that the alleged mercy is extended to any who have lived under the Christian Dispensation, the limits of the discussion are greatly circumscribed. But this is not the end of the matter. The Scriptural argument is not simply negative. The Word of God knows no future probation for any who have lived since the birth of the Christian Church. The many prom¬ ises and warnings presuppose and assert that our eter¬ nal destiny is determined by our earthly character. Delitzsch has well said, “If this pedagogic form of 104 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD world be destroyed, man is, and remains, that which he has become within himself. He is, and remains ; he is not annihilated ; for Scripture no more teaches the final annihilation of the wicked than it does their apokatastasis or restoration. Human reason would like in one way or another to abolish the dualism with which the history of the world closes. Let her do it upon her own responsibility, but let her not falsify the Scripture. This teaches an eternal personal con¬ tinuance of all personal beings, and a continuance fundamentally conditioned by what they have become in time.” 8 Hence, so far as a fair probation is the condition of final destiny, the Scripture’s predicate it to the race. Here then, is the crucial question, What is a fair or decisive probation ? Dorner’s definition is untenable because its legitimate conclusions are contradicted by the Word. As against Calvinism, he is right in main¬ taining that each soul will be treated justly, yea, ac¬ cording to the yearnings of infinite Love. The idea of a probation has no place in the Reformed Theology. Extremes meet. One unduly exalts, and the other denies probation. The Scriptural idea of probation involves (i) Sufficient intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. ( 2 ) Ample power to choose the right and reject the wrong. So far as a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation, there is another element in probation, namely, (3) Sufficient knowledge of his atoning love as to justify a faith in him. Wherever this last condition does not exist a per¬ sonal acceptance of the Saviour is not necessary to sal- 8 “ System of Biblical Psychology,” p. 554. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE}. IO5 vation. “ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap¬ tizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” “ For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Ford shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not be¬ lieved ? ’ ’ and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher ? ” 4 ‘ Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (Actsx. 34, 35). “ For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves ; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing, one another” (Rom. ii. 14, 15). In all ages there has been a spirit of faith in God which has been gra¬ ciously counted for righteousness. The light may have been dim, the faith very imperfect ; but the loving Father saw the spirit of receptivity, knew the inner strivings after a nobler life and the prompt yield¬ ing to the Spirit’s influences : hence every responsible being has a fair probation. God knows all the condi¬ tions of each soul. He has an infinite understanding of the surroundings, the inherited tendencies, the hopes and fears, the love and hate by which each character is formed, and therefore, unerringly judges in accordance with eternal right and infinite love. Let it not be said that this view undervalues the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ. On the con¬ trary it exalts him and his work by postulating the Io5 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD atonement as the basis of God’s dealings with the race. According to Arminian principles the divine prom¬ ise of a Saviour was the condition of race propagation. Hence, the universality of the Holy Spirit’s work. The Old Testament saints were enlightened and guided by his influences. The divine promise on which they relied (Heb. xi. 13) were fulfilled in Christ. They were saved through a prospective Saviour, while we are saved through the historic Saviour. So far, there is no need for affirming a future pro¬ bation : hence the second phase of the subject refers to irresponsible adults and dying infants. Both classes are in the same moral condition of irresponsi¬ bility. As members of the human race they are in¬ deed subject to those physical and psychological laws by which man exists. Their moral natures are disor¬ ganized : they have sinward tendencies, which in the responsible, result in a free determination to evil : but as moral responsibility is the fundamental condition of sin, they are not and can not be justly called sinners. Sin is an impossibility without a free choice with power to the contrary. Of course this proposition is appli¬ cable only to those who have never deprived them¬ selves of this power by previous sinning. These fundamental principles clearly understood, it is legitimate to affirm the salvation of all dying in¬ fants and irresponsible adults. True, the question is speculative ; but as it is not condemned by Scripture its admissiblity can not be denied. The Master’s allusions to and gracious reception of little children confirm the hypothesis. The mode by which salva- AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 107 « tion is bestowed is also speculative. Excluding all theories of baptismal regeneration, the following are the principal suppositions : ( i) All dying infants be¬ come moral agents after death. Exercising a holy choice they ‘ ‘ are saved on the ground of the atone¬ ment and by regeneration.” This seems to be the prevailing view of Congregationalists. Prof. Joseph Cook says, “ As they have not learned the evils of sin, it is to be hoped that in death at the sight of God’s face, they will acquire entire harmony of soul with him.”9 Prof. G. F. Wright, D. D., says, . . . our general confidence in God’s abounding mercy leads us to believe that he secures their development under such circumstances that they will be saved.” 1 Doubt¬ less this is substantially the view of Prof. Egbert C. Smyth : but he disagrees with Mr. Cook in affirming that it necessarily involves a future probation. (2) All dying infants are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This is the Presbyterian doctrine. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, “ Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word.” (3) All infants enter the world justi¬ fied and therefore saved. This is the view which has most prevailed in the Methodist Episcopal Church, although not a few of its members accept the second theory. Leading Arminians, including Wesley, Fletcher and Fisk have earnestly maintained that so far as infant justification or regeneration exists, it “is 9 “ New Departures in and from Orthodoxy.” l “ Bib. Sac.,” 1874, p. 545- 108 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD not congenital, but post-genital.” The position is ably stated by Dr. D. D. Whedon. “ The born indi¬ vidual, thereby, though not judicially condemned, is displacent, and, as unholy, is offensive to God ; and so the reconciliation of that displacency, in order that God’s face may shine upon him, is a blood-bought grace. That unholiness is so expiated, and that divine displacency is, through Christ’s sole merits, so propi¬ tiated, that the infant’s actual guiltlessness may be divinely recognized and held by God available for his justification as truly as that unreal, but virtual, guilt¬ lessness of the adult procured through pardon. He thereby stands in the same essential gracious position as the forgiven and justified adult. No justice, hu¬ man or divine, can indeed pardon the guiltless, just because there is nothing to pardon. But pardon and declaratory justification are two things. Christ, by his self-oblation, is entitled, as our Advocate, to de¬ clare the infant’s justification, unworthy though he be through his sinward nature, against all who would lay charge against him. ‘ Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect ? It is God that justifieth,’ just because ‘ it is Christ that died.’ And thus being justified and reconciled, the infant becomes fit subject for the gracious influence of the Spirit that cures that sinwardness and regenerates the nature ; so that ( whether we use the term regenerate or not) the infant is in the same essential condition as that into which the justified and regenerate adult is brought by volun¬ tary faith.” 2 The conception is beautiful and logically self-con- 2 “Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1883, p. 757. See also the same Re¬ view for 1873, p. 131. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE}. I09 sistent. Its advocates are not so presumptuous as to think there are no objections. On the contrary ad¬ verse arguments have been fairly considered, and, in their opinion, satisfactorily answered. I shall not attempt to decide the question. My purpose is real¬ ized if I have shown that the salvation of dying infants and irresponsible adults does not necessarily demand a future probation.3 3 For an admirable presentation of the adequacy of man’s present probation see Whedon’s “ Will.” Chap. XI. “ Equation of Probational Advantages.” The general subject is also discussed in “ Bib. Sacra,” 1881, p. 622, “ Is Salvation Possible without a Knowledge of the Gospel? ” and in “ The New Englander,” 1882, p. 751, “ Provision and Method of Salva- CHAPTER II. Calvinism Teaches Infant Damnation. “I am not aware that any intelligent Christian can be found who maintains the unauthorized and appalling position that infant children, who are not guilty of any actual sin, either outwardly or inwardly, will be doomed to misery in the world to come. “ On this particular point our opinions have been often misrepresented. We are said to hold that God dooms a whole race of innocent creatures to destruc¬ tion, or considers them all deserving of destruction, for the sin of one man. Now, when I examine the writings of the earlier Calvinists generally on the sub¬ ject of original sin, I find nothing which resembles such a statement as this.” — Rev. Leonard Woods , D. D. no CHAPTER II. Calvinism Teaches Infant Damnation. This is not to be affirmed of modern Calvinists. Without exception this doctrine is now denied by all the followers of Calvin, whether in the Presbyterian, the Congregational, or the Baptist Churches. Hence were it not that the Confession of Faith — which does teach the doctrine — is still accepted as the true expo¬ nent of Calvinistic theology ; and especially were it not that this fact has been and is denied by Calvinistic theologians the reader would have been spared this chapter. The subject is important not only because it involves a correct understanding of history, but also because it enables the reader to judge more intelli¬ gently of the merits of the system under discussion. SECTION i. Does the Westminster Co?ifessio?i of Faith Teach Infant Damnation f This issue was forced upon the Arminian. His statements of history are constantly denied by emi¬ nent Calvinists. Thus Dr. N. F. Rice, after having quoted the clause from the Confession which relates to this subject, says: “ It is certain that Presbyterians have never understood this language as teaching the doctrine of infant damnation. Persons have often asserted that they had heard the doctrine preached, but hi 1 12 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD on particular inquiry it has been found that their statements were either maliciously false, or were infer¬ ences of their own from what the preacher said. But no respectable Presbyterian writer can be found, either in ancient or modern times, who has taught that any dying in infancy are lost . The doctrine of Infant Damnation was charged upon the Presbyterian Church by Alexander Campbell, in a public debate with the author of these pages. In reply we said : ‘ I am truly gratified that the gentleman has brought forward the charge against us, of holding the doctrine of the damnation of infants ; because it is believed by many who are unacquainted with our views. ’ He says, our Confession of Faith teaches this doctrine. This is not correct. It is true that it speaks of elect in¬ fants, — ‘ Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit.’ Are all in¬ fants, dying in infancy, elect ? All Presbyterians who express an opinion on the subject, so believe. The expression, ‘elect infants,’ the gentleman seems to think, implies non-elect infants ; but I call upon him to produce one respectable Presbyterian author who has expressed the opinion that, ‘infants dying in infancy are lost.’ .... In answer to this demand, repeat¬ edly made, Mr. Campbell quoted one or two passages from the writings of Calvin and one from Turretine, in which those great and good men opposed the doc¬ trine of the Pelagians and Socinians, who hold that Adam’s sin did not affect his posterity, and that men are not born in Original sin ; and in which they affirmed that all Adam’s posterity are exposed to eter¬ nal death, and might justly have been left to perish. But neither of them taught that any infant is, in fact, AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. I 1 3 lost. They simply taught that the salvation of all, infants as well as adults, is of grace, not of justice.” 1 Professor David Swing in his “ Truths of To-Day,” speaks of this and kindred doctrines as follows : “ All those formulas which looked toward a dark fatalism, or which destroyed the human will, or indicate the damnation of some infants, or that God, for his own glory, foreordained a vast majority of the race to everlasting death . I have declared to them that the Presbyterian Church had left behind these doctrines, and that her religion was simply Evangeli¬ cal, and not par excellence the religion of despair.” To this the editors of “ The Presbyterian Quarterly ” of 1874, replied, “ The class of articles here caricatured and rejected, teach none of the things thus charged upon them, although it is common for adversaries thus to reproach them. Nor have these things been held more by the Presbyterian Church of the past than of the present.” 2 To the same effect speaks Dr. Charles Hodge. Dr. Krauth in his work on “The Conserva¬ tive Reformation and its Theology,” made some state¬ ments concerning the Westminster Confession of Faith and infant salvation. Dr. Hodge replies, “We are sorry to see that Dr. Krauth labors to prove that the Westminster Confession teaches that only a certain part, or some of those who die in infancy are saved ; this he does by putting his own construction on the language of that Confession. We can only say that we never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held that doctrine. We are not learned enough to venture the assertion that no Calvinist ever held it ; but if all 1 “God Sovereign and Man Free,” pp. 120, 121. 2 P- 518. 1 14 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD Calvinists are responsible for what every Calvinist has ever said, and all Lutherans for everything Luthei or Lutherans have ever said, then Dr. Krauth as well as ourselves will have a heavy burden to carry.” That the meaning of Dr. Hodge may be more clearly understood, let me recall the readers’ attention to one sentence — the only proof given against the conclusion of Dr. Krauth, viz., “We can only say that we never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held that doctrine.” By this Dr. Hodge must mean one of two things, or both : viz., (i) That he never person¬ ally saw a Calvinistic theologian who held the doc¬ trine; or (2) That he never saw the doctrine in the writings of any Calvinistic theologian. But if he means to prove that the Confession of Faith does not teach infant condemnation because he never saw a theologian who held that doctrine, it amounts to noth¬ ing, for the simple reason it proves too much. By the same kind of argument I can prove that no one has ever held the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy. On this kind of reasoning numberless absurdities may be safely promulgated. On the other hand, if Dr. Hodge means he has never seen this doctrine in the writings of any Calvin¬ istic theologian, it proves nothing to the point. Be¬ fore the assertion can prove anything favorable to the Confession, Dr. Hodge must be able to say that he has very carefully read the writings of every Calvin¬ istic theologian before, and contemporary with the Westminister Assembly. This, however, is the very thing he has not done : hence the weakness of his position. He charges Dr. Krauth with “ putting his 3 “ Systematic Theologj ,” Vol. III., p. 605 : note. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 115 own construction on the language of the Confession.” Is Dr. Hodge innocent of the same charge ? I11 this chapter I shall endeavor to find the true answer to the question, Does Calvinism, through the Westminister Confession of Faith, teach Infant Con¬ demnation ? SECTION 11. No Proof that Only Elect Infants Die. As we have seen, Dr. Rice and Dr. Hodge claim that infants who die are of the elect : hence, of course, there can be no infant condemnation. But where is the proof of this ? Let us see if it is in the Confession. “ 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 con¬ tingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed condition ; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions. By the decree of God, for the man¬ ifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore¬ ordained to everlasting death.” 1 From these declarations three legitimate deductions irresistibly follow : viz., (i) There are persons foreor¬ dained to eternal condemnation irrespective of their foreseen rejection of Christ. (2) All these per- 1 Pages 25, 26, 27. 1 16 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD sons have been infants : hence ( 3) There are non¬ elect infants. Now one of two things must be true. (a) None of the non-elect infants die, and so live beyond the age of infancy, and then die, and are ever¬ lastingly condemned : or (£) Some non-elect infants die in infancy, and are eternally condemned. If none of the non-elect infants die in infancy, I ask for the proof. It is not in the Scriptures, nor does the Con¬ fession pretend to give any Scripture bearing on this point. The only passages given are Luke xviii. 15, 16, and Acts ii. 38, 39. The former reads as follows : “And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them , but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and for¬ bid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Observe, it says “little children.” It makes no dis¬ tinction : hence all little children are included. So far as the words and actions of the Saviour are con¬ cerned, they embrace the non-elect, as well as the elect infants Not a hint is given regarding the non¬ elect infants dying or not dying, and therefore, to interpret the Master’s words as teaching that only elect infants die, is a clear begging of the question. The passage in Acts is, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” This has no reference to the question in dispute. It simply mentions the children of believers and those AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 1 1 7 afar off. It says not a word even indirectly concern¬ ing the death of any person, much less elect or non¬ elect infants. Hence, if the Confession has no proof, either in itself or from Scripture, affirming that only elect infants die, then so far as the present question is concerned there is no proof and the assumption is wholly groundless. But the eternal condemnation of infants is so very repugnant to our moral nature that many Calvinists declare the Confession must be inter¬ preted in favor of all dying infants. This moral repugnance however, is soon seen to be narrow ; for is it any worse for God to condemn dying infants, than it is to condemn persons before they were born, and hence as innocent as the infants ? There is not a particle of difference. Both classes are condemned at the same time, even from all eternity. Therefore this intense moral repugnance, which but a moment ago was in favor of the Calvinist, now recoils with a strong force against this same Calvinist, and says The eternal condemnation of any one irrespective of a foreseen rejection of saving truth is a horrible libel on God’s character. Moreover, what a curious position is necessitated by this assumption that only elect infants die ! If the death of an infant is the certain indication of election, then it is possible for man to secure the election of every infant now in existence. Beyond all reasonable doubt there are infants now living, of whom it may be said, They are of the non-elect : Yet their destiny which has been decreed of God from all eternit}^ can be reversed by a single act of man. To say this is not susceptible of demonstration is to affirm the exact condition of the • Calvinistic postulate ‘ ‘ all dying infants are of the Il8 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD elect.” Unquestionably among the abandoned classes of society are rnanj^ dying infants, who, were they to live, would become dissolute and hardened characters. SECTION III. Infant Condemnation was Taught Prior to the West¬ minster Assembly . Augustine taught “That infants dying without baptism, will on account of their imputed sin be in the mildest punishment.” 2 Friar Berthold says, “ If your children die without baptism or are baptized improperly, they can never enter into the heavenly joys. They go, together with the Jewish and Gentile children who are still without belief, to the limbus to which those of old went. There they do not suffer any pain, except this that they do not go to heaven.” 3 Thomas Aquinas says, “ Children who die without baptism have not that hope of eternal salvation which the fathers had prior to the manifestation of Christ. ’ ’ 4 Zanchius affirms, “ Infants are deservedly damned on account of the nature they have, to wit, a wicked nature, repugnant to the laws of God.” 5 We now come to John Calvin. Let us see how he and Dr. Rice agree. “ Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain), must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord.” “ I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant 2 Prof. E. A. Park, D. D. “ Bib. Sacra,” 1851. 3 Hagenbach’s “ Hist, of Doc.” Vol. II., p. 131. 4 Ibid. 5 11 Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1873, p. 443. •* AND MAN'S MORAL, NATURE. H9 children in eternal death without remedy, unless that . it so seemed meet to God? ” 6 Peter Martyr says : ‘ ‘ Neither must it be thought that I would promise salvation unto all the children of the faithful which depart without the sacrament . I dare not promise certain salvation, particularly unto any that deparleth hence. For there be some children of the saints which belong not unto predestination.” 7 The Synod of Dort met on the 13th day of Novem¬ ber, 1618, to oppose Arminianism. Its members were strongly Calvinistic, and as Calvin had taught infant condemnation, they would naturally do the same. H. Alting who was a member of the Synod replies to, and repels the charge, and here I quote : “ Third, that we hold and teach the salvation of all infants indiscrim¬ inately, who die without baptism. No truly orthodox theologian has ever said or written this. Neither Zwingle nor Calvin, nor any other of like note has so taught.”8 Mr. Alting was a learned divine and as far as we know an honest man. From him we learn what was the orthodox opinion on this subject and hence if the Synod of Dort did not teach infant con¬ demnation, so far forth it was heterodox. But the charge of heresy has never been raised against this Synod, and therefore it is more than probable that it taught infant condemnation. The Synod officially declared, “Of the infants of believers only, who die of an age before they can be indoctrinated, we deter¬ mine that they are saved.” 9 6 “ Institutes.” B. IV., Ch. XVI., Sec. 17, and Ch. XXIII., Sec. 7. 7 ‘‘Methodist Quarterly Review,” July, 1873, p. 444. 8 “Theologia Elenchtica,” p. 377. As quoted in ‘‘ Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1873, P- 444- 9 ‘‘Acta Dordrechtana,” p. 58. As quoted in “ Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1873, p. 442. 120 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD SECTION IV. Infant Condemnation Taught by the Westminster Assembly . To a large degree the Assembly was composed of pronounced Calvinists. It met in 1643, only twent}^- five years after the Synod of Dort. Its doctrines were similar to those of Dort. Dr. Shedd says: “The system of Doctrine constructed by this Assembly is thoroughly Calvinistic, and bears a close resemblance to the canons of the Synod of Dort.” 1 But there is a vast difference between a belief in the condemnation of some infants and a belief in the salvation of all infants. Hence it is highly probable that the As¬ sembly believed in infant condemnation unless it emphatically stated the contrary. There is no such statement on record. If the Assembly believed in infant condemnation it is highly probable that it tes¬ tified concerning that belief ; for (1) They were honest men. (2) They possessed strong convictions. (3) The occasion was important. (4) Every member was obliged to take the following oath : “I - , do seriously promise and vow in the presence of Almighty God, that in this Assembly, whereof I am a member, I will maintain nothing in point of doctrine but what I be¬ lieve to be the most agreeable to the Word of God ; nor in point of discipline, but what I shall conceive to conduce most to the glory of God and the good and peace of his church.” 2 The only record we have from this representative body of divines on the subject under discussion is, 1 “ History of Doctrine.” Vol. II., p. 480. 2 Hetherington. “ History of West. Assembly,” p. 101. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 12 1 “ Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.” 3 It is very prob¬ able that this was meant to teach infant condemnation ; for (i ) The doctrine was held by Dr. Twisse, the first Prolocutor of the Assembly. He taught that “ Many thousands, even all the infants of Turks and Saracens dying in original sin, are tormented by him in hell- fire ” 4 (2) If the declaration of the Confession was not intended to teach infant condemnation it must have been so understood, not only by those attending, but also by all who were contemporary with the Assembly. If it had been interpreted as teaching the salvation of all dying infants it would have been condemned by many Calvinists such as Dr. Twisse and highly ap¬ plauded by many Arminians. But so far as history records the events of this period such a condemnation, or approbation was never in existence. (3) If the passage in question does not teach infant condemna¬ tion those who composed it were either dishonest or very ignorant. Beyond all controversy the Assembly made and left the impression that the doctrine of in¬ fant condemnation was the teaching of Scripture. As we have seen the members were honest. Hence their words are extremely ambiguous, or else they intended to teach the doctrine. But they were too intelligent to be guilty of such ambiguity, for, as Baxter says, “ The divines there congregated were men of eminent learning and goodness, and ministerial ability and 3 Confession,” p. 68. 4 ‘‘Vindicire Grat. Protest, et Prov. Dei.” Review,” 1873, p. 443. “ Methodist Quarterly 122 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD fidelity ; and, as far as I am able to judge, the Christian world since the days of the Apostles had never seen a synod of more excellent men than this Synod and the Synod of Dort.” 5 6 “ Hallam admits that they were equal in learning, good sense, and other merits to any Lower House of Convocation that ever made figure in England.”0 Then if the members of the Assembly were not dis¬ honest nor ignorant, they meant to and did declare that which they actually believed. Hence the passage in question is a part of the Calvinistic theology of the Seventeenth Century, and as thus related unequivo¬ cally teaches infant condemnation. SECTION v. The Doctrine More or Less Distinctly Taught Since the Westminster Assembly . The few extracts which I have selected for this sec¬ tion will appropriate^ form the conclusion to the sub¬ ject and also enable the reader to see how accurately our Calvinistic theologians have interpreted history. The following is from the celebrated poet and theolo gian Dr. Isaac Watts : “But whereas Dr. Ridgley supposes the immortal existence of such infant souls in a sort of stupid ignorance or insensibility, which the Scripture nowhere intimates, I think it is much more natural and reasonable to suppose that God will de¬ prive both body and soul of life which Adam had for¬ feited for himself and for them according to the first threatening of death. And since the book of Script- 5 “ Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1S48, p. 585. 6 “ Presbyterian Review,” 1874, p. 732. AND MAN’S MORAE NATURE. 123 ure has not revealed it, I can not find it in the book of reason ; nor can I conceive what end it can attain in divine providence, to continue so many millions of in¬ fant souls in an eternal state of stupor. Is it agree¬ able to the conduct of infinite wisdom, and the govern¬ ment of God, to maintain such an innumerable multitude of idiots equal in number to almost all the rest of the human race, in a long, endless duration, and to reign over such an immense nation of senseless and thoughtless immortals? .... Upon the whole, therefore, the state of non-existence to which we here suppose them to be reduced after death, is much more probable, being the least demerit of imputed sin, or an everlasting forfeiture of life, and a sort of endless punishment without pain.” The difference between children of pious and non-pious parents is clearly drawn in the following : “I add in the last place, that if all children dying in infancy, are certainly saved, what are the special privileges which are so often asserted in Scripture to belong to the children of pious parents and the seed of Abraham, in having God to be their God ? ” 8 Dr. Nathanael Emmons says of God, ” He has not been pleased to inform us expressly whether he does renew the hearts of a whole, or a part, or none of those little children who die soon after they become moral agents. As they then become morally depraved, it is plain, that in point of justice, he may then leave them all to perish in their native depravity and guilt. Or in mercy he may renew them all. But from all the light we can find in Scripture on this subject, it seems to be the most probable opinion that he renews 8 “Works.” Vol. III., pp. 497, 502. 124 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD only some of those who die soon after they become morally depraved and guilty. ” Before these remarks can be thoroughly understood we must know at what age Dr. Emmons predicated moral agency. Concern¬ ing this, the editor of Dr. Emmon’s works, Dr. Ide, say, “His own belief is as clearly expressed in the body of the discourse that they become moral agents as soon as they become natural agents.” 9 Dr. K. D. Griffin is not quite so positive. “Jus¬ tice therefore approved of the actual destruction of a whole race that were to be born infants. They meet a condemnation at the threshold of their existence. Their just doom in the cradle is, that first or last the)* shall sink to perdition. And this doom would have been just had no Saviour been provided . A large part of the race die in infancy and go to heaven or hell. If to the latter, (which for certain reasons I hope is not the case,) then they justly perish; if to the former, then they are saved by grace and by Christ, and therefore might justly have been con¬ signed to death.” 1 In an article written some years since for ‘ ‘ The Interior,” Professor W. M. Blackburn, D. D., frankly admits the validity of my position, he says, “By the words ‘covenant’ and ‘elect’ the Westminster Assembly meant to run a line through the adult world. While thus applying those terms to adults, they debate about the ‘ elect of infants,’ and the same line was evidently run through the class of dying infants. The ‘ elect infants ’ are those within the covenant of redemption. ” 2 ^ “ Works.” Vol. II., pp. 626, 625. 1 “Divine Efficiency,” pp. 69, 70. 2 See also the testimony of Dr. G. E. Prentiss. “ Presbyterian Review,” July, 1383. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. I25 In concluding this subject I doubt not the candid reader will readily see whose construction I have placed upon the Confession of Faith. It is neither Dr. Krauth’s, Dr. Hodge’s nor mine. It is the con¬ struction of the members of the Westminster Assem¬ bly, and as such, is entitled to our implicit confidence. That the issue should have terminated so over¬ whelmingly against these honored divines is no fault of mine. I have simply quoted facts which for some unaccountable reason they thought best to deny. Since the above was written -I have examined the re¬ cent work by Dr. Charles Briggs. He says, “We are able to say that the Westminster divines were unani¬ mous on this question of the salvation of elect infants only. We have examined the greater part of the writings of the Westminster divines, and have not been able to find any different opinion from the ex¬ tracts given. - The Presbyterian churches have de¬ parted from their standards on this question and it is simple honesty to acknowledge it. We are at liberty to amend the Confession, but we have no right to dis¬ tort it and to pervert its grammatical and historical meaning.” 3 “ Whither ? ” p. 135 CHAPTER III. Calvinism Contradicts the Bibee by Declaring Saving Faith to be a Direct Gift of God. “ In order that Christ may do anything for a man, he everywhere prescribes an absolutely necessary con¬ dition. This condition is faith. Christ always says : ‘ If you would be saved by me, you must believe me.’ . ... So always between all that Christ can do and longs to do for men and the men themselves rises this inevitable and rocky condition, faith . Christ respects a man’s free volition. Faith is that move¬ ment of the soul through which it passes into surrender to him and seizure of him. Faith is the appropriating faculty. Without faith, nothing in religion is pos¬ sible ; with faith, everything is possible, because by faith the soul allows the incoming and the energy of the saving Christ.” —Rev. Way land Hoyt , D. D. 126 CHAPTER III. Calvinism Contradicts the Bible by Declaring Saving Faith to be a Direct Gift of God. Having considered the Atonement as the founda¬ tion of God’s universal offer of mercy, it is now in order to turn our attention to that which secures to the individual, the blessings of Christ’s death, namely, Saving Faith. SECTION i. Calvinism Declares that Faith is Not a Condition of Salvation. This affirmation is emphatically denied by some Calvinists among whom is the Rev. Robert Aikman, D. D. In his article “ The Position of Calvinism,” he says: “Now the decrees of salvation are uncondi¬ tional as being the self-originated, independent pur¬ poses of the divine mind, but the salvation which is decreed is a salvation whose conditions are faith, repentance and love . There are none who endeavor more fully to proclaim the conditions of salvation than we do.”1 The whole subject depends on the question, What is meant by the term “conditions” ? Kvidently by it Dr. Aikman means one thing, while Arminians mean something totally different. Dr. Aikman prob- 1 “Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1873, p. 317. 127 128 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ably means that as long as faith, repentance and love are not exercised by the individual, salvation is not be¬ stowed. True, this may be a condition in a certain restricted sense : but as thus understood, the source of the given condition is never sought. Or in other words, according to Calvinism God’s election to sal¬ vation is orderly ; the elect are not separated from the non-elect until God gives them repentance, faith and love. These graces are the outward conditions or occasions of the secret, irresistible love of God. He makes the universal promise to save all who will believe, and in the elect he fulfills the condition by giving them repentance, faith and love ; as a conse¬ quence they are known as among the redeemed. This is a distinction without a valid difference, for if the divine, irresistible grace makes good the condi¬ tions, the individual has not performed them, and hence, salvation is really unconditional. That this is all the conditionality of salvation allowed by Calvin¬ ism, I shall now attempt to prove. In chapter second of Part First I discussed at length the question “ Are God’s Decrees Conditional or Unconditional ” ? I there made it clear that every Calvinistic writer from Augustine to Dr. Charles Hodge had taught that the decrees were unconditional. Inasmuch therefore as salvation is an essential part of the decrees, and especially as Dr. Dabney has informed us that the decrees are one, the conclusion is irresist¬ ible that salvation is unconditional. But it may be profitable to notice what a few of these writers say concerning faith, repentence and love as conditions of salvation. John Sladen taught “Faith and repent¬ ance are not the conditions of God’s decreeing salva- AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 129 tion to any, but the qualifications of the persons whom God has absolutely decreed to save.” Andrew Fuller says: “The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination supposes that holiness of heart and life are as much the object of divine appointment as future happiness, and that the connection can never be broken.” The following from Dr. Griffin clearly shows that I have correctly defined what Calvinists mean by “condi¬ tion.” “Faith (the condition of salvation) and holiness generally, instead of being independent acts of the creature under the persuasions of the Spirit, are the gift of God.” The following is from Dr. John Dick and admirably sets forth both views. ‘ ‘ I remark once more that the decrees of God are absolute and unconditional . Here we have many opponents, Lutherans, Arminians, Jesuits . When he de¬ creed to save those who should believe, he decreed to give them faith . That any decree is condi¬ tional in the sense of our opponents, that it depends upon the will of man, of which he is sovereign, so that he may will or not will as he pleases, we deny.” Dr. George Duffield declares “ New School Presbyterians do not affirm that faith foreseen is the condition with God for his decree of election.” Dr. Venema says, “The act of the decree is absolute ; not uncertain or doubtful. It is not suspended on any condition on the part of man.” Moreover, this is precisely what Dr. Aiktnan believes and has said ; for on page 313 of his article from which I have quoted, he gives the view of Dr. N. W. Taylor, “The orthodox doctrine is not that God has purposed to save a part of mankind on condition of foreseen repentence and faith, ’ ’ heartily indorsing it by saying, ‘ ‘ If this is ‘ modified Armin- 130 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ianism ’ some of us would be happy to have it pervade all the pulpits of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” Against this view the Arminian strongly protests. He affirms that God has made provision for the salva¬ tion of all ; has promised to save all who will repent of their sins and exercise faith in his only begotten Son : that this condition must be fulfilled by each individual under the influences of the Holy Spirit. This being man’s duty, God can not save unless it has been performed ; hence so far forth as man will not believe, will not exercise faith in the Saviour, to that same degree is the desire of God thwarted. Were all men to meet the required condition, the ideal plan of God would become the actual. Having thus briefly outlined the contents of this chapter, I shall attempt to show that this is the teaching of Scripture. SECTION 11. The Importa7icc of Faith. On this subject the words of Dr. Charles Hodge are admirable: he says, “As so much prominence is assigned to faith in the Scriptures, as all the promises of God are addressed to believers, and as all the con¬ scious exercises of spiritual life involve the exercise of faith, without which they are impossible, the import¬ ance of this grace can not be overestimated. To the theologian and to the practical Christian it is indis¬ pensable that clear and correct views should be enter¬ tained on the subject.” 2 As a race of responsible creatures, man is hopelessly lost in sin without divine intervention. Having an infinite love for all his chil- '*■ “Theology.” Vol. III., p. 41. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 131 dren, God sincerely desires their reclamation. But how shall this be accomplished ? To man the problem is indeed insolvable. He sees at a glance that force is not adequate ; that spirit can not be governed by the laws and regulations of matter ; that a moral or spirit¬ ual power is absolutely needed which shall at once free the soul from the dominion of sin and re-inspire the heart with new hope. Beyond this his mind can not go, and in the agony of despair, the sinful soul fre¬ quently cries out, “ O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? ’ ’ But God, whose ways are past finding out, is wiser than man. In the divine counsels two principles were to be employed which should secure that for which the sages and philanthropists had vainly striven ; viz., (i) The Incarnation of Absolute Truth. God is truth, and hence, the human mind — originally created in, and even now bearing to some degree the divine image — was made for truth. Falsehood is the enemy of the race no less than of God. The normal action of the intellect, heart and conscience is to seek for, and repose in truth. “The mind was formed to mount sublime Beyond the narrow bounds of time — To everlasting things.” This, however, it can not do if it is not m sympa¬ thy with truth. Nor is it too much to say that its flight upward will be seriously hindered if it lives in the midst of insincerit}^. It is much easier to tell men how to live truly than to demonstrate the principles in daily life. Plato, Socrates and Confucius fairly succeeded in the former, but most ignominiously failed in the latter : hence it 132 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD has ever been the world’s great need that absolute truth should be embodied in a living representative. This we find in Jesus Christ of whom the Baptist said, “ He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” Speaking of himself the Master declared unto Pilate, “ Thou sayest I am a King. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” Thus it was the life- work of Jesus Christ to teach men “the way, the truth, and the life” bj' exhibiting these heavenly graces not only in matchless words, but also by that which is infinitely better — a matchless life. I know there are men like Theodore Parker who question, and at times, deny Christ’s faultless charac¬ ter. But the challenge which the Master threw to the unbelieving Jews, “Which of you convicteth me of sin ? ” has yet to be accepted and overthrown. Had Pilate been more spiritually minded, had he been true to his convictions, he would not have stopped with the words “ I find in him no fault,” but would have fallen at his feet, exclaiming Thou art the One in whom the dreams of the ages have their realization. (2) The second principle which God employed was the incarnation of Infinite L,ove. To be intrinsi¬ cally true, and to live in accordance with the dictates of truth, constitutes a grand, a noble life ; }^et it is conceivable that the person thus living so far above his fellows, might have little or no interest in their trials, temptations and failures. That gradually there would grow a wide, and almost impassable chasm between them, resulting in a cold, dignified rectitude in the good, and a mistrust and discouragement in the AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 133 bad. Consequently, the small influence possessed by negatively good men. The pattern itself may be true, but lacking the heart element there is no inspiration for those living in the valley of despair. The moon may be very beautiful, but it requires the warm, genial sun to draw the tiny particles of water from their silvery bed in the lake, up to the dizzy heights of the clouds whence they return to freshen and beautify the earth. This is the order of grace no less than of nature. Christ’s trueness must not, nay can not be separated from his love for his fellows, and because the two are indissolubly united, men have always gone to him for comfort and refuge. His model life demonstrates the existence of personal virtue. His marvelous condescending and persevering love for those whose hearts are empty and hungry gives birth to a new and all-controlling affection, which prompts fresh hope and strong resolution But this truth is not seen in all its fullness until we concentrate our gaze on the cross of Calvary. Here we have the crowning testimony of the Master’s love, a love so real, so intense, so boundless as to lead him to pray for the forgiveness of his enemies. Here, however, we must not tarry ; for the three prophetic days have expired, and lo, from the cold arms of Death, from the closely guarded sepulchre comes the crucified Saviour. With the power of God at his com¬ mand what shall he do ? Send the pestilence or the earthquake among his enemies ? Strike them dead by a flash from heaven ? Nay, he commands his disciples — and as we read do we not wonder at the marvelous self-control of Jesus? “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 134 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com¬ manded you : and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Well has Xavier sung “ Thou, O my Jesus, thou didst me Upon the cross embrace ; For me didst bear the nails and spear And manifold disgrace. And griefs and torments numberless, And sweat of agony, Yea, death itself ; and all for one That was thine enemy. Then why, O blessed Jesus Christ Should I not love thee well ? Not for the hope of winning heaven, Nor of escaping hell — Not with the hope of gaining aught, Not seeking a reward — But as thyself hath loved me O ever loving Lord ! Ev’n so I love thee and will love, And in thy praise will sing, Solely because thou art my God And my eternal King.” The life and death of Jesus Christ not only per¬ fectly satisfy the divine veracity and justice, but they also constitute the mightiest moral power which the wisdom of God could devise. In the light of eighteen Christian centuries we clearly see : ( i ) That if God is to save the race from the bondage and penalty of sin the conditions or terms of mercy must not cast re¬ proach on his government. (2) The remedy must be within the reach of all. (3) It must go to the root of AND MAN’S MORAIv NATURE. 135 the disease, and thus work a thorough cure, and (4) While it shall certainly exclude all spirit of boasting from the redeemed, the remedy must be of such in¬ trinsic worth as to commend it to the judgment and conscience which, if accepted, becomes so far forth a meritorious act. Now I confidently assert that in all this universe there is, and there can be nothing better calculated to secure the divine ideal than that which God has actually devised; viz., . Faith — which worketh by Love — in the Lord Jesus Christ. Possibly the reader may say that I am safe in this assertion because be¬ lieving in God’s infinite wisdom, that which he has done is predicated as the wisest. But I assure him, it is in no such spirit of petitio principii that I am speaking. Let him examine the subject for himself. Study it in all its relations both to God and man. Discard all thought of what the Divine Mind has done. Let him place himself in imagination at the beginning of human history with a fallen race to save ; with the honor of God to sustain, and then let him tell me, if he can, what mightier moral power could have been devised than that which has been employed. For one, I confess that the more I investigate the phi¬ losophy of salvation, the more deeply am I impressed with the Divine Wisdom, saying with Paul, “ O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out.” The importance of Faith, Scripturally considered, is seen in that (a) Without it God can not be pleased. ‘ ‘ But without faith it is impossible to please him ; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek 136 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD him” (Heb. xi. 6). (jb) Through Faith the soul secures the remission of sin. “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive the remission of sins’ ’ (Acts. x. 43). (^) The believer is justified by faith. “ Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Gab iii. 24). (d) At the same time God is seen to be just. “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitia¬ tion through faith in his blood, to declare his right¬ eousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. iii. 25, 26). (e) Faith leads to ac¬ tivity. “ Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (Jas. ii. 17). SECTION III. The Nature of Faith. Faith is of two kinds, viz., Objective and Subject¬ ive. The former refers to Jesus Christ and his gospel. He is the object in whom, and his doctrines are the truths in which the individual or subjective faith rests. Hence Paul says, “But before faith came we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster” (Gal. iii. 23-26). Here the Apostle speaks of a present faith, which at one time was not • but inasmuch as AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 137 there was a real and accepted spirit of faith under the Old Dispensation, I understand these words as referring to objective faith. Certainly this idea is clearly taught in Jude, verse 3: “Beloved, when I gave all dili¬ gence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Subjective faith is that belief or trust which is ex¬ ercised in the objective faith, or in the Saviour. It is usually called faith, saving, or justifying faith. Now let us turn our attention to some definitions of faith, and as we do this, be kind enough to remember the re- mark of Rev. Joseph Cook, that in all misunderstand¬ ings it is wise to go back to definitions. As I understand it, subjective faith consists of three things, viz., (1) A clear perception of the truth, or the person in whom the subjective faith is to rest. (2) A deep interest in the truth or person. (3) A real commitment of self to this truth or person. SECTION iv. The Language of Scripture Presupposes a?id Asserts that Faith which worketh by Love is a Radical Condition of Salvatio?i. Against the Calvinistic doctrine of Monergism the Scriptures clearly teach the doctrine of Synergism. Because (1 ) We are commanded to love, and to exer¬ cise faith in God. “Hear, O Israel, The Rord our God is one Rord. And thou shalt love the Rord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might ” (Deut. vi. 4, 5). “Trust in [38 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD the Lord, and do good : so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed ” (Ps. xxxvii. 3). “ Trust in the Lord with all thine heart ; and lean not unto thine own understanding ” (Prov. iii. 5). “ Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obey- eth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light ? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God” (Isa. 1. 10). “And Jesus, answering, saith unto them, have faith in God ” (Mark xi. 22). To the same spiritual purpose are the gospel injunctions concerning faith in Christ. “ Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God ? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God that ye believe on him whom he hath sent ” (John vi. 28, 29). “ And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment” (1. John iii. 23). (2) Salvation is conditioned on the Exercise of Faith. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John iii. 16). “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John vi. 47). “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house ” (Acts xvi. 31 ). “ For the Scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed ” (Rom. x. 1 1). (3) Faith is so much a personal choice that it is said to belong to the individual by whom it is exercised. “ But Jesus turned him about ; and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort ; thy faith hath made thee whole ” (Matt. ix. 22). “ And Jesus said AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 139 unto him, Go thy way ; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way ” (Mark x. 52). To the woman who was a sinner, and yet who “ loved much,” the Master said, “ Thy faith hath saved thee ; go in peace ” (Luke vii. 50). Of the ten lepers who were healed, only one returned to the Saviour to give thanks, to whom he said, “ Arise, go thy way ; thy faith hath made thee whole ” (xvii. 19). “ For what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness ” (Rom. iv. 3). What was counted unto Abraham for righteousness ? Faith. Whose faith ? His own. In this connection the reader may profitably notice the eleventh chapter of Hebrews which is devoted to the triumphs of faith. While it is true that the writer had no intention of unduly magnifying the individual so as to allow any room for boasting, yet beyond all controversy, each person’s faith is designated as his own ; moreover because faith is a moral quality — a right attitude of the soul — those who are here enum¬ erated are deservedly praised. Such is our moral nature, that when we do right a sense of approval— of complacency spontaneously arises. So far forth this intrinsically belongs to the person whose conscience says, You have done right. Hence “ By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts ; and by it he being dead yet speaketh” (v. 5). Gregory the Great, cited by Delitzsch, says, “ All that is given to God, is weighed according to the disposition of its giver : whence it is written, ‘ God had regard to Abel, and to his gifts, 140 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD but had no regard to Cain and his gifts.’ The Script¬ ure does not say, ‘ He regarded the gifts of Abel, and did not regard the gifts of Cain,’ but first says, that ‘He regarded Abel,’ and then adds, ‘and his gifts.’ So we see that it was not the gifts which made Abel to be acceptable, but Abel who made the gifts to be so.” (4) God’s work is advanced or hindered in the exact proportion as Faith is or is not exercised. Jesus marvelled at the faith of the centurion, and said, ‘‘Go thy way ; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee” (Matt. viii. 13). To the two blind men the Master puts the searching question ‘‘Believe ye that I am able to do this ? ’ ’ Receiving an affirmative answer, he said, “ According to your faith be it unto you” (Matt. ix. 29). To Jairus, Christ said, ‘‘Be not afraid, only believe” (Mark v. 36). To the father who had a son with a dumb spirit, and who was bordering on unbelief, Jesus said, “ If thou canst be¬ lieve, all things are possible to him that believeth” (Mark ix. 23). True, these passages refer to physi¬ cal healing ; but if a moral state or attitude of the mind is required to heal a physical malady, shall any¬ thing less be required for the disease of the soul ? Moreover, let us not forget that in all the gracious works of Jesus he sought to impress the mind that he who could heal the body, could, and if he were allowed, would heal the soul. To the disciples all things were conditioned on the exercise of faith. ‘‘Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them” (Mark xi. 24). (5) Unbelief, the great sin, and that which absolutely deters God from saving. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. I4I This is susceptible of several presentations; viz., ( a ) The disciples are mildly rebuked for not having faith. Peter’s unbelief while walking on the water is re¬ proved by the Master, saying, “ O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” (Matt. xiv. 31). The father of the lunatic son must have been surprised at the failure of the disciples to cast out the evil spirit. When Jesus heard of it he said, “ O faithless and per¬ verse generation, how long shall I be with 3^011 ? how long shall I suffer you ? ” “ Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief; for verity I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place ; and it shall remove : and nothing shall be impossible unto you” (Matt. xvii. 17, 19, 20). The foolish fears ot the disciples while in the storm on the Sea of Galilee, are kindly rebuked by the Master, who ‘ ‘ said unto them, Why are ye so fearful ? how is it that ye have no faith” (Mark iv. 40) ? While Jesus is teaching the nature of human forgiveness, the apostles ex¬ claimed, “Iyord increase our faith.” Doubtless this was a very sincere and laudable desire : but so far from the Master granting it in any positive sense — he proceeds to show them that it is their duty to have faith (Duke xviii. 3-10). Thomas was called “faithless” because he would not believe without seeing and feeling the nail-prints : nor was he as blessed as they who had not seen, and yet had be¬ lieved. (John xx. 25, 27, 29.) (£) We dre warned against unbelief. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in depart- 142 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ing from the living God.” “Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.” “ Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief” (Heb. iii. 12; iv. 1,11). (V) God’s Ancient People lost through unbelief. “ Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well ; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear : For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee” (Rom. xi. 19-21). “But with whom was he grieved forty years ? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness ? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not ? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief” (Heb. iii. 17-19). “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them ; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” “ Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief” (iv. 2, 6). “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgres¬ sion and disobedience received a just recompense of reward ; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him ” (ii. 1-3). (d) The same condemnation rested on the Jews in the time of Christ. “ He that AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. H3 believetli on him is not condemned : but he that be- lieveth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John iii. 18). “I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins ” (viii. 24). Speaking of the Holy Spirit the Master said, “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” Why of sin? “ Because they believe not on me ” (xvi. 8, 9). The dying Stephen justly said, “Ye stiffnecked and uncir¬ cumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost : as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts vii. 51). (e) The Saviour was deterred by unbelief. “And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief” (Mark vi. 5, 6). The only escape possible to the Cal¬ vinist is to assert that when men do not believe, God never intended they should. But as we have seen in a previous chapter this is not tenable ; not only be¬ cause the language of the Bible unequivocally con¬ demns it, but also because it irresistibly leads to the charge of insincerity on the part of God. Salvation is conditional. Faith in the divine promises is the condition which man must fulfill before God can save. SECTION v. How is Faith Obtained f How Does it Come f The Bible answers this question by asserting that faith comes by hearing, reading, and meditating upon the Word. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God ” (Rom. x. 17). “Search 144 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD the scriptures ; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John v. 39). “ And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. 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 ” (xx. 30, 31). It comes by witnessing miraculous events. Concerning the death of Lazarus, the Master said to the disciples, “ And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe ; nevertheless let us go unto him” (xi. 15). Thomas was doubting until he saw the prints of the nails : hence, seeing was believing : therefore Jesus said unto him, “ Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed : blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed ” (John xx. 29). It may be safely as¬ serted that all the mighty works of Jesus were intended to substantiate his claims of Messiahship : or, to give such evidence of the truthfulness of his claims that men should have no excuse for not believing, or exer¬ cising faith. Hence, when speaking to Philip, he says, “ Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me : or else believe me for the very works’ sake” (xiv. 11). Again, speaking of the unbeliev¬ ing Jews, he says to the disciples, “ If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin : but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father” (xv. 24). “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him ” (x. 37, 38). AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. H5 It follows from the above that a person’s faith may be increased, or made stronger, by greater light, a clearer understanding of the Word ; or by a more vivid appreciation of the goodness and power of God as seen in Jesus Christ. In this sense the disciples were right — though they ought to have had more faith — when they said to the Lord, “ Increase our faith.” As we have seen he did increase their faith at the res¬ urrection of Lazarus. Indeed, to them, every day’s experience was a new revelation of his infinite love and power, and hence, a continual confirmation of their faith. Yet, so far from being directly given by God, it depended upon them, whether they would or would not improve their opportunities. Thus, subjec¬ tive, or saving faith is man’s part in the saving of the soul : Not without God’s aid, however ; for were it not for the Holy Spirit convicting men of, and draw¬ ing them away from their sins to the cross of Calvary, none would be saved. But at the same time I main¬ tain that the yielding to the divine influences, the ex¬ ercising of faith in the Saviour is man’s act, and not God’s : that when so exercised it is really, and hence ought to be, and in the Scriptures is, called my faith : that the soul has the power to, and in many cases, actually does, refuse to believe, against the abundant evidence offered by God, and made additionally strong by the divine Spirit, and thus is lost — contrary to the sincere wish and earnest endeavors of God. “He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 146 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD God” (John i. 11-13). “The power contemplated seems not to be a new moral ability by means of which alone the recipient could exercise saving faith, for the receiving of him by faith precedes in the order of nature this blessing of sonship toward God. To such as had received him, he gave this right or privilege.”1 Says Alford, “ . . . . as many as recognized him as that which he was the Word of God and Tight of men.” “ For as the words received and to them that believe, correspond to one another, and denote the cause ; so the effect is denoted in the words to become sons, and is further explained in this verse.” 2 Speaking of this spiritual reception, Neander says, “ The appearance of Messiah will cause a sifting of the Theocratic people. This presupposes that he will not overturn all enemies and set up his kingdom at once by the miraculous power of God, but will mani¬ fest himself in such a form that those whose hearts are prepared for his coming will recognize him as Messiah.” 3 SECTION vi. Objectio?is Considered. It is now in order to consider the objections against the position herein maintained. It is claimed : I. That the natural man is dead in sin, so that he can not possibly act, or co-operate with God. Dr. Thomas H. Skinner says, “ As Christ in his body was dead and buried, was raised from the sepulchre by the ex¬ ceeding greatness of God’s power, so the sinner is 1 Cowles. Commentary. 2 Bengel’s “Gnomon of the New Testament. ” 3 “ Life of Christ,” p. 54. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE- H7 dead and buried in the grave of sin, and his resurrec¬ tion therefrom is by that very same power exerted in him.” 4 Rev. Alvan Tobey declares, “ In regenera¬ tion men are wholly passive ; as they also are in the first moment of conversion, but by it become active. Regeneration is an irresistible act of God’s grace, no more resistance can be made to it, than there could be by the first matter in its creation, or by a dead man in his resurrection. ’ ’ 5 Dr. Charles Hodge thinks that sin¬ ners are as impotent as the man with a withered arm, or the one at the pool of Betliesda. Thus, in refuting the doctrine of the Romanists, he says, ‘‘No one de¬ nies that the man in the synagogue co-operated in stretching out his withered arm, or that the impotent one at the pool was active in obeying the command of Christ ‘ Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house-’ .... So Protestants do not deny that the soul is active in conversion ; that the ‘ Arbitrium a Deo motum ’ freely asserts ; but they do deny that the sinner is active and co-operating in the production of the new life in the exercise of which the sinner turns to God.” Again in speaking of, and indorsing the Augsburg Confession, he says, “ . . . . the sinner can in no way prepare himself to be the subject of this grace, he can not merit it, nor can he co-operate with it. Regeneration is exclusively .the work of the Spirit, in which man is the subject and not the agent : . . . . therefore it depends on God, and not on man, who are, and who are not, to be made partakers of eternal life.”6 4 “ Presby. Quarterly,” 1873, p. 116. 5 “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XVIII., p. 382. 6 “Theology.” Vol. II., pp. 718, 720. 148 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD Reversing the order of thought, let us reconsider the miracles of healing, which, it is claimed, are fair illustrations of the workings of grace. In the case of the man with a withered hand, it is to be frankly con¬ fessed that so far as the command of the Master is concerned, “Stretch forth thine hand,” it was, to the man, a physical impossibility. This is seen at a glance, otherwise, there was no need of seeking the aid of Christ. But back of the physical impossibility was the will, or the disposition of the man which is a most im¬ portant factor in the healing. As we have seen, Christ invariably demanded faith as the condition of healing : because it is not mentioned here, we are not to suppose that it was not required. Hence as the man earnestly desired to be healed, his will did co¬ operate with the command, and hence the necessary strength was received. Had he refused to exercise faith, there is no rational doubt that he would have remained unhealed. Now so far as this illustrates the saving of the soul, it is unmistakably in favor of the doctrine for which I am contending. No man can be saved of himself : otherwise, why should God provide a Saviour ? But man, lost as he is, may have a desire to be saved, a disposition to do what is told him, and hence, under the influences of the Holy Spirit, he wills to believe, he exercises faith in the crucified Saviour, and is saved. Here I gladly quote the words of Dr. Barnes, who, although a Calvinist, has un¬ qualifiedly indorsed the Arminian doctrine that God saves according to man’s attitude. “ The man might have said that he had no strength : that it was a thing which he could not do. Yet, being commanded, it was his duty to obey. He did so, and was healed. ■ AND MAN’S MORAR NATURE. 149 So the sinner. It is his duty to obey whatever God commands. He will give strength to those who attempt to do his will. It is not right to plead, when God commands us to do a thing, that we have no strength. God will give us strength, if there is a dis¬ position to obey. Please mark this. “ God will give us strength if there is a disposition to obey.” If Cal¬ vinism be correct, there is no “if” about it: man has no disposition ; can have no disposition toward God until it is irresistibly conferred upon him, put within him, which of course prompts him to obey. This one little word “if” which Dr. Barnes has so unconsciously used is the key to the whole subject. The Calvinists would banish it from theology, but like Banquo’s ghost, it will not down. This leads to the consideration of the question, Is man’s moral nature literally dead ? The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians affords, perhaps, the most plausible texts to support the doctrine that man is passive in regeneration. “And you hath he quick¬ ened wTho were dead in trespasses and sins. Even when we were dead in sins, hath he quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved” (»• 1, 5)- In the Bible the words “dead,” “death” and “die” are variously used. At times death is predi¬ cated of the bodily life, as “ Eazarus is dead ” ; again it is affirmed of the soul. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. ” “ Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him, Eet him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multi¬ tude of sins ” (James t. 19, 20). In the first pas- T50 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD sage cited, we understand by the death of Lazarus that he had absolutely lost his bodily life : conse¬ quently he was entirely passive in his resurrection. Now if this is the meaning which is fairly demanded in other passages where death is affirmed of the spiritual nature, I have nothing to say. The Calvin¬ ist is right, and I can only bow in silence to that which seems to me extremely perplexing. But is this inter¬ pretation demanded ? I not only think that it is not, but I am of the opinion that upon investigation it will be found utterly incongruous. Death, whether physical or spiritual, is the oppo¬ site of life. Spiritual life is communion with God : spiritual death takes place the moment that commun¬ ion ceases, hence, spiritual death is alienation from God ; a perversion of the moral powers ; a refusal to use them in the service and for the glory of God. But the non-use of a faculty does not imply its non-exist¬ ence. Consequently the word “ dead ” in the passages under consideration is to be understood as teaching the moral perversity of men, the non-recognition of the claims of God, or the bondage of sin in which men are living. That the term “ dead ” can not be as literally applied to the moral as to the physical nature of man is evident, because (i) Men are addressed as though they were capable of co-operating with God. This has been clearly shown by the many passages previously considered in this chapter. Of necessity there can be no condition if there is no co-operation. But as Dr. Barnes confesses there is a condition : hence there are two persons. The following passages clearly assert that man must do his part in securing divine pardon. The AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 15I rebellious Israelites were to remember the mercy of God and earnestly seek him : for “ if-from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul” (Deut. iv. 29). Speaking through the “Min¬ strel sublime ” God says, “ Wash ye, make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes : cease to do evil ; learn to do well : seek judg¬ ment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow ” (Isa. i. 16, 17). According to Jeremiah God will punish or forgive in the exact proportion as the people correct their ways. “Therefore now amend your ways, and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God ; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pro¬ nounced against you ” (xxvi. 13). From Ezekiel we learn that the wicked are as active, that they have as much power to turn as the righteous. “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them ; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is law¬ ful and right, he shall save his soul alive. Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgres¬ sions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die” (xviii. 26-28). Janies gives good advice when he says “ Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Humble your¬ selves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up” (iv. 8, 10). In vain does Dr. Hodge say that these and other passages imply “ nothing more than 152 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD the authoritative declaration of what is obligatory upon those to whom it is addressed.” I venture the assertion that the same language used among men would be universally understood as implying, not only obligation, but also some degree of power to fulfill the obligation. The Bible is written in a plain, common- sense way, and it is a fact capable of verification that in all ages the great mass of men have so understood these declarations. As a matter of historic interest the view condemned by Dr. Hodge was quite univer¬ sally accepted by the Christian Church prior to the time of Augustine. Hagenbach testifies as follows- “ Freedom and immortality are those traits of the human mind in which is manifested the image of God. Such was the doctrine of the primitive Church, con¬ firmed by the general Christian consciousness. All the Greek fathers, as well as the apologists, Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, • and the Latin author, Minutius Felix, also the theologians of the Alexandrian school, Clement and Origen, exalt the autonomy, self-determination of the human soul. . . . None but heretics ventured to maintain that man is subject to another influence than himself.” 1 Dr. Hodge frequently seeks to support his doctrines by an appeal to the past ; in this case the verdict is against him. Men have thought and will continue to think, that when the Bible says “ Cease to do evil,” “ Draw nigh to God,”' “Wash you, make you clean ; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes,” it pre¬ supposes that those to whom the words are addressed have the power thus to do. (2) The spiritual nature of man is not literally dead, or actually lost, because if 1 “ History of Doctrine.” Vol. I., p. 155. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 153 this were so, there would be no basis for a spiritual recovery. Dr. Hodge truly says “The essential attri¬ butes of a spirit are reason, conscience and will. A spirit is a rational, moral, and therefore also a free agent.’’ 2 It follows therefore, that if these attributes which are essential to a spirit should be lost, if they are dead — like the body at the termination of the phys¬ ical life — the spirit has lost its essential characteristics. Through what avenues then does spiritual truth reach the soul ? Can wre know anything of God ? Mani¬ festly not ; for as Dr. Hodge admits, “ This conformity of nature between man and God is not only the dis¬ tinguishing prerogative of humanity, so far as earthly creatures are concerned, but it is also the necessary condition of our capacity to know God, and therefore the foundation of our religious nature. 3 But all men have or have not a religious nature. If the unregenerate have not a religious nature then God, in restoring that which is lost must act immedi¬ ately upon the personality. This Dr. Hodge seems to imply when he says of God,“ He operates when, where and how he sees fit, without the intervention of any second cause. By a word, or a volition, raising the spiritually dead, opening the eyes of the heart, renew¬ ing the will, communicating what the Scriptures call a new nature.” 4 If we have spiritual nature before regeneration, how is it possible for the soul to be as literally dead as the body ? When the body dies, the work of dis¬ integration begins. If not arrested the body soon 2 “ Systematic Theology.” Vol. II., p. 97- 3 Ibid. 4 “ Theology.” Vol. II., p. 694. 154 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD disappears. But if the spiritual nature of man is im¬ perishable, then the soul can not be dead ; and hence the only tenable conclusion is that which I previously affirmed, viz., that by spiritual death is meant the per¬ version of man’s moral powers ; his affections are mis¬ placed, his judgment and conscience — to a greater or less degree — say he ought to love God, but his will refuses to coincide. Change the ruling purpose and the man will become a Christian. When Dr. Hodge combats the doctrine of annihi¬ lation, the view for which I am contending is not only recognized, but, as it seems to me, heartily accepted : he says, “The word life means one thing when used of plants, another when used of animals, and another when spoken of in reference to the soul of man. The death of a plant is one thing, the death of an immor¬ tal soul is something entirely different.” Speaking of life, he says, “The word, when used of the soul of man, means not only conscious being, but a normal state of being in the likeness, fellowship, and enjoy¬ ment of God. And in like manner the word death, when spoken of the soul, means alienation or separa¬ tion from God.” Precisely so. But is a man who is alienated from God as really dead, as truly passive as when his body dies ? Moreover, the unconscious con¬ cession that “ life” “ when used of the soul of man, means .... a normal state of being in the likeness . ... of God,” signifies that a sinful soul is in an abnormal state. But does abnormal mean as passive as a dead body ? This conclusion is susceptible of a different verifi¬ cation. If, as Dr. Hodge affirms, “ Spiritual death is as real as corporal death,” then when God restores AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE). 155 that which is dead — that which is lost — something has been added to the soul. To deny this is to say that the soul has lost nothing — in the proper sense of that term — which is the very thing for which I am con¬ tending. But, if I mistake not, Dr. Hodge does deny that anything is added to the soul : he says, “ Regeneration does not consist in a change in any one of the facul¬ ties of the soul, whether the sensibility, or the will, or the intellect.” Again, it is “not a change of the higher, as distinguished from the lower powers of the soul.” “ Nor any change in the substance of the soul.” 5 If regeneration does not change the soul’s sub¬ stance, nor the higher, nor the lower powers, nor any of the faculties, then so far forth as the spiritual nat¬ ure is concerned it remains the same as before. Con¬ sequently so far as its real nature is concerned, the soul has not lost anything, and therefore, is not, and can not be said to be as literally dead as the body when life departs. Or, quoting the words of Dr. Hodge, ‘ ‘ as real as corporeal death. ’ ’ Cowles admirably says, “ . . . . dead, not in the sense of having no mind, but of having a bad mind — not of being without moral sense, but of having perverted their moral sense and crushed it down.” Dr. Hodge is entirely too literal in his idea of spiritual death, for (3) The Scriptures affirm that man has not utterly lost his spiritual sense. Paul declares that the heathen have some sense of right and wrong, and at times are excused by their consciences. “ Tor when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nat- 5 “Theology.” Vol. III., pp. 15, 17, 32. 156 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ure the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their con¬ science also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another” (Rom. ii. 14, 15). The fall did not deprive man of some likeness to God, for the prohibition against shedding man’s blood is based on the fact that he is yet in the divine image. “ Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; for in the image of God made he man” (Gen. ix. 6). The same truth is taught by the apostle when he says, “ For a man in¬ deed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God ; but the woman is the glory of the man” (1. Cor. xi. 7). If the reader should suggest that these expressions refer to the intellectual nature of man while Dr. Hodge is speaking of the spiritual nature, I would respectfully reply that in¬ trinsically considered the spiritual is involved in the intellectual. An intellectual act is, or is not, spiritual according to the motive which prompts the act. This is practically conceded by Dr. Hodge when he admits that “ the soul is a unit.” The following testimony is peculiarly interesting as coming from eminent Cal¬ vinists. Dr. John Tullochsays, “ Man is a fallen and degraded being. He is at the best, be he Pharisee or Publican, among the * lost ’ whom Christ came to seek and to save. But he is noble even in his degradation. There is a capacity of divine life in him, beneath all the ruin of his nature. He is God-like, even with the image of his divine original broken and defaced. The divine likeness is obscured, but not obliterated. It may be traced amidst all the accumulations of sin- AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. !57 ful ruin . There is nothing more characteristic of our Lord’s teaching than this recognition of the di¬ vine original of humanity, and of the divine potency which still survives in it. This is the only key to his redemptive mission. He came to recover the fallen, and to set up that which had been thrown down . Dark as sin ever is, therefore, in the view of our Lord, and fallen as human nature is, it is not yet, as it has been sometimes represented, a mere mass of corruption. The tone which could say of it that it contains nothing but sin, and produces nothing which is not damnable, is foreign to the Gospels.” 6 Dr. W. G. T. Shedd says : “There must be this correspondence between the judicial nature of man, and the judicial nature of God, or religion is impos¬ sible. How can man even know what is meant by justice in the Deity, if there is absolutely nothing of the same species in his own rational constitution, which if realized in his own character as it is in that of God, would make him just, as God is just? How can he know what is meant by moral perfection in God, if in his own rational spirit there is absolutely no ideal of moral excellence, which if realized in himself as it is in the Creator, would make him excellent as he is excellent? Without some mental correspondent, to which to appeal and commend them¬ selves, the teachings of revelation could not be appre¬ hended. A body of knowledge alone is not the whole ; there must be an inlet for it, an organ of apprehen¬ sion. But if there is no such particular part of the human constitution as has been described, and these calm judgments of the moral sense, and this righteous 6 “ The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” pp. 131, 132. 158 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD displeasure of the conscience, are to be put upon a level with the workings of the fancy and imagination, or the selfish passions of the human heart, then there is no point of contact and communication between the nature of man and the being of God. There is no part of his own complex being upon which man may fall back, with the certainty of not being mistaken in judgments of ethics and religion. Both anchor and anchoring-ground are gone, and he is afloat upon the boundless, starless ocean of ignorance and scepticism. Even if revelations are made, they can not enter his mind. There is no contacting surface through which they can approach and take hold of his being. They can not be seen to be what they really are, the absolute truth of God, because there is no eye with which to see them.” 7 II. It is objected that the view here taught con¬ tradicts many passages of Scripture in which men are said to be drawn unto the Father: viz., “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him : and I will raise him up at the last day. Every man therefore that hath heard, and learned of the Father, cometh unto me. No man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father” (John vi. 44, 45, 65). But I find no difficulty with these declarations. I accept them as teaching the necessity of a divine influ¬ ence for the salvation of the soul. Nowhere have I taught that man can save himself. On the contrary I have strenuously maintained that without God, the soul is hopelessly lost in sin. Denying the passivity of man is not denying the activity of God. To be 7 “ Discourses and Rssays,” pp. 290, 291. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 159 saved men must be drawn to Jesus, but the yielding to those influences is implied in the exercise of faith which is man’s part in, and the sole condition of, salva¬ tion. The merciful Father earnestly seeks to draw all unto Jesus. Why he does not, the Saviour’s own words inform us : ‘ ‘And ye will not come to me, that, ye might 'iave life” (John v. 40). Hence as Neander truly says : ‘ ‘ He who will not follow the Divine ‘ draw¬ ing ’ (revealed in his dawning consciousness of God) can never attain to faith in Christ, and must feel him¬ self repelled from his words.” 8 The same principle will apply to such passages as “ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me : and I give unto them eternal life. . . . . ” (John x. 27, 28). “It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given” (Matt. xiii. 11). “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (xi. 25). The Master’s sheep are those, who, having the right dis¬ position, as Dr. Barnes says, or in whom there is the spirit of faith, are drawn unto “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” And what was the reason why ‘ ‘ these things, ” “ the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven ’ ’ were concealed ‘ ‘ from the wise and prudent ” ? Let the reader turn again to the words of the Master, Matt. xiii. 12 : “ For whoso¬ ever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance ; but whosoever hath not from him shall be taken away, even that he hath.” Here is a most fortunate occurrence. The very passage which 8 “Life of Christ,” p. 106. 160 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD Dr. Hodge quotes as favoring the doctrine that God purposely withholds enlightening grace, Jesus ex¬ plains, giving as the reason why the mysteries of the kingdom are concealed from some men, that in them there is a fatal lack — they have no desire to improve their opportunities. III. It is said that the Scriptures declare repent¬ ance to be a gift from God. In speaking to the un¬ believing Jews, Peter says of Jesus, “ Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgive¬ ness of sins” (Acts v. 31). Paul tells Timothy that “the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meek¬ ness instructing those that oppose themselves ; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the ac¬ knowledging of the truth ” (11. Tim. ii. 24, 25). Now, I ask the reader, in all fairness, what are we to under¬ stand by these passages ? As truth seekers we are to open our minds to every ray of light, and so far as possible, judge things upon their merits. If Dr. Hodge’s interpretation is the only one allowable, or if it is more consistent, with the general subject under consideration, then I must accept it. So far as I know, there are but three possible views: viz., (1) That of Dr. Hodge — faith and repentance the direct gifts of God withheld from the non-elect. (2) That of Dr. Whedon, who says of 11. Tim. ii. 24, 25, that it is “ the power, not the act of repentance ” which is divinely given ; and (3) That these declarations are used comprehensively to express the general work of salvation and not to discriminate concerning the divine and human. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. l6l I can not agree with Dr. Whedon’s exposition, because if I mistake not, the fundamental principles of his theology necessitate the conclusion that all men have the power to repent. 9 But in n. Tim. ii. 25 there is a conditional giving ; there was something of which these “ opposers ” were destitute. They may obtain it ; otherwise the “if” is of no force ; hence it can not be the power to repent which is here meant, for Arminians have always earnestly contended that God does give power for the obeying of his commands ; but in these passages that which is affirmed as coming from God is not given unconditionally ; nay, it might be withheld. My reasons for rejecting the interpretation of Dr. Hodge will be manifest as I elucidate the third view. For a correct understanding of this subject we must turn to the Master’s w7ords expressed to the disciples just before his ascension. “Thus it is written and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And that repentance and remis¬ sion of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginningat Jesusalem ” (Lukexxiv. 46, 47). The Master here describes the future work of the apostles. In its spirit it was the same as he had been doing, and in which they had assisted him, as we find from the following : “ From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. iv. 17). “And they went out, and preached that men should repent ” (Mark vi. 12). 9 “ Power must underlie obligation.” “ Will,” p. 398. “ Man is . . . born in a ‘ state of initial salvation ’ as Fletcher of Madeley called it, and the means of final salvation are amply placed within the reach of his free choice” " Meth. Quarterly,” 1879, p. 411. 162 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD As this was the work of the disciples before the ascen¬ sion, so was it afterwards. It was God’s work ; it was the work of saving souls estranged from the Father, hence, it is repeatedly called the work of salvation ; hence, my view of these passages is simply this : they speak of repentance and of the remission of sins in a popular way, as included in the work of salvation. Thinking of the results as a whole, remembering, that without divine aid, salvation is impossible, the apostles used common, instead of scientific or theological language. This method of speaking was adopted by the Saviour when he said to the woman of Samaria, “Salvation is of the Jews.” An extreme literalist could say with the same degree of plausibility Jesus here taught that the Jews could save. The Master’s meaning is sufficiently clear the moment we consider the circumstances in which the words were uttered, namely : that salvation comes through or by the He¬ brew nation as God’s chosen people. But in my opin¬ ion the meaning of repentance as here used is no less clear when we fairly consider the circumstances in which the word was employed. This will be more evident as we consider a few passages in which the term repentance occurs. “ But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice ; for I am not come to call the right¬ eous, but sinners to repentance’’ (Matt. ix. 13). Peter explains his strange conduct while with the Gen¬ tiles by saying, “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ ; what was I, that I could with¬ stand God ? When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 1 63 ■v hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (Acts xi. 17, 18). “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuf- fering ; not knowing that the goodness of God leadetli thee to repentance?” (Rom. ii. 4). “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (xi. 29). Peter declares that God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (11. Pet. iii. 9). In these passages the general work of salvation is the primary idea ; yet repentance is spoken of as the result of Christ’s coming and call ; or as the consequence of a right perception of God’s goodness. While “ salvation is of the Jews,” it came by them to the Gentiles ; hence, repentance is said to have been granted unto them. But why were the Jews rejected? Because they sinned and would not repent. Hence my conclusion concerning these pas¬ sages is this : they were intended to express the gen¬ eral work of salvation, which of necessity is of God. The Holy Spirit’s influences followed, give as a result, repentance for sin and salvation : Yet the faith and repentance are acts of the individual, which may, or may not be exercised. IV. It is said the Bible de¬ clares faith to be the gift of God, namely, “ For to one is given by the spirit the word of wisdom ; to an¬ other the word of knowledge by the same spirit ; to another faith by the same spirit ; to another the gifts of healing by the same spirit” (1. Cor. xii. 8, 9). “ For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God” (Eph. ii. 8). For a correct understanding of the first passage we must remember that chapters xii-xiv. are devoted to a consideration of spiritual gifts. In the Church of 164 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD Corinth there had been not a little confusion growing out of the exercising of the different gifts conferred upon them by the Holy Spirit. While some were prophesying, others were interpreting ; while some were praying, others were singing, thus bringing the faith of the gospel into disrepute. The apostle corrects this by showing that while there is a diversity of gifts there is but one source whence they come : hence, as God is not the author of confusion they must become more orderly. Consequently, as a matter of fact, there is no reference in the mind of the apostle to the gift of saving, or justifying faith : that is necessarily presupposed to be possessed by all to whom he is writing ; the faith here spoken of is that kind of faith, trust, or strength necessary for the performance of some daring or extraordinary duty. Precisely like Luther’s experience at the Diet of Worms. He al¬ ready possessed saving faith : now, as he stands before his enemies, the truth as it is in Jesus Christ must be clear and strong ; hence, if he will seek and trust di¬ vine grace, his voice shall penetrate the four quarters of the earth. The same general idea is expressed by Lange. “ Not that faith which receives salvation in Christ, i. e., justifying faith, but a strong confidence in the divine omnipotence, or in the power of Christ as able to make itself manifest in extraordinary deeds ; or to afford and insure help of a supernatural kind ; or, in other words, a confidence which shall enable a man to perform these deeds, or to afford this help.” Generically the same kind of faith which was lacking in the disciples when they attempted, but failed, to cure the lunatic son. As we have seen their faith was increased by witnessing the resurrection of Lazarus. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 165 The Spirit sanctified this unto their spiritual good ; consequently in this sense faith comes by, or through the Spirit. Concerning the passage in Ephesians it is pertinent to ask What is the gift of God ? Is it the grace or the faith ? If the latter, then so far, the discussion must be decided in favor of Dr. Hodge. If the former, then the last support to the doctrine that faith is a direct gift of God is removed. I shall now endeavor to show that such is the fact. Alford’s translation is as follows : ‘ ‘ For by grace have ye been saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves ; of God is the gift.” Commenting on the text, he says,” ‘ by grace ’ above, expressed the objective instrumental condition of your salvation, — this ‘ through faith ’ the subjective medial condition ; it has been effected by grace and appre¬ hended by faith : and this (your salvation your having been saved) not of yourselves ; God’s is the gift.” Lange says ” The emphasis rests on ‘ by grace,’ which is placed first, being the causa efficie7is ; the causa appreheyideyis follows, as a modal qualification.” Again, ” ‘And that’ refers back to the idea of the preceding verb : ‘ ye are saved ’ in the sense of et quidem: and this in addition I say, or and this, being saved through faith, comes not of yourselves.” The testimony of Dr. Riddle, the American Editor, is quite suggestive. “ The reference to salvation is adopted by Calvin, Rueckert, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, DeWette, Stier, Eadie, Alford, Ellicott, and every commentator of note since the days of Bengel, except Hodge.” Elsewhere Dr. Riddle says ” . on doctrinal grounds there is no objection to the reference to faith ; ’ ’ and, quoting Dr. Hodge, ” The analogy of Scripture is 1 66 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD in favor of this view.” But this is not so evident. As the discussion continues the reader will see that the analogy of Scripture requires the doctrine which has been maintained in this chapter. If the clearest pas¬ sages of Scripture concerning the origin and nature of faith, if the texts upon which Dr. Hodge confidently relies do not teach that faith is a direct gift of God, it is certainly 'contradicted by the analogy of faith. This is more clearly seen by remembering that throughout the Scriptures the grace of God, the salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ is designated “ the gift of God.” To the woman of Samaria the Master said, “ If thou knew- est the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink ; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water” (John iv. io). Bengel says “The gift is the living water.” Meyer refers it to the meeting and conversation with Jesus. Alford thinks it is the gift of the Holy Spirit. The fundamental idea is the same. Salvation is the gift. Its conditionality is unmistakably affirmed by the words “ if thou knewest ” — “ thou wouldest have asked.” As Dr. Hanna has said, “ Still from the lips of the Saviour of the world, over all the world the words are sounding forth : ‘ If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink.’ Still the manner of his dis¬ pensation of the great gift stands embodied in the words: “Thou wouldest have asked, and I would have given thee living water.’ ” In the light of this investigation we more clearly seethe true moral relation between evidence and faith. God can not compel the mind to believe : there may be, and is such abundant evidence as to convince all who have any disposition to believe : at the same time AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 1 67 there must be and is full scope for men to refuse. This, I say, must be so : otherwise there can be no test, no responsibility, and so far forth, no merit or demerit. In this connection I am happy to quote from Doctor Mark Hopkins. “ Certainly, if God has provided evi¬ dence as convincing as that of the forty-seventh prop¬ osition of Euclid, so that all men have to do is to examine it with candor, then they must be without excuse if they do not believe. This, I suppose, God has done. He asks no one to believe except on the ground of evidence, and such evidence as ought to command assent. Eet a man examine this evidence with entire candor, laying aside all prejudices, simply according to the laws of evidence, and then if he is not convinced, I believe God will so far forth acquit him in the great day of judgment. But if God has given man such evidence that a fair, and full, and perfectly candid examination is all that is needed to necessitate belief, then, if men do not believe, it will be in this very law that we shall find the ground of their con¬ demnation. The difficulty will not lie in their mental constitution as related to evidence, nor in the want of evidence, but in that moral condition, that state of the heart, or the will, which prevented a proper examina¬ tion.” 1 The thought of Pascal is admirable. “Divine truths reach the spirit through the heart. We must love divine things in order to know them. Christian¬ ity reveals herself to those only who possess a sincere longing to know her. ’ ’ ] “ Evidences of Christianity.” CHAPTER IV. For What Are The Non-Eeect Eternaeey Punished ? “ The ivy in a dungeon grew, Unfed by rain, uncheered by dew ; The pallid leaflets only drank Cave-moistures foul, and odors dank. But through the dungeon-grating high There fell a sunbeam from the sky ; It slept upon the grateful floor In silent gladness evermore. The ivy felt a tremor shoot Through all its fibres to the root ; It felt the light, it saw the ray, It strove to blossom into day ; It grew, it crept, it pushed, it clomb — Tong had the darkness been its home : But well it knew, though veiled in night, The goodness and the joy of light. It reached the beam — it thrilled — it curled — It blessed the warmth that cheers the world ; It rose towards the dungeon bars— It looked upon the sky and stars. It felt the life of bursting spring, It heard the happy skylark sing ; It caught the breath of morns and eves, And wooed the swallow to its leaves. By rains and dews, and sunshine fed, Over the outer wall it spread ; And in the daybeam waving free, It grew into a steadfast tree. Wouldst know the moral of the rhyme ? Behold the heavenly light and climb ! To every dungeon conies a ray Of God’s interminable day ! ” CHAPTER IV. For What Are The Non-Elect Eternally Punished ? Calvinism claims to be the teaching of Scripture. In this Part I have tried to bring the Augustinian or Calvinistic theology face to face with the Word of God, thus enabling the reader to judge for himself. So far, the claims of the Calvinist have not been veri¬ fied. The previous chapters have shown a great dis¬ parity between the so-called orthodox faith and the Scriptures. I shall now attempt to show that Calvin¬ ism still further contradicts the plain teaching of God’s ‘ Word. SECTION I. Can the Non- Elect be Saved f The Bible answers this question clearly and con¬ sistently by declaring that so far as the will of God is related to the salvation of the race, all may be saved. Christ came to seek and to save the lost (Euke xix. io). But all are lost. Yes, and the gracious Saviour died for all, that through faith in him all might be saved (John iii. 16, 17). The one condition of salva¬ tion — faith which worketh by love— is, as we have seen, the part which the soul must do. Refusing to believe, the sinner must die in his sins : he can not be saved. This is so, not because it is the will of God, 169 170 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD nor because God could, but does not give saving faith; but it is because the soul thus refusing to accept the divine promises places itself beyond the reach of sav¬ ing grace (John xvi. 8, 9; Matt, xxiii. 37; Heb. xi. 6). But as we proceed, the reader will please notice that Calvinism denies that which the Scriptures clearly affirm. Calvin delares the doctrine of salvation “ is abused when it is represented as effectually available to all.” 1 Toplady says, God never designed to save every individual ; since if he had, every individual would and must be saved, for his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure . Neither is it possible, in the very nature of the thing, that they should be elected to salvation, or ever obtain it, whom God fore¬ knew should perish ; for then the divine act of preter- ition would be changeable, wavering and precarious. . . . . If between the elect and reprobate there was not a great gulf fixed, so that neither can be otherwise than they are, then the will of God, which is alone the cause why some are chosen, and others not, would be rendered inefficacious and of no effect.” 2 In a work entitled “ A Defence of Some of the Important Doctrines of the Gospel ’ ’ and published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, Rev. John Sladen says, “Some allow of a particular election, but deny any such thing as non-election or preterition : they grant that a certain number shall infallibly be saved, but at the same time, affirm that all may be saved if they will. This is an opinion that is absurd 1 “ Institutes.” B. III., Ch. XXII.. See. io. 2 “ Works,” pp. 692, 693. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE}. 171 in its very nature, as well as it is evidently contrary to the Word of God.” 3 While Dr. Griffin is speaking of the non-elect as marching on to death, he makes his opponent say as a reason for their fate, “ they do not believe ” : to this he answers ‘ ‘ Aye, and one reason why they do not believe is that faith is the gift of God.” 4 Beyond all controversy faith is necessary to salva¬ tion ; how then, is it possible for the non-elect to be saved if God has determined to withhold the gift of saving faith ? There is no such possibility if Calvinism be true. The above extracts sufficiently indicate the drift of consistent Calvinism. But there are theolo¬ gians who prefer the name of “modern” or “ modi¬ fied ’ ’ Calvinists who endeavor to maintain both sides of the question. One moment they declare that inas¬ much as faith is withheld from the non-elect they can not be saved ; but presto change, and the very reverse is affirmed, namely, that if the non-elect will only believe they may and will be saved. This is one of the necessary features of the so-called “ modified Cal¬ vinism.” It is quite difficult to distinguish its true bearings. The student is perplexed by the many plain contradictions which constantly meet him. It has the reputation of being less repugnant than the older Calvinism, but it is at the expense of consistency and the logical forms of thought. That the reader may judge for himself concerning the validity of this charge, I shall now quote from the 3 p. 76. 4 “ Divine Efficiency,” p. 184. I72 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD writings of a few able authorities, placing their dif¬ ferent utterances side by side. Dr. Venema says : “ All have common grace, and it is possible for all to be¬ lieve ; and if they will believe they will be saved.” p. 303. “ God determined what the creatures would do, and what their condition would be, who should believe, and who should not : and that his decree re¬ garding them and everything relating to them was absolute. ’ ’ p. 290. The following is from Nehemiah Adams. “No injustice is done to those who are left : salvation is consistently offered to them, and their state is no worse than though all like them had perished.” p. 246. Dr. Emmons says : “If men have natural power to frustrate, as well as to ful¬ fill the decrees of God, then the non-elect have as fair an opportunity of being saved as the elect.” Vol. II., p. 368. “True, he saw that no one would turn without some spe¬ cial act on his part.” p. 254. “ He decreed the existence, the character, the conduct and the state of all moral beings both in time and eternity. He decreed that some should be the monuments of his good¬ ness, some, the monuments of his justice ; and some the monuments of his mercy. And he decreed all the means by which his rational creatures should be brought to their final and eternal condition.” P- 333- AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 173 Dr. Leonard Woods says that “ God will save all the non- elect who comply with the conditions of salvation.” Vol. I. P- 543- “He knows men will not repent, unless by bis Spirit, he gives them repentance.” p. 511. The celebrated John Howe affirms : “Whatsoever there is that comes within the compass of a promise for the encourage¬ ment of sinners to return and come to God, it will all be made good to a tittle upon his account that is worthy ; all promises being yea and amen in him.” p. 1139. “Nothing but the almighty power of grace can make an enemy heart become friendly towards God and towards his Christ : can vanish the ma¬ lignity of an obstinate infidel¬ ity ; can mollify an obdurate heart and make it dissolve and melt, as in repentance it must.” p. 1139. Although Rev. John Sladen calls the following from Dr. Wm. Smith absurd and unbiblical, I will let the reader judge for himself : “ It (election) embraces no decree or purpose that hinders any one from coming to Christ and being saved if they would.” p. 29. “ His decrees are not de¬ pendent upon his foreknowl¬ edge, not identical with it. . But when all equally deserve hell, if he sees fit to save some for a display of his mercy, and leave others to the fate they choose for a display of his justice, though the former have great ground of gratitude, the others have no cause of complaint.” p. 57. 174 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD The same beautifully consistent “ if ” is thus put by Milner in his “ Practical Sermons,” Vol. II.: men may be saved if they please. There wants the will only.” p.243. It does not require a detect the sophism in the Hodge: “The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or mer¬ it, and being in its nature pre¬ cisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect ; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial ac¬ ceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If anv of the elect (being adults') fail thus to accept of it, they per¬ ish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be “ But such is our natural enmity against God, that though the blood of his Son was freely spilt for all men without exception, not one soul would return to God by true repentance were it not for his blessed and adorable pur¬ pose of election, which before the foundation of the world, determined that some souls should be fitted by his univer¬ sal redemption and led to re¬ pentance toward God and to faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” p. 243. very profound insight to following from Dr. Charles “. . . . The fall of Adam brought all his posterity into a state of condemnation, sin, and misery, from which they are utterly unable to deliver themselves. . . . For the sal¬ vation of those thus chosen to eternal life, God gave his own Son, to become man, and to obey and suffer for his people, thus making a full satisfaction for sin, and bringing in ever¬ lasting righteousness, render¬ ing the ultimate salvation of the elect absolutely certain. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 175 saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme pro¬ vide?” pp. 555, 556. Vol. II. That while the Holy Spirit, in his common operations, i s present with every man, so long as he lives, restraining evil and exciting good, his cer¬ tainly efficacious and saving power is exercised only in be¬ half of the elect.” p. 333. The following is from Dr. A. A. Hodge: “A salvation all sufficient and exactly adapted to his ne¬ cessities is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel comes ; and in every case it is his, if he believes ; and in no case does anything prevent his believing other than his own evil disposition. ... If a man is responsible for a bad heart, and the exercises thereof, he must be above all, worthy of condemnation for rejecting such a Saviour.” p.317. ‘ ‘ Outlines of Theology ’ ’ by Of the ‘‘inner call” our author says, “That it is an exercise of divine power upon the soul, immediately, spirit¬ ual, and supernatural, com¬ municating a new spiritual life, and thus making a new mode of spiritual activity pos¬ sible. That repentance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are pure¬ ly and simply the sinner’s own acts ; but as such are possible to him only in virtue of the change wrought in the moral condition of his faculties by the recreative power of God.” P- 336- Truly our Calvinistic friends are magnanimous. The non-elect may be saved “ if they would only be¬ lieve,” and yet saving faith is the gift of God. The non-elect may be saved if they will exercise true re¬ pentance, yet they are in a state of condemnation, sin and misery from which they are utterly unable to de¬ liver themselves. ’ ’ The non-elect are ‘ ‘ worthy of condemnation for rejecting such a Saviour,” while at the same time they can not exercise faith, hope, and 176 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD love until the change is “ wrought in the moral condi¬ tion of ‘ their ’ faculties by the recreative power of God.” While I abhor the peculiar doctrines of Cal¬ vinism, I have some respect for the logical consist¬ ency and fearlessness of the older theology ; but away with this so-called “Modified Calvinism.” It ex¬ plains nothing. Nay, it increases the difficulties by outraging the reader’s intelligence. SECTION 11. Hozv Certain Calvinists Vindicate the Divine Justice and Si?icerity. The student of theology occasionally meets a Cal- vinistic theologian who seems to be in trouble. The system may be perfectly satisfactory to him ; but he has a certain feeling — at times a positive conviction — that to others the doctrines of Calvinism are not so pleasant, nor reasonable. Thinking that he is sus¬ tained by the truth of reason no less than of revela¬ tion, he often attempts to remove the objections which are urged against his position. The former section disclosed the fact that the non¬ elect can not be saved : that even those who declare they may if they will only believe, also declare that without the gift of faith they can not believe : There is a third class, however, whose views are somewhat peculiar, and which in their opinion, satisfactorily solve the perplexing question. These I now propose to consider in detail : and first, let us hear from Dr. Isaac Watts. Of the non-elect he says, ‘ 4 God himself has put no effectual and insurmountable bar, or rather no bar at all, in their way, to prevent their acceptance of his AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 177 grace. His choosing other persons who were fellow sinners, to make them certain partakers of this grace, is no hindrance to those who were not chosen, from accepting the same. It is my opinion that there is such a thing as a general sufficiency of pardon, grace and happiness, provided for all mankind by Jesus Christ. And it is left to their own natural powers under common helps to accept or refuse it.” Then he gives the following to show that this must be so : “It is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed God, or his Son, in their universal offers of grace and salvation to men, and their sending ministers and such messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there be no such a conditional pardon and salvation provided for them. ... It is hard to suppose that the great God, who is truth itself, and sincere and faithful in all his dealings, should call upon dying men to trust in a Saviour for eternal life, when this Saviour has no eter¬ nal life intrusted with him to give them, if they do repent. It is hard to conceive how the great Gov¬ ernor of the world can be sincere in inviting and re¬ quiring sinners who are on the brink of hell to cast themselves upon an empty word of invitation, a mere shadow and appearance of support, if there be noth¬ ing real to bear them up from those deeps of destruc¬ tion, nothing but mere words and empty invitations.” Again : “I say it is hard to suppose all this should be no real and just representation, but a mere amuse¬ ment. That all these proposals of mercy and displays of the gracious dealings of God, should be an empty shew with regard to all the millions of mankind, besides the few that are chosen to happiness : and that they should really be so fixed in a wretched, hopeless^ 178 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOO’S WORD and deplorable state under the first sin of the first man that they are utterly irrecoverable from the ruins of it ; and that even as unalterably so as devils are without any hope of recovering from their state of guilt and misery, for whom there was no Saviour pro¬ vided, and whom God has not treated in this way of precept, promise and threatening.” 5 The reader will please notice that this explanation is given as the only one which satisfactorily vindicate the divine goodness and justice. But so far as it solves the problem, the doctrine of Dr. Watts is Ar- minianism. This is evident from the following considerations : (1) Dr. Watts held the Arminian doctrine that the will is self-determining. Section 3 of his essay “On the Freedom of Will in God and in Creatures,” is en¬ titled “The Will is a Self-determining Power.” In speaking of the advantages of this doctrine, he says, ‘ ‘ This scheme of the self-determining power of the will represents the doctrine of the freedom of man’s will, and the power and prevalence of divine grace in a most happy harmony and consistency, perhaps be¬ yond what any other scheme can represent.” 6 (2) If the human will is self-determining, then it legitimately follows that salvation is a matter of choice : God saves all who will exercise faith in the Saviour : hence Dr. Watts says of salvation, “. . . . it is left to their own natural powers, under common helps to acceptor refuse it.” Again, this scheme also fixes the guilt of evil actions entirely on the will of the creature, by ascribing to the will a free power to de- 5 “ Works.” Vol. III., pp. 468, 470. 6 Pages, 262, 575. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 1 79 termine itself, either to choose or to refuse after any representations of good or evil, fitness or unfitness, made by the understanding. 7 (3) Dr. Watts held the Arminian doctrine of divine foresight. ‘ ‘ I grant, always, and have always granted, that wheresoever there is such an antecedent superior fitness of things, God acts according to it, so as never to contradict it : and particularly in all his judicial proceedings as a Governor and Distributer of rewards and punishments, he has a constant regard to vice, and virtue, to superior fitness and unfitness, though he may reward or rather bestow beyond our merit, or he may punish less.” In speaking of the different theories of “ reconciliation ” he asks “A,” “ Does he not also believe, that the blessed God foresees and foreknows that these men, by the free use of their natural powers, thus far assisted by divine grace, will be finally and effectually persuaded to believe and repent, and be saved ? Has not the blessed God, who knows all his own works from the beginning, designed from eternity to bestow all these advantages on these particular persons, and to carry them on so far, that he foresees their repentance, and salvation will be the certain eonsecpiences of this his grace, though not the necessary effects of it ? ” s Believing that the reader can readily recognize these statements as essentially Arminian, I will not stop to adduce proof beyond one statement from Dr. Charles Hodge, viz., “ It is plain that the main point of difference between the later Lutheran, the Arminian, and the Wesleyan schemes, and that of Augustinians 7 Pages, 468, 572. 8 Pages, 591, 492. l8o CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD is, that according to the latter, God, and according to the former, man, determines who are to be saved.’7 ,J (4) Dr. Watts is strongly condemned by later Cal¬ vinists, because his views logically necessitate an abandonment of Calvinism. The younger Edwards speaking of the state of things in the religious world at the time when his father commenced writing his treatise on the Will, says, “ The Calvinists themselves began to be ashamed of their own cause and to give it up so far at least as relates to liberty and necessity. This was true especially of Doctors Watts and Doddridge, who, in their day, were accounted leaders of the Cal¬ vinists. They must needs bow in the house of Rim- mon and admit the self-determining power (of the will) which once admitted and pursued to its ultimate results, entirely overthrows the doctrines of regener- tion, of our dependence for renewing and sanctifying grace, of absolute decrees, of the saints’ perseverance, and of all the other doctrines of grace.” A mournful confession truly, but one which un¬ mistakably shows that the fundamental principles of Dr. Watts’ theology were Arminian. So far there¬ fore as the solution is to be accepted it simply con¬ firms the position of the Arminian. But what shall be done with the Calvinistic doctrine under consider¬ ation ? It has not been satisfactorily explained ; hence, ‘ ‘ it is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed God, or his Son, in their universal offers of grace and salvation to men, and their sending min¬ isters with such messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there be no such a conditional pardon and salvation provided for them.” At this point I could 9 “ Systematic Theology,” Vol. II., p. 330. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURK. l8l dismiss Dr. Watts and his solution ; but if the reader will be patient I should like to investigate this won¬ derful explanation a little further. Rev. Henry L. Kendall lias said, “One detects in the theological writings of Dr. Watts a mingling of the poetical with the logical element. Not only does it add a glow to the style and language, but it also sometimes per¬ forms functions of an originative faculty. There are some peculiar theories pertaining to the mysteries of Christianity, the first suggestions of which one could easily fancy had their birth in this part of the author’s nature. Perhaps this, also, may serve to explain why some parts of these works were disparaged in the eyes of the early American divines, and why they failed to receive a more hearty acceptance from them. The sinewy New England theology would have for the foundation stone of its new structure, nothing but the solid granite of reason. It looked askance at any idea wThich had its origin from that other quarter, and asked, “ Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ? ’’ 1 If I am not much mistaken, we shall find things which must have come from the poetical nature of Dr. Watts. As we have seen, he earnestly contends for a condi¬ tional salvation which is sincerely offered to all. To him, “it is hard to suppose that the great God, who is truth itself and sincere and faithful in all his deal¬ ings, should call upon dying men to trust in a Saviour for eternal life, when this Saviour has not eternal life intrusted with him to give them, if they do repent.” But strange as it may seem, this is precisely what the great God does if the language of Dr. Watts is ac¬ cepted as meaning anything : for (i) Dr. Watts declares i “ Bib. Sacra,” 1875, p. 422, 423 1 82 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD that Christ did not die with an equal design for al 1 men. “ It seems evident to me from several texts o^ the word of God, that Christ did not die with an equal design for all men ; but that there is a special number whom the Father chose and gave to the Son, whose salvation is absolutely secured by the death and inter¬ cession of Christ.” 2 In the light of his other decla¬ rations this is a most remarkable statement. Beyond all controversy Christ did die to save the elect — no matter now of whom that class is composed. But if he did not die with an equal design for all men, then surely, he did not die to save the non-elect : hence if he did not die to save the non-elect, for them, there is no salvation : consequently all talk about a condi¬ tional salvation offered to all is mere logomachy ; the promises of God, are after all, ‘ ‘ but a mere amusement, ’ ’ “ an empty shew.” If the former affirmations of Dr. Watts meant anything more than the usual Calvinistic language — ‘‘sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect ” this unfortunate concession has made them null and void by depriving them of all logical consist¬ ency. (2) L,et 11s now see if he fares any better as regards the power of the non-elect to repent. ‘ ‘ All the other impotence and inability therefore to sinners to repent or believe, properly speaking, is but moral, or seated chiefly in their wills. It is a great disinclina¬ tion or aversion in these natural faculties, to attend to, learn, or practice the things of God and religion, and this holds them fast in their sinful state in a similar way, as if they were blind and dead ; and I said the final event will be the same, that is, they will never repent without almighty grace ; ” again, “ Their can 2 “ Works,” Vol. III., p. 471. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 183 not is their will not ; that is, it is the strength of their aversion to Christ, which is a moral impotence or ina¬ bility to believe in him, and the fault lies in the will.”3 Fairly considered, I suppose that by this Dr. Watts meant nothing more than that sinners can, but will not repent without the influence of the Holy Spirit. If so, then those who will not so yield them¬ selves to the divine Spirit are lost, and constitute the non-elect whom God could not save : hence when Dr. Watts says : ‘‘If the great God, in a way of sover¬ eign mercy, gives some persons superior aids of grace to overcome this moral impotence, and conquer this aversion to God and goodness ; if he effectually leads, inclines, or persuades them by his Spirit to repent and believe in Christ, this does not at all hinder the others from exercising their natural powers of understanding and will, in believing and repenting. Nor can any¬ thing of their guilt and willful impenitence be imputed to the blessed God, who is Lord of his own favors and gives or withholds where he pleases, and who shall say to him what dost thou ? ” 4 One of two things must be true: viz., (1) This statement must be interpreted according to the Ar- minian principles of Dr. Watts ; or (2) If not, then in accordance with the well known Calvinistic theo¬ logy. If the former is accepted, then all that is meant is, that God gives superior aids of grace to overcome this moral impotence according as he foresees their spirit of free acceptance. If the* latter, then not only is Dr. Watts self- contradictory, but the so-called ex¬ planation demands elucidation, namely, Why does 3 p. 47s. 4 P- 479- 184 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD God withhold the superior aids of grace from the non¬ elect ? is it because the divine Intention restricts them to the elect ? Then the divine Purpose never sincerely offered salvation to the non-elect, and, hence, as Dr. Watts says, “It is hard to conceive how the great Governor of the world can be sincere in inviting and requiring sinners who are on the brink of hell, to cast themselves upon an empty word of invitation, a mere shadow and appearance of support.” Let us now consider the solution of Dr. Venema ; he says : ‘ ‘ Common grace, of which even those who perish partake, consists in the offer of Christ made in the gospel, an offer which is intended by God to be made to all, and in which no one at least is excluded.” Hence he maintains it is possible for all men to believe and be saved. 5 There is a general predestination or “ purpose on the part of God to save those who believe — a purpose which had reference also to those who rejected it.” If this be not so, “then we can not hold that God se¬ riously wills that all men should receive the proposition made to them. If, however, he does so will, then it must have reference to all who read or hear it, and the purpose by which he has ordained a connection be- tweet faith and salvation must be general. We are aware, indeed, that there is a particular connection (between faith and salvation) which has reference only to the elect : yet this proposition is made to all with¬ out distinction. For it would be absurd to suppose that God says to all, Believe and ye shall be saved, and yet that he does not will that they should believe and be saved. .... The simplicity and the truth of 5 “ Institutes of Theology,” pp, 298, 303. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 1 85 God forbid us “ believing ” that God is insincere ; this is evident from Matt, xxiii. 37, and Isa. v. 4. “ If therefore we would not impugn the sincerity of God we must hold that there is a general decree by which he has purposed to save them that believe. ” r> Why are not the non-elect saved ? “ . Men abuse the common grace bestowed upon them. If they made a right improvement of that, they might enter¬ tain the hope of receiving special grace . No one certainly will be condemned because he has been predestinated, but because he has neglected the method of salvation which God has disclosed ; and, therefore, it is unnecessary to be immoderately anxious in re¬ gard to this mysterious doctrine.” 7 That the reader may more readily grasp and com¬ prehend these affirmations, I will add the following resume : ( 1 ) All men are sincerely invited to be saved. (2) Faith is the one condition. (3) Thenon- eleet are condemned because they abuse common grace. (4) By rejecting this view we impugn the divine sin¬ cerity. Superficially considered this position seems quite plausible, but a fair comparison of the above state¬ ments with others of Dr. Venema will disclose glaring inconsistencies and unequivocal contradictions. (1) Where is the Scriptural authority for Dr. Venema’ s assertion that men are condemned because they abuse “common grace” ? Where is the passage in which men are told, Believe in, or rightly improve common grace, and you ‘ ‘ may entertain the hope of receiving special grace ’ ’ ? Where are the texts proving that 6 Pages 304, 305, 306. 7 Pages 303, 295. l86 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD there is one way by which the non-elect may entertain the hope of being saved, and a radically different way by which the elect are saved ? There are no such conditions in the Bible. The way is one — alike for all — “ Believe on the Tord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” The Master before Dr. Venema. He says the Holy Spirit will condemn the world of sin, because of the abuse of common grace ? Oh no, but “because they believe not on me.” If faith is the condition of salvation, then beyond all controversy, unbelief is the great sin for which men are condemned. Were it not for the support of a pet theory, our author would never have thought of this unscriptural dis¬ tinction of common and special grace : but (2) Dr. Venema himself does not really believe, nor teach that the generic reason why men are rejected is be¬ cause they abuse common grace. Generically their condemnation is a just act of sovereignty irrespective of anything which they have done. “If it be asked why God ordained them to destruction as reprobation is usually understood, we answer, because he foresaw that they would not believe.” What ! a Calvinist basing the divine decrees upon foresight ? This is Arminianism. Wait dear reader and see. “If it be asked on what foundation this foreknowledge rests, we say on God’s denying them particular grace.” 8 That is, God has ordained the non-elect to eternal destruc¬ tion because he foresees, because he has determined that they shall not repent. This is the gist of the matter as considered by our author ; while believing in a certain order of the decrees, Dr. Venema affirms that “God by a single mental act comprehends the 8 Page 319. AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. i87 whole.” “ The decree, therefore, is one.” “ The act of the decree is absolute. It is not uncertain or doubt¬ ful. It is not suspended on any condition on the part of man.” “God determined what the creatures wTould do, and what their condition would be, who should believe, and who should not, and that his de¬ cree regarding them and everything relating to them was absolute.” 9 This is Calvin’s doctrine little differently expressed. Doubtless there is a large scope for the non-elect when God has absolutely determined who shall believe : hence, (3) God has never really offered salvation to the non-elect. “ . . . . God does not design by what is called a positive act, that all shall believe. In this case all would believe . He wills only neg¬ atively, inasmuch as he does not will that any should not believe.”1 A strange statement. The decrees are really one. From one standpoint they are abso¬ lute and positive : from another view they are only negative. But forgetting for a moment the self-con¬ tradiction, how is it possible to call God’s determina¬ tion concerning the 11011-elect, in any sense, negative ? There are but two methods of procedure : God may directly influence the non-elect so that they will refuse to believe and repent. This was the view held by Calvin : and he waxes warm as he contemplates the other view, calling it “a silly cavil.” To the same effect speaks Dr. Emmons : “ It is often thought and said that nothing more was necessary 011 God’s part in order to fit Pharaoh for destruction, than barely to leave him to himself. But God knew that no ex- 9 Tages 287, 289, 290. 1 Page 301. 1 88 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ternal means and motives would be sufficient of them¬ selves to form his moral character. He determined, therefore, to operate on his heart itself and cause him to put forth certain evil exercises in the view of cer¬ tain external motives.” 2 The other method has been sufficiently indicated by the above condemnations. It is simply that of non-interference. The non-elect are in hopeless bond¬ age : their eternal destruction is certain, unless God gives them saving faith and repentance. This, how¬ ever, he has determined, from all eternity not to do : hence they can not be saved. Tet us hear the testi¬ mony of Dr. Shedd : ‘ ‘ The unconditional decree, in reference to the 11011-elect, according to Augustine, is one of preterition, or omission, merely. The repro¬ bating decree is not accompanied, as the electing decree is, with any direct divine efficiency to secure the result. And there is no need of any : for accord¬ ing to the Augustinian anthropology, there is no pos¬ sibility of self-recovery from a voluntary apostasy, and consequently the simple passing by and leaving of the sinful soul to itself renders its perdition as cer¬ tain as if it were brought about by a direct divine efficiency.” 3 But when God passes by the 11011-elect, has he not determined to do so ? Yes, verily, from all eternity. But is not a determination not to save, a positive act of the divine will ? So it would . and does seem to all but a few so-called ‘ 1 mild Calvinists. ’ ’ There is something more which I am sure will in¬ terest the reader. O11 one page we are informed that 2 “ Works.” Vol. II., p. 392. 3 “ Hist, of Christ. Doc ’ Vol. II., pp. 70, 72. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 1 89 God has a general decree or purpose, — purpose please observe, — “ to save those who believe, a purpose which had reference to those who rejected it.” Yes, this purpose is so real that our author insists that “ God seriously wills that all men should receive the propo¬ sition made to them ’ ’ : that is, should receive salvation. But in a few moments we are gravely told that ‘ ‘ God does not design by what is called a positive act that all shall believe.” Not at all : simply that God has not willed “ that any should not believe.” We have now obtained a new synonym for “ seriously wills.” It means a “negative act of the will.” God seriously wills that all should receive salvation, but God does not design that all shall believe : hence, says our con¬ sistent theologian, “God has purposed by a positive act of his will, not only to condemn unbelievers, but also to withhold from some sufficient grace, on which withholding, as we shall see, when we come to treat of the doctrine of reprobation, depends the final ruin of the impenitent.” * This is good Calvinism. I rejoice to see it : here we are told that the final ruin of the 11011-elect depends upon the withholding of sufficient grace, which with¬ holding God has purposed by a positive act of his will : yet he seriously wills that all should believe and be saved. (4) Bet us now see how Dr. Venema justifies God from the charge of partiality and injustice : “In con¬ ferring grace he may act according to his own pleasure, for none can lay claim to what he bestows. In this matter he acts as supreme Cord, who may do what he will with his own, and not as a Judge who has a regard 4 Pages 277, 278. ✓ 190 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD to the merit or demerit oi those with whom he has to do. In the latter case there would be some ground for the charge of partiality and injustice ; but in the former there is none.” 5 The following points are worthy of special notice : ( a ) If we consider God as a Judge, who has regard to the merit or the demerit of those with whom he has to do, there is some ground for the charge of partiality and injustice, (b) To escape this charge, Dr. Venema tell us that we must consider God as the Supreme Lord, who may do what he will with his own. To this I reply that it is im¬ possible to separate the character of God into parts, and say a certain act is right because it is done by him as supreme Lord. Whatever he does, is done by the divine Being as such. No man, I care not what his official position may be, has any right to commit a wrong, and then say — as an excuse for that wrong — “ I did it as a King, or an Emperor, or as the President.” An outraged public opinion would very soon bring such an offender to his senses, and the condemnation would be the heavier because of the shameless audacity of the culprit. The same general law rules in the sphere of ethics divine as well as human. Without entering into an examination of the vastly important question — reserved for another chapter — Is anything right because God does it ? let it suffice for the present to say that the distinction of our author is wholly without foundation, and manifestly absurd. But again ; (c) In the Scriptures God is represented as a Judge who does, and is to try, by Jesus Christ, the actions and hearts of all men. Abraham’s exclama¬ tion, “ Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ? ” 5 Page 229. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. igl (Gen. xviii. 25) unmistakably shows the native con¬ viction of the race that God is a judge as well as a Father : hence as a fact, God through his well-beloved Son is continually judging “ of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. iv. 12). “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels and then he shall reward every man according to his works” (Matt. xvi. 24). He who could say to the Israelites, ‘ ‘ Is not my way equal ’ ’ is infinitely above such petty subterfuges as adopted by Dr. Venema. But lastly, (d) Our author himself, confesses that God generally adheres to the office of Judge : he says it is right in God to withhold special grace from those who abuse common grace “ because he renders to every man according to his works . We can not now enter upon an explanation of this. But we know generally that God will in his dealings .strictly adhere to this rule. ’ ’ (i If God strictly adheres to the rule of dealing with men according to their works, then he certainly has ‘ ‘ a regard to the merit or demerit of those with whom he has to do ” : hence God does certainly act as a Judge, and consequently the Calvinistic doctrine under consideration is open to the charge that God is partial and unjust, Dr. Venema’s words being the criterion. In conclusion, it only remains to notice the tes¬ timony of Dr. Venema’s translator, Rev. Alexander W. Brown. “After the lengthy and ingenious dis¬ cussion by the author on the subject of predestination, we confess we feel ourselves just where we were. In attempting to reconcile the doctrine of election with 6 P- 301. 192 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD the universality of the gospel offer, and with the ex¬ pressed unwillingness of God that men should perish, he has only shifted the difficulty ; he 'has not removed it.” 7 In the opinion of Mr. Brown, the doctrine of abso¬ lute predestination must be believed even if it can not be reconciled with the freeness of the gospel offer. 8 Get us now turn our attention to the vindication adduced by Dr. A. A. Hodge. '‘In the general offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation sufficient for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to every one without exception, and he unfolds all the motives of duty, hope, fear, etc,, which ought to in¬ duce every one to accept it, solemnly promising that whoever comes, in no wise shall be cast out. The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will come ; ” again. “A salvation all-suffi¬ cient and exactly adapted to his necessities is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel comes, and in every case it is his, if he believes ; and in no case does anything prevent his believing other than his own evil disposition.” Once more Dr. Hodge says, “A bona fide offer of the gospel, therefore, is to be made to all men. 1st. Be¬ cause the satisfaction rendered to the law is sufficient for all men. 2d. Because it is exactly adapted to the redemption of all. 3d. Because God designs that whosoever exercises faith in Christ shall be saved by him. The design of Christ’s death being to secure the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the 7 p. 334, note. 8 Ibid. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 193 accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer of that salvation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of their faith. No man is lost for the want of an atonement, or because there is any barrier in the way of his salvation than his own most free and wicked will.” 9 I doubt not the reader is now in possession of such facts as will enable him to judge of the Scriptural character of Dr. Hodge’s language. Omitting one clause, these quotations seem to express the very ideas of the Bible and for which I am contending, namely, (1) A bo?/ a fide offer of salvation is made to all men. (2) On the condition that the individual soul will believe in the Saviour. (3) There is no barrier in the way of any man’s salvation, except his own free and wicked will. These three points are identical with those of Dr. Hodge, and yet my next affirmation — which is simply a legitimate, and necessary deduction from the foregoing — will necessitate our separation; namely, God saves all who can be saved. Tike all Calvinists, Dr. Hodge will instantly reply, This de¬ prives God of his sovereignty, and conditions the decrees on the acts of the creatures. The truth is, Dr. Hodge does not mean what his language fairly implies, what the average reader im¬ agines such words must signify. This charge of am¬ biguity I shall now attempt to substantiate. Let the reader carefully notice (1) That Dr. Hodge asserts that there is no barrier in the way of any man’s salvation, except “ his own most free and wicked will.” If this be true, then every man has a fair chance to be saved. To say of a young man that there is no barrier in the 9 “ Outlines of Theology,” pp. 182, 317, 316. 194 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD way of his obtaining a collegiate education, except his own most free and lazy will, would be generally and properly understood as signifying that he had a good opportunity for securing a classical education. I do not suppose that the underlying truth of the assertion will be fundamentally changed when predicated of salvation, and yet, Dr. Hodge will now deny that all men have a full opportunity of being saved through Christ. Here are his very words : “ There is a lurk¬ ing feeling among many that somehow God owes to all men at least a full opportunity of being saved through Christ. If so, there was no grace in Christ’s dying. ‘ I reject,’ says Wesley, ‘ the assertion that God might justly have passed by me and all men, as a bold, precarious assertion utterly unsupported by holy Scripture.’ Then we say, of course the gospel was of debt, not of grace.” 1 Denying that all men have a full opportunity of being saved through Christ, Dr. Hodge flatly contra¬ dicts his former assertion that no man is lost . because there is any barrier in the way of his salvation than his own most free and wicked will. ’ ’ (2) The so-called condition of salvation by which Dr. Hodge seeks to make it appear that the non-elect may be saved — if they will only believe — is no condi¬ tion. Like many other Calvinists, Dr. Hodge expati¬ ates upon the possibilities of the 11011-elect being saved ; he distinctly says, “The non-elect may come if they will ; ” he says God ‘ ‘ unfolds all the motives of duty, hope, fear, etc., which ought to induce everyone to accept it.” “A salvation all-sufficient and exactly 1 p. 182. Such a false theology is sure to increase the ranks of infidelity. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 195 adapted to his necessities is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel comes, and in every case it is his if he believes.” Thus Dr. Hodge is constantly seeking to make the impression that the non-elect may believe, and conse¬ quently if they do not, it is their own fault. Such is not the fact however. The truth is, the non-elect can not possibly exercise faith and repentance, and there¬ fore, can not be saved. They begin life with their wills inclined to sin, they are so depraved that without a miraculous change wrought in them by God, they can only and forever become worse, and consequently it is rather sarcastic in Dr. Hodge to write so gravely that the non-elect shall be saved if they will only believe. Does the reader desire the proof of this ? It is at hand, and from the pen of Dr. Hodge. “ The depraved will of man can not originate holy affections and volitions because the presence of a positively holy principle is necessary to constitute them holy. . . . There remains no recuperative element in the soul. Man can only and forever become worse without a miraculous recre¬ ation. . . . But he has lost all ability to obey the law of God, because his evil heart is not subject to that law, neither can he change it . But the moral state of these faculties is such, because of the perverted disposition of their hearts, that they are utterly unable either to will or to do what the law requires. This inability is ‘ natural ’ since it is innate and constitu¬ tional. It is ‘ moral ’ since it does not consist either in disease, or in any physical defect in the soul, nor merely in the inordinate action of the bodily affections, but in the corrupt character of the governing disposi¬ tions of the heart. This inability is total, and as far 196 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD as human strength goes, irremedial. . . . That repent¬ ance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are purely and simply the sinner’s own acts ; but as such, are possible to him only in virtue of the change wrought in the moral condition of his faculties by the recreative power of God.” 2 These extracts are sufficient to show the beautiful consistency of Dr. Hodge. The non-elect are blame¬ worthy for not accepting Jesus Christ, and yet they can not exercise faith, hope, love and repentance until the change is wrought by the power of God. And this is the grand ‘ ‘ condition ’ ’ by which the non-elect are to be saved. No wonder that Luther considered the many declarations in which God exhorts man to keep his commandments, as ironical, “as if a father were to say to his child, ‘ Come,’ while he knows that he can not come.” (3) Why does God refuse to give the non-elect a full opportunity to be saved ? Inasmuch as saving faith is bestowed upon the elect — thus putting the condition of salvation within their reach — why does God withhold it from the non-elect ? Why should he confer it upon one class, and not upon the other ? To say that it is because of the rejection of the Saviour, is to beg the very question in dispute. To say that a blind man who has never seen the sun is worthy of condemnation because he will not open his eyes and look at the glorious orb, may be consistent with Cal¬ vinism, but is contrary to the universal sense of justice. Waiving all questions relative to the final condemna¬ tion of the non-elect, why should God refuse them “ a full opportunity ” to be saved ? Manifestly there is no 2 Pages 237,252, 266, 267, 336. And man’s moral nature. 197 reason, for prior to the bestowment of saving faith, the elect are no better than the 11011-elect. Hence there is no reason why the non-elect do not have “ a full oppor¬ tunity of being saved ” beyond the good pleasure of God. Says Dr. Hodge “ In respect to its negative ele¬ ment, reprobation is simply sovereign, .since those passed over were no worse than those elected, and the simple reason both for the choosing and for the passing over was the sovereign good pleasure of God.” 3 This is another gem in the theology of Dr. Hodge. All men have not “a full opportunity of being saved ” simply because of the good pleasure of God — the non¬ elect are worthy of condemnation for rejecting “ such a Saviour,” when at the same time God withholds from them the power by which they may accept the salvation which “is exactly adapted to the redemption of all.” (4) The offer of salvation to the non-elect is a stu¬ pendous farce. Dr. Hodge earnestly contends for the sin¬ cerity of the gospel offer to the non-elect. Tet the reader turn back a few pages, and such expressions as these will constantly meet the eye. “ In the general offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation sufficient for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to every one without exception.” “ A salvation all-suf¬ ficient and exactly adapted to his necessities is hon¬ estly offered to every man.” “ A bona fide offer of the gospel, therefore, is to be made to all men.” Speak¬ ing of the design of Christ’s death, he says, “ It com¬ prehends the offer of salvation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of their faith.” 3 Page 183. 198 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD I do not know what peculiar meaning Dr. Hodge attributes to such words as “ sincere,” “ honest,” and ‘ ‘ bona fide , ’ ’ but I am sure that the usual signification has no place in the above quotations, because ( a ) If God sincerely wished the salvation of the non-elect, he would give them at least “ a full opportunity of being saved.” (£) He would also exert his power in their behalf, for Dr. Hodge informs us “it rests only with God himself to save all, many, few, or none.” (e) God can not be very sincere in offering salvation to all on the condition of faith, for, says Dr. Hodge, “ God never has promised to enable every man to be¬ lieve.” Not having promised to give every man “a full opportunity of being saved” and knowing that without this “ full opportunity ” the non-elect can not possibly be saved. I doubt not the gospel offer is ex¬ tremely sincere and honest on the part of him who has declared, “ Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon ” (Isa. lv. 7). But (d) The gospel offers can not be sincere, for God has eternally purposed that the non-elect shall not be saved. Says Dr. Hodge, “ The design of God must have been determined by his motive. If his mo¬ tive was peculiar love to his own people then his de¬ sign must have been to secure their salvation, and not that of all men. As proved from Scripture . . . . God, in his eternal decree, elected his own people to everlasting life, determining to leave all others to the just consequences of their own sins. Consequently he gave his Son to die for these. He could not con¬ sistently give his Son to die for the purpose of saving AND MAN’S MORAR NATURR. 199 the rest . He designed to save those whom he does save.” 4 Here we reach the conclusion of the whole matter. The doctrine of a limited Atonement now stands out in all its beauty and consistency. While God never designed to save the 11011-elect, while he has eternally decreed to leave them without “a full opportunity of being saved,” while Jesus Christ did not die for the purpose of saving them, yet at the same time Dr. Hodge would have us believe that these most tantaliz¬ ing offers of salvation — without a Saviour— are “ sin¬ cere,” “honest,” “ bona fide." One is at a loss to know which deserves the more pity, the credulity of Dr. Hodge in supposing that his fallacies would be accepted for truth, or his utter disre¬ gard for the legitimate meaning of language. An examination of the solution given by Dr. Nehe- miah Adams will conclude this section: “ But we will meet the difficulty in the most explicit manner ; as to any injustice toward those who are not made willing to repent let us suppose the following case : A teacher is remonstrating with some pupils in cir¬ cumstances where remonstrance seems the only suit¬ able means of influencing them. Everything is said which a reasonable being would think necessary to effect the purpose, or to make the resistance inexcusa¬ ble. All is vain. There is an unanimous rejection of the teacher’s endeavors. I11 a private way he calls one and another to him, one by onfe, and plies him with further considerations, appeals to things in his private history and circumstances, and he gains the submission of a number. This is followed by some 4 Pages 313, 314. 200 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD great advantage which makes these few the objects of envy. Now let us imagine the obstinate and persever¬ ing part of the company drawing near to upbraid the teacher, saying, ‘ Had you employed further influences with us, we too, might have yielded. On you be the blame of our loss.’ They would be justly scorned for their impertinence. The teacher did all for them which, as reasonable beings, they could properly ask or expect. He sincerely desired the submission of all. It might have been as easy for him to have subdued them all, one by one, as to have secured the assent of the few. He exercised sovereignty election in what he did. He did not hate any, he did not prefer their continual rebellion, though he chose not to interpose with them all, but to leave some under the influences of truth, reason and their consciences. True, he saw that no one would turn without some special act on his part.” 6 I have quoted at some length in order that the reader might have the precise language of Dr. Adams. It is less involved than that of Dr. Venema, and pos¬ sibly may be more consistent. L,et us see. Dr. Adams has chosen the analogical method : As I said concern¬ ing the argument of President Dabney, so I remark here that all I can fairly ask of Dr. Adams is, that his analogy be true in its primary application. If this be so, then I readily grant his position has some degree of plausibility. But if this be not so, if the analogy is radically at fault in that it does not afford a just com¬ parison between the respective parties, then that which is built upon it must be considered null and void. That such is the actual case I now propose to demon¬ s'1 Lvetiings with the Doctrines,” pp. 253, 254. AND MAN’S MORAR NATURE- 201 strate ; viz., (i) It is assumed that the scholars could have obeyed the teacher ; otherwise they were not guilty. But the non- elect have no such power. Speaking of election, Dr. Adams says, “God has re¬ solved that he will rescue a part of mankind from per¬ dition by persuading and enabling them to do their duty.’’0 If God enables the elect to do their duty, then before that aid was given they could not have done their duty, in which position the non-elect not only are, but there they forever remain. Dr. Adams distinctly teaches that faith is a gift of God withheld from the non-elect, and therefore all remarks concern¬ ing them which are based upon the ability of the schol¬ ars are manifestly inadequate : 7 hence (2 ) The analogy is defective in that it assumes that God, like the teacher, has said and done everything “which a reasonable being would think necessary to effect the purpose or to make the resistance inexcusable.” This may be true concerning the scholars : if it is, then as I have said, it is based on the ability of the scholars to yield. Granting this, the scholars were doubly guilty because they not only refused to do that which they knew was right, but they also shut out the additional light af¬ forded by the counsels of their teacher. But this utterly fails when applied to the non-elect. Having no power to believe, it is idle talk to say God says everything ‘ ‘ which a reasonable being would think necessary to effect the purpose, or to make the resist¬ ance inexcusable.” God requires faith of them: but faith is impossible unless conferred by the Spirit. As a reasonable Being God knows this, and therefore it is 6 p. 246. 7 See p. 257. 202 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD not true that “everything is said which a reasonable being would think necessary.” He absolutely knows that nothing will suffice “to effect the purpose ’ ’ save the gift of faith, which for certain reasons has been withheld. (3) One is at a loss to understand why the teacher did not secure the obedience of all. It was not because he could not, for Dr. Adams has informed us that “ it might have been as easy for him to have subdued them all, one by one, as to have secured the assent of the few.” Certainly, if the obedience of one or more was intrinsically good, I fail to see why that good would have been decreased, if the obedience of all had been secured. Surely it would not have hurt any one ; and, judging from my limited knowledge of schools, I should think that both teachers and scholars would have been in a position to have accomplished more and better work. • Was it not because the teacher was better pleased to have some of the scholars continue in disobedience, and therefore did not desire to have all yield to his very reasonable arguments ? I beg the reader to dis¬ miss the thought at once. It must not be entertained. Such a suggestion is a libel on the character of this very humane teacher. Besides, has not Dr. Adams distinctly told us that this exceptionally benevolent teacher “sincerely desired the submission of all;” that “he did not hate any, he did not prefer their contin¬ ual rebellion.” Now Webster defines the word “sin¬ cere ” as follows : “ Being in reality what it appears to be ; having a character which corresponds with the appearance ; not simulated or falsely assumed ; true ; real.” Hence if Dr. Adams has correctly defined the character of this teacher we are sure that he really AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 203 desired to secure the obedience of all his scholars. This being so, then, while I confess that this teacher is the strangest of all human beings — for whoever saw a person, having full power to confer an inestimable blessing upon others, and sincerely desiring the same, refusing to exercise that power ? I say while this teacher’s conduct is profoundly inexplicable, of one thing I am certain, viz., that he had not secretly de¬ termined that the finally obstinate scholars should not yield, in any circumstances, to his so-called reasonable arguments: for upon this supposition his,, character would not correspond with the appearance,” which correspondence, according to Webster, is necessary to be sincere. We are now in a position to see the radi¬ cal defect of Dr. Adam’s analogy : for (4) God, unlike the teacher, has positively deter¬ mined that the non-eleet shall not be saved. Dr. Adams, like many others whose views we have consid¬ ered, is guilty of unequivocal self-contradictions. Of the non-elect he says, “ No injustice is done to those w7ho are left : salvation is consistently offered to them, and their state is no worse than though all like them had perished.” 8 But if salvation is offered to all, then the offer is intimately related to the divine Will and Purpose. It is a bona fide offer, or it is nothing. If the former, then it is simply impossible that God should have determined from eternity, irrespective of the divine foresight of men’s rejection, that the non¬ elect should not be saved. But this is precisely what God has done if we accept the statements of Dr. Adams: for, in the first place, God has never resolved to save all. “ God has resolved that he will rescue a part 204 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD of mankind from perdition by persuading and enabling them to do their duty.” In the second place, “Not one more, not one less will be saved than God pur¬ posed. ’ ’ Again, ‘ ‘ God purposed from all eternity to do that which he has actually done and is to do.”9 Equally fallacious is our author’s remark that “the exercise of God’s free and sovereign grace in the con¬ version and salvation of a part of mankind is the only alternative to the endless sin and misery of the whole.” 1 What extreme folly ! As though the whole were less than a part. No such alternative exists save in the perplexed mind of Dr. Adams : for according to his own analogy ‘ 4 it might have been as easy for him to have subdued them all, one by one, as to have secured the assent of the few.” Nor do I imagine that this so-called reconciliation was very highly re¬ garded by its author ; for, after this wonderful analogy has been given, he remarks, “ This Scriptural way of treating divine decrees and free agency is surely safe, namely, to believe them both, and to leave out of view all questions as to their consistency.” 2 One can not but wonder why Dr. Adams refused to follow his excellent advice. 9 P- 257« 1 P- 244. 2 P- 257. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE}. 205 SECTION III. Calvinism Teaches that the Non-Elect are Rejected and. Condemned Irrespective of their Wicked Deeds or Character. On this subject the Bible is very explicit. God is always represented as dealing justly with his subjects. If he .sends punishments upon his people, it is because they have departed from his commands. If a soul is rejected, temporarily or eternally, it is because of the great sin of rejecting him from whom all blessings flow. A few from the many passages of the Old Testament will suffice to illustrate the law of equity by which the divine Will is guided. The curse was pronounced upon our first parents because they had disobeyed the commandment, Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. ii. 17: iii. 16, 17). God’s blessings for his chosen people are conditioned upon their diligently hearkening to, and doing that which is right in his sight (Exodus xv. 26). “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing ; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live ” (Deut. xxx. 19). Saul’s temporary and eternal rejection by God was based upon his rejection of the Eord’s word. “ And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee : for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord hath rejected thee from being King over Israel” (1. Sam. xv. 26). See also 11. Sam. vii. 15. The prolonged drought in the reign of Ahab was because of the many heinous sins of monarch and people. “And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto 206 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel ; but thou and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the com¬ mandments of the Lord, and hast followed Baalim ” (i. Kings xviii. 17, 18). “ If ye be willing and obe¬ dient, ye shall eat the good of the land. But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (Isa. i. 19, 20). The words of Jeremiah to his angry country¬ men are replete with good common sense and Bible sincerity. “Therefore now amend your ways, and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God : and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you ” (xxvi. 13). In be¬ half of him whose ways are equal, Ezekiel says : “ Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Re¬ pent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin ” (xviii. 30). The same law of equity is even more clearly re¬ vealed in the New Testament. “ For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if ye forgive not men their tres¬ passes, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your trespasses ” (Matt. vi. 14, 15). “ Woe unto thee, Cho- razin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (Matt. xi. 21). The fearful calamities which should surely overtake Jerusalem were pronounced against her because of the obstinate rejection of him whose tears were the sincere expres¬ sion of a mighty effort to save (Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 207 xix. 41-45). “ He that believeth on him is not con¬ demned ; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil ” (John iii. 18, 19). The extreme wickedness of heathenism is the result —not of God forsaking man, but man’s forsaking God. “ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections : for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature : And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another ; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (Rom. i. 26, 28). Speaking of God, Paul says, “Who will render to every man according to his deeds” (ii. 6). “ So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God” (xiv. 12). “ For we must all appear before the judg¬ ment seat of Christ ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (11. Cor. v. 10). “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books were opened : and another book was opened, which is the book of life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it ; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and 208 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD they were judged every man according to their works” (Rev. xx. 12, 13). “And behold, I come quickly ; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be ” (xxii. 12). I shall now attempt to prove that Calvinism une¬ quivocally contradicts the Bible on this subject : that it assigns as the generic reason for the rejection and condemnation of the non-elect the sovereign will of God. I say “generic reason”; for while there is a class of Calvinistic writers who boldly and consist¬ ently maintain this doctrine, there is another class who endeavor to escape the dilemma by insisting that Calvinism and the Scriptures agree in teaching that men are condemned for their sins. These we shall consider in due time. Calvin says, “ All are not created on equal terms, but some are foreordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation ; and accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.” 3 “ Esau and Jacob are brothers, begotten of the same parents, within the same womb, not yet born. In them, all things are equal, and yet the judgment of God with regard to them is different. He adopts the one and rejects the other.” 4 Hence, in seeking for the cause of the non-elect being rejected, we must not go beyond the divine Will. “Therefore, if we can not assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, 3 “ Inst.” B. III., Ch. XXI., Sec. 5. 4 B. III., Ch. XXII., Sec. 5. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 209 men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.” 5 6 The following is from Rev. Richard Crakanthorp. He first refutes the doctrine that men are elected if they will embrace the grace of God : then he con¬ demns the view “that there is none rejected of God till by their own contempt themselves do first reject God and by their willful obstinac}^ refuse his grace which is offered unto them”: then he adds, “How evidently, do these men oppugn the Scriptures of God ! For if election and rejection depend on the actions of men after they be born, how can it be true, which the Apostle teacheth, that we are elected before the foundation of the world ? ” (i If election and rejection do not depend on the ac¬ tions of men after they are born, they certainly do not depend 011 actions before they are born, and hence they are irrespective of men’s actions. Of Jacob and Esau, Matthew Henry says, “The difference was made between them by the divine counsel before they were born, or had done any evil. Both lay struggling alike in the mother’s womb when it was said, The elder shall serve the younger : without respect to good or bad works done or foreseen.” 7 Dr. Venema taught that “The decree of withhold¬ ing peculiar grace is according to God’s good pleas¬ ure, without any reference to the character of the individual.” 8 In a work entitled ‘ ‘ A Defense of Some of the Important Doctrines of the Gospel,” Rev. John Har- 5 Ibid, Sec. u. 6 “ Sermon,” pp. io, n. 7 Scott’s Comprehensive Comt. 8 Inst. p. 320. 210 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD rison says, ‘But it may be said that the reason of God’s withholding the means of grace from some, may be their obstinacy and unworthiness ; the abuse of the light they had, and a foresight that they would abuse clearer light, if they had it. To this I answer, all men are naturally obstinate and unworthy ; and if God deals with men according to their obstinacy and unworthiness, not only some men, but even all men, should be excluded from the means of grace . It is best therefore to rest in that reason of this pro¬ cedure assigned by Christ, God’s sovereign will of pleasure (Matt. xi. 25, 26).” 9 Dr. Bennett Tyler says, “ One is taken and another left ; and the reason why one is taken in preference to another lies beyond our view and is known only to God.” 1 The following from Dr. Chalmers is characteris¬ tically bold : “The great bulk even of ©ur orthodox theologians would rather view and express the mat¬ ter in this way, that those who are not saved are simply left to their own natural inheritance as the children of wrath, and are therefore let alone. 1. Peter, ii. 8, ‘Them which stumble at the word, being diso¬ bedient, wliereunto also they were appointed.’ This, too, the adversaries, and also the modifiers of our doctrine, would try to get the better of, by restrict¬ ing the appointment to the consequences of disobedi¬ ence, viewing the disobedience itself as the act solely of the creature. Jude 4, ‘ For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old or¬ dained to this condemnation, ungodly men,’ etc. And 9 p- 173- 1 “ Lectures on Theology.” p. 356. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 21 I so of this passage, too, both they who deny, and they who blink our doctrine in the form of reprobation, will tell us that these ungodly were of old ordained not to their ungodliness, but, being ungodly, they were ordained to the condemnation that follows it. I shall give one testimony more, and that perhaps the most difficult of all to be disposed of by those who, in the handling of this argument, would soften the represen¬ tations of Scripture down to the standard of their own conceptions and their own taste : Rom. ix. 1 8, ‘ Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ This, looked to in connection with the narrative of God hardening the heart of Pharaoh, does seem to imply a counter¬ part operation to that of the grace which carries into effect the decree of a favorable predestination. Those whom God hath ordained to eternal life, he also or¬ dains to the character that is meet for it ; and accom¬ plishes this ordination by the work of the Spirit, who takes the heart of stone out of those whom God hath chosen to everlasting blessedness, and gives them a heart of flesh. And in contrast with this, does it not appear, as if upon those who are the objects of an ad¬ verse predestination, he puts forth a contrary opera- % tion — not softening, but hardening ? And as if there were as much of positive efficiency on the part of God in conducting the one operation as the other, it is likened to the respective operations of the potter over the clay which he moulds at will into vessels of any use or form that pleases him.” 3 Dr. J. B. Mozley in refuting Archbishop Whate- ly’s interpretation of the potter’s power over the 2 “Institutes.” Vol. II., pp. 396, 397. 212 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD clay, says, “ Now, it is true that a potter never makes a vessel for destruction ; but some vessels are certainly in this passage spoken of as ‘fitted to destruction,’ others as ‘ prepared unto glory ’ ; of which destruc¬ tion and glory the cause is plainly put further back than their own personal conduct, viz., in a certain divine love and wrath, before either side had done any actual good or evil.” 3 Dr. John Woodbridge says, “ In his choice of men to the adoption of sons, the peculiar reasons for his preference are always concealed.” 4 “If it be acknowledged that there is any differ¬ ence between the character and ultimate fate of a good and a bad man, the intellect is logically led, step by step, to contemplate the will of the Creator as the cause of this difference.” 5 Section iv. The Doctrine Denied , and yet Granted by some Cal- vmists. In the previous sections of this chapter we have been regaled by some Calvinistic inconsistencies. I now propose to give the reader another opportunity of witnessing these theological legerdemains. “ Men will be dealt with according to their charac¬ ters at the end of life,” says Dr. Albert Barnes ; again, commenting on Rom. ii. 6, he says, “ That is, as he deserves ; or God will be just and will treat every man as he ought to be treated ; or according to his char- 3 “ Bib. Sacra,” 1879, p. 206. 4 “ Nat. Preacher.” Vol. II., p. 132. 5 “ Life of St Paul.” Convbeare and Howson. Vol. II., p. 178. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 213 acter. It is not true that God will treat men accord- gin to their external conduct ; but the whole language of the Bible implies that he will judge men according to the whole of their conduct, including their thoughts and principles and motives, i. e. , as they deserve;” again, on i. 28, “It does not mean that they were reprobate by any arbitrary decree, but that as a con¬ sequence of their headstrong passions, their determin¬ ation to forget him, he left them to a state of mind which was evil and which he could not approve ; ” on ix. 33, he says, “ Men still are offended at the cross of Christ. They contemn and despise him. He is to them as a root out of a dry ground, and they reject him and fall into ruin. This is the cause why sinners perish, and this only.” In these remarks we are told that men are not rep¬ robated by any arbitrary decree : that God treats, and will treat every one at the end of the world according to their motives, or their characters : that the cause, yea the only cause why sinners perish, is their rejection of Christ. Very good : this is the principle of right and according to the spirit and letter of Scripture. Now let the reader compare the above with the follow¬ ing, on Rom. ix. 11, “It was not because they had formed a character, and manifested qualities which made this distinction proper. It was laid back of any such character, and therefore had its origin in the plan or purpose of God.” It is simply puerile to say that both of these statements are to be accepted. If an affirmation means the same as a negation, let us throw away all reasoning and become Nescients. If we accept the former statements, we reject Calvinism ; if the latter, what shall we do with the Bible ? 214 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD Dr. Robt. J. Breckenridge says, “That portion of the human race that will be finally lost we know per¬ fectly, from the Scriptures, will be condemned for their sins and will, in their own judgment, and the judg¬ ment of men and angels, as well as in the judgment of God himself, richly deserve their condemnation : nor is it possible to imagine that they would be condemned under any other circumstances. As I have already shown, even the elect are chosen of God from eternity, not in contemplation of them as pure and deserving God’s love, but in contemplation of them as polluted, and so as needing the infinite sacrifice of Christ, and the infinite work of the Holy Ghost. ... It is, there¬ fore, impious and absurd to say that God passes by and reprobates those who will perish in the contempla¬ tion of their being pure: they were always polluted from the first moment of their existence : were con¬ templated as such from eternity : were passed by and reprobated being such : will be condemned as such to all eternity.” This is sufficiently explicit. We are told the direct cause why the non-elect are reprobated; viz., for their sins. Yea, so extremely clear is this that Dr. Breckenridge distinctly informs us that it is “ im¬ possible to imagine that they would be condemned under any other circumstances.” What! under no other circumstances ? No, this is not to be imagined, much less postulated. Well then, Dr. Breckenridge has performed impossibilities ; for after writing the above, he gravely says, “On the other hand, it will not do to say God passes by and reprobates lost sin¬ ners merely on account of their sins, either original or actual : because as to original sin, the elect were as deeply polluted as the reprobate, and as to actual AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 215 transgressions, the great glory of the Saviour is that he is able to save unto the uttermost them that come to God by him.” 0 I have heard of, and justly admired Dr. Brecken- ridge for his power as a preacher ; but I now have a new cause for admiring his wonderful imagination which has actually achieved impossibilities. “Original” and “ actual sin ” exhaust the Calvinistic vocabulary on sin. If, therefore, the 11011-elect are not reprobated “ merely on account of their sins, either original or actual,” as our esteemed author affirms they are not, it must be 011 account of something over and above their sins : which is the very thing impossible to be imagined. Will some kind Calvinistic friend inform us where this unimaginable cause is revealed in the Bible ? The views of Dr. John Gill are somewhat peculiar. He divides the decree of rejection into two parts, viz., preterition and predamnation. “ Preterition is God’s passing by some men, when he chose others ; in this act, sin comes not into consideration, for men are con¬ sidered as not created, and so as not fallen : it is a pure act of sovereignty. Predamnation is God’s appointment or preordination of men to condemnation for sin. God damns men but for sin, and he decreed to damn none but for sin.” 6 7 Here we have the unscriptural statement that men are passed by, or that God has determined not to save some, for nothing, absolutely nothing ; for so far forth, 6 “ The Knowledge of God. Objectively Considered,” pp. 5, 15, 16. 7 As quoted by Rev. Daniel T. Fiske in a “Review of Gill’s Works.” “ Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XVIII., p. 360. 216 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD “ sin comes not into consideration ” ; “ it is a pure act of sovereignty.” After having thus determined to “pass by” the non-elect, after having decreed not to give them sal¬ vation, God decrees to condemn them for their sins. Where is the passage of Scripture justifying this illogical and manifestly unfair procedure ? Beyond all controversy none are appointed to damnation but those previously rejected, and this “passing by” is the basis of the damnatory appointment : consequently the distinction of Dr. Gill does not touch the question at issue. Free from all circumlocution his doctrine is consistent Calvinism, namely, the non-elect are con¬ demned and eternally punished for nothing. If this kind of reasoning characterized the works of Dr. Gill, it is no wonder Robert Hall thought them “ a conti¬ nent of mud.” Dr. Pictet asserts “ When any are lost, we do not hesitate to say that they perish by their own deserts, although God could have mercifully saved them had it pleased him.” Again he says, “ Sin, therefore, is the cause, on account of which God hath passed by some men : for had there been no sin, no man would have been forsaken.” This last remark simply skims the surface of the subject. I do not question that sin is the means by which the non-elect are con¬ demned. But, inasmuch as “ God could have merci¬ fully saved them, had it pleased him,” I desire to know the generic reason why that mercy was not exercised by Him of whom it is said, “ I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.” The answer is at hand. Dr. Pictet adds, “Yet if it be asked why one man is passed by and not the other, it can not then AND MAN’S MORAIy NATURE. 217 be said that sin is the cause of this difference, since both are equally sinners, and therefore, equally deserv¬ ing of rejection ; but it must be referred to the sov¬ ereign pleasure of God.” 8 Will the reader please carefully notice the follow¬ ing from Dr. John Dick ? “ The term predestination includes the decrees 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 con¬ dition of man is pre-appointed, or predestinated. . . . They were appointed to wrath for their sins ; but it was not for their sins, as we have shown, but in exer¬ cise of sovereignty, that they were rejected.” 9 If we make any distinction concerning the “appointment” to wrath, and the “ rejection,” the latter must have the priority ; hence the non-elect are rejected irrespective of anything which they have done. Against this manifest inequality I earnestly protest in the name of him who said, “ Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways.” SECTION v The Doctrine Denied by Some Calvinists , but Logically Necessitated by their Fundamental Position. Since the death of the Reformer, Calvinism has been gradually gravitating toward Arminianism. Doubtless the reader has observed this change of base as he has read the previous chapters. The sections of 8 “ Theology,” p. 213. 9 “ Theology,” pp. 360, 361. 218 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD this chapter are equally conclusive. The early Cal¬ vinists, following their leader, positively declared that the non-elect are eternally condemned irrespective of anything which they had done. These were followed by a second class of writers who made the distinction of “appointment” and “rejection,” declaring that the former is for sin, while the latter is an act of mere sovereignty. Now, as we shall presently see, there is a third class who persistently affirm that the non-elect are condemned for their sins, or wicked character : all other reasons are carefully omitted from any consider¬ ation, so sure are they that this is the cause. The following selections will sufficiently indicate the trend of these milder Calvinists. Toplady says, “ When we say that the decree of predestination to life and death respects man as fallen, we do not mean that the fall was actually antecedent to that decree ; for the decree is truly and properly eternal, as all God’s immanent acts undoubtedly are ; whereas, the fall took place in time. What we intend then, is only this, viz., that God (for reasons without doubt, worthy of himself and of which we are by no means in this life competent judges), having from ever¬ lasting x3eremptorily ordained to suffer the fall of Adam, did likewise from everlasting consider the human race as fallen ; and out of the whole mass of mankind, thus viewed and foreknown as impure and obnoxious to condemnation, vouchsafed to select some particular persons (who collectively make up a very great, though precisely determinate number) in and on whom he would make known the ineffable riches of his mercy.” 1 i “ Works,” p. 689. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 219 Charnock says, “ Reprobation in its first notion is an act of preterition, or passing by. A man is not made wicked by the act of God ; but it supposeth him wicked, and so it is nothing else but God’s leaving a man in that guilt and filth wherein he beholds him. In its second notion it is an ordination, not to a crime, but to a punishment (Jude 4) ‘ an ordaining to con¬ demnation.’ And though it be an eternal act of God, yet, in order of nature, it follows upon the foresight of the transgression of man and supposeth the crime.” 2 In “Tracts on the Doctrines, Order and Polity of the Presbyterian Church,” Dr. G. W. Musgrave says, “ What we do maintain, I repeat it, is, that God has determined to ‘ pass by ’ the 11011-elect, and to permit them to continue in unbelief and disobedience ; and foreseeing that if left to themselves they would thus freely and criminally reject his gospel and rebel against his law, he determined to punish them with eternal death for their sins and according to their just deserts.” 3 Of the non-elect, Dr. Wm. D. Smith says, “There is nothing that hinders their salvation but their own aversion to holiness, and their love of sin ; and it is for this that God has purposed to damn them.” 4 Dr. N. T. Rice explains the doctrine as follows : “ Now Arminians agree with us, that on the day of judgment God will pronounce sentence of eternal con¬ demnation upon multitudes of men. ‘ Then shall he say unto them 011 the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 2 “ Attributes of God,” p. 492. 3 Vol. III., p. 208. 4 “ What is Calvinism ? ” p. 51. 220 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.’ Will this fearful sentence be just? Arminians agree with us that it will, because it will be a sentence of merited punishment for their sins. Then can there be any objection to saying, that God purposed from eternity to pronounce this just sentence ? He foresaw the sin of the finally impenitent, and for their sin he purposed to inflict upon them the just penalty of his law. Can any one object to this ? Can it be unjust in God to purpose to do a just act ? ” 5 Dr. Lyman H. Atwater says, “Election is an act of special mercy and grace which chooses some to be rescued out of this doomed mass and made heirs of glory, and insures all the requisites to the fulfillment of this purpose. Reprobation, otherwise called Pre- terition, is simply the passing by those not thus in¬ cluded in the purpose of election, and leaving them to go on unreclaimed to merited perdition. It is thus a judicial and punitive, and, in this sense, not a merely arbitrary act.” 6 In considering this doctrine the reader will please notice that all these writers agree in declaring that the non-elect are reprobated, or passed by, because of their sins. God “considered the human race as fallen it is God’s “ leaving a man in that guilt and filth, wherein he (God) beholds him ; ” God “ deter¬ mined to punish them with eternal death for their sins, and according to their just merits ; ” it is for their love of sin “ that God has purposed to damn them ; it is “a sentence of merited punishment for their sins; ” this preterition is “to merited perdition.” s “God Sovereign and Man Free,” p. 136. e “ Presby. Quarterly,” 1873, p, 165. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURR. 221 But this sentence of condemnation is an eternal act of God, and hence before creation. True. Conse¬ quently so far forth, the act of condemnation is based, or grounded upon the divine foresight of the race as fallen. Certainly, for says Toplady, “out of the whole mass of mankind, thus viewed and foreknown as impure and obnoxious to condemnation,” God ‘ 1 vouchsafed ’ ’ salvation to ‘ ‘ some particular persons. ’ ’ Charnock declares that the condemnation “follows upon the foresight of the transgression.” Dr. Mus- grave affirms that God ‘ ‘ foreseeing that if left to them¬ selves they would thus freely and criminally reject his gospel and rebel against his law, he determined ’ ’ to condemn them. Dr. Rice says, “ He foresaw the sin of the finally impenitent, and for their sin he purposed to inflict upon them the just penalty of his law.” Dr. Atwater says, in a paragraph immediately above the one quoted, that his doctrine “ makes election and reprobation act upon the race viewed as fallen, sinful, already deserving and bound over to perdition.” Then, beyond all controversy, according to these writers, the act, or decree of reprobation, or preter- ition “follows,” comes after, “the foresight of the transgression.” But so far this is pure Arminianism. I doubt not the reader is sufficiently versed in the doctrines of these two rival systems to know that the above affir¬ mation is literally true. But to place the matter beyond all dispute I will add the necessary proof. In speak¬ ing of the doctrine of the Arminians, Dr. Ashbel Green says, “They say that the foreknowledge of God is the ground of his decree.” 7 7 “Lectures on the Shorter Catechism,” p. 178. 222 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD “Election and reprobation, as Arminianism holds them, are conditioned upon the conduct and voluntary character of the subjects. All submitting to God and righteousness, by repentance of sin and true self-con¬ secrating faith, do meet the conditions of that elec¬ tion ; all who persist in sin present the qualities upon which reprobation depends. And as this preference for the obedient and holy, and rejection of the dis¬ obedient and unholy, lies in the very nature of God, so this election and reprobation are from before the foundations of the world.” 8 9 Thus it is evident beyond all cavil that the Calvinis- tic theologians whose views lead them to declare that the decree of reprobation follows the foresight of the trans¬ gression, have so far, adopted one of the fundamental principles of Arminianism. But does not Calvinism declare that the decrees are one ? Yes, verily we are so taught. Dr. Hodge declares “ The decrees of God, therefore, are not many, but one purpose.” !) Toplady declares that “the twofold predestination of some to life and of others to death ” are “ constituent parts of the same decree.” 1 Howe affirms “ That all the pur¬ poses of the divine will are co-eternal . There can be no place for dispute about the priority or pos¬ teriority of this or that purpose of God. They must be all simultaneous, all at once, in one and the same eternal view according to that clear and distinct, and all-comprehending prospect that he hath of all things eternally before his eyes.” 3 8 Dr. Whedon. “Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1879^.409. 9 “ Systematic Theology.” Vol. I., p. 537. 1 “ Works,” p. 690. 2 “ Works,” p. 1135. AND MAN'S MORAL NATURE. 223 Consequently, the conclusion is legitimate, yea, irresistible, that if one decree “follows upon the fore¬ sight of the transgression of man,” if one decree “ supposeth ” a man wicked, the other part of the decree follows upon a foresight that the soul will repent and believe. Or in other words, the view of these Calvinists is one-half Arminianism, which logic¬ ally necessitates the other half. But let us examine the other horn of the dilemma. Is it consistent Calvinism to teach that a?iy of the divine decrees are based upon, or follow the divine foresight ? This question is vitally important to a correct understanding of the whole discussion. It meets the student of theology at every turn because of the contradictory assertions which are constantly made — either directly or indirectly — by Calvinistic writers. At one stage of the discussion you are told that the decrees are not conditioned, based, or grounded upon anything in man : but presto, change, and now you are told that the doctrine of reprobation is “sim¬ ply,” yes, “simply the passing by those not thus in¬ cluded in the purpose of election, and leaving them to go on unreclaimed to merited perdition.” I now pro¬ pose to show that this is ‘ ‘ simply’ ’ impossible according to the fundamental position of Calvinism. To avoid needless repetition, the reader is directed to Chapter 11. of Part I. He will there find the teaching of Cal¬ vinism in answer to the question, Are God’s Decrees Conditional ? Are they based on the divine fore¬ knowledge ? He will there find that from Augustine to Dr. Charles Hodge, Calvinism has always affirmed the unconditional decree as the basis of its system ; hence, the Westminster Confession of Faith is histor- 224 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD ically correct in saying, ‘ ‘ Although God knows what¬ soever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions ; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.” Dr. Venema says, ‘‘The act of the decree is absolute; not uncertain or doubtful. It is not suspended on any condition on the part of man.” If the decrees are not conditioned on anything in man, then it is a waste of time to affirm that the act of reprobation follows upon the foresight of the transgression. If we accept the fun¬ damental position of Calvinism, that God could not know what his creatures would do before he had determined their actions, we must forever banish all thought about the non-elect being condemned, and left to their merited punishment. It is incontestably cer¬ tain that Calvinism teaches the unity of the divine decrees : the divine foreknowledge, as depending on those decrees, and therefore Calvinism does teach, directly and indirectly, that the non-elect are eternally condemned, irrespective of their foreseen wickedness. The denial of this necessitates Arminianism. SECTION VI. The Bible Argument. We have already considered some passages of Scripture concerning God’s dealings with the non¬ elect. But as they represent the brighter side of the subject, let us now examine those parts of the Bible which the Calvinist claims in support of his dark and extremely repulsive doctrine of reprobation. I pro¬ pose to deal fairly with the reader and give him ample AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 225 opportunity to see on which side is the truth. For convenience I shall divide the subject into three parts, first examining the passages which declare God’s agency in the production of evil. “ But the Spirit of the Ford departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Ford troubledhim” (1. Sam. xvi. 14). See also xviii. 10, and xix. 9. “Thussaith the Ford, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee, out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie • with thy wives in the sight of this sun” (11. Sam. xii. 11). “And the King said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah ? so let him curse, be¬ cause the Ford hath said unto him, Curse David. Who shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done so ? ” (xvi. 10). “ And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the Ford had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the Ford might bring evil upon Absalom ” (xvii. 14). “ And again the anger of the Ford was kindled against Israel and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah” (xxiv. 1). “ Wherefore the King hearkened not unto the people ; for the cause was from the Ford, that he might per¬ form his saying, which the Ford spoke by Ahijah the Shilonite unto Jeroboam the son of Nebat ” (1. Kings xii. 15). “ And the Ford said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit and stood before the Ford, and said, I will persuade him. And the Ford said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I 226 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt per¬ suade him, and prevail also : go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee ” (xxii. 20-23). ‘ ‘ Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they •caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord ” (Ezek. xx. 25-26). “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city and the people be not afraid ? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos iii. 6). I form the light, and create darkness ; I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do all these things ” (Isa. xlv. 7). In considering the meaning of these passages no¬ tice (a) That if we take the exact, the literal interpre¬ tation, God must be the author of sin. He who creates evil (sin) must be the author, and therefore we see at once that this can not be the truth. ( b ) At times the term “evil ” must be understood as phys¬ ical instead of moral. Calamities, punishments, death, are often spoken of or alluded to in the Bible as evil from the Lord (Seei. Kings xvii. 20). Thus Cowles on the passage in Amos says, ‘ ‘ Shall we not recognize God’s agency as including and working all the in¬ flictions of calamity that fall on guilty cities ? This ‘ evil in the city,’ which v. 6 assumes that the Lord has done, must be natural, not moral; calamity, not sin. The original Hebrew is used frequently for nat- AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 227 ural evil, e. g., Gen. xix. 19: ‘Lest some evil take me and I die ; ’ and Gen. xliv. 34 : ‘ Lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father ; ’ also Ex. xxxii. 14. Besides, the strain of the whole passage is of natural evil — the judgment about to come from God on apostate and guilty Israel. To construe this evil, therefore, as being sin, and not calamity, is to ig¬ nore the whole current of thought, and to outrage the soundest, most vital laws of interpretation. More¬ over, the common justice toward God forbids this con¬ struction. ‘Shall there be sin in the city, and the Lord hath not done it ? ’ This would assume that God is the doer of all the sin in our world.” 3 By observing this legitimate method of interpreta¬ tion many of the supposed difficulties are at once obviated. Throughout this discussion I have main¬ tained that God does punish individuals and nations according to their wdckedness. As we have seen, this is the doctrine of Scripture. In most of the passages already considered, the reason for the chastisement is clearly stated even before the doom is pronounced. The strong language in Ezek. xx. 25, 26 is prefixed with the words, “ Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their father’s idols.” Are we to wonder that God’s pun¬ ishments were severe ? His chosen people had for¬ saken their Deliverer ; had abandoned the true wor¬ ship to serve idols of wood, silver and gold. “Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters ! they have 3 “ The Minor Prophets.” 228 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD forsaken the kord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward ” (Isa. i. 4). In the numbering of the nations by David, we must assume that the people had sinned — for surely God is not a petulant tyrant — angry at, and condemn¬ ing them without sufficient reason. So far forth there is no difficulty. The mysterious and painful aspects of the problem are in the statement that the Ford moved David to commit this sin. Some light is thrown on the subject by the corresponding passage in 1. Chron. xxi. 1, where we are told that “Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to num¬ ber Israel.” From this we are compelled to believe that if God had anything to do with the sin of David, it must have been negatively, in the sense of permis¬ sion. But if God permitted that, when he could have prevented, does it not follow that after all we must accept it as really the Divine Will ? Yes, it seems so to me : consequently I advance the thought that these passages are to be interpreted in the light of the Hebrew concep¬ tion of Jehovah. If all Scripture is given by inspira¬ tion of God, then the Old Testament can not be placed above the New. Beyond all controversy there is a progress of doctrine. That which was at first ob¬ scurely revealed, was afterwards more clearly declared : hence it is now universally accepted as an axiom in Bible interpretation that the clear must interpret the obscure. Consequently, the searcher for truth must examine these Old Testament passages in the light of the Epistle of James. “ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God ; for God can not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man ” (i. 13). Alford says, “ The temptation is a trying of AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 229 the man by the solicitation of evil ; whether that evil be the terror of eternal danger, or whatever it be, all temptation by means of it, arises not from God, blit from ourselves — our own lust. God ordains the temp¬ tation, overrules the temptation, but does not tempt, is not the spring of the solicitation to sin.” The fol¬ lowing from Dr. E. P. Hickok is worthy of careful consideration. “ Here is more than mere assertion that God does not tempt to evil ; the declaration has an ample reason given for it. A tempter to evil must himself have been tempted with evil, and this can not be of God. God can not so be tempted, and thus demonstrably God can not tempt any man. If God entices to sin, he must have come to wish sin ; and, as the latter is impossible, the former is necessarily excluded. So categorical a denial of God’s tempta- bility to evil, for the sake of excluding him from all complicity with the evil, and shutting out all excuse for sin from the assumption that God tempted to sin, demands careful consideration, if we are clearly to apprehend the reasons which authorize it.” 4 If this reasoning be correct then we are necessarily excluded from interpreting these passages as teaching — directly or indirectly — that God does tempt to evil. How shall we proceed ? As it seems to me, the truth is this. According to the popular conception of the Hebrews, Jehovah did everything. Secondary causes were scarcely recognized. Everything was the manifestation of God, and all events were intimately related to him. Eet the reader examine any of the 4 “ Temptation no Excuse for Transgression.” ” Bib. .Sacra,” 1873, p. 653. See also, “ Bib: Sacra.” 1878. Art. “ Doc. of the Epistle of James,” by Prof. E- P. Gould, D.D. 230 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD Psalms and he will readily see this idealistic spirit which prompted the writer to say God “ rode upon a cherub, and did fly, yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. The Lord also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice ; hailstones and coals of fire.” As time continued, the perceptive faculties became more active and discriminating, so that gradu¬ ally, through many ages of moral training, the Chris¬ tian Doctrine of James is unfolded. For fear the reader may think that this is a mere theory of mine, invented to escape supposed difficulties, I desire to add the views of eminent commentators. I11 speaking of the true prophet before Ahab, Cowles says, “ Micaiah notwith¬ standing, resumes, to describe another prophetic scene — a kind of cabinet council (of course this is drapery), location not given, to debate the question how to allure Ahab up to Ramoth-Gilead to fall there in battle. .... In respect to the morality of this transaction as related to the Lord, it meets no other difficulty than is involved in every case of God’s providential agency in the existence of sin — which agency is not a license for sinning — is never the employing of his moral subjects to do the sinning ; but is simply leaving the wicked to commit sin of their own free will, his shaping hand being interposed only to turn it to best moral ac¬ count.” 5 Dr. E. P. Barrows says, “The Scriptures ascribe every actual event to God in such a sense that it comes into the plan of his universal providence ; but they re¬ ject with abhorrence the idea that he can excite wicked thoughts in men, or prompt them to wicked deeds.” 6 5 “ Hebrew History,” pp. 287, 288. 6 “ Companion to the Bible,” p. 541. AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 231 The thought which I am .seeking to elucidate is thus admirably expressed by Dr. John Tulloch. In speaking of the Old Testament Doctrine of Sin, he says “ Facts of evil ( ra ), no less than of good, are traced upwards to the Almighty Will, as the ultimate source of all things. This is true beyond all question ; but it exceeds the truth to say, as Kuenen does, that the older Israelitish prophets and historians did not hesitate to derive even moral evil from Jahveh. Precise distinctions of morality and contingency were unfamil¬ iar to the Hebrew mind ; and at no time would this mind have shrunk from attributing every form of evil accident (however immediately caused by human wick¬ edness) to the Sovereign Power, which did as it willed in heaven and on earth. But it is nevertheless true, as has been clearly seen in the course of our exposition, that the essential idea of evil in the Hebrew mind was so far from associating itself with the Divine Will, that its special note or characteristic was opposition to this Will. The line of later argument, as to a possible relation of the Divine Will to sin (whereby its omnip¬ otence and yet its purity should be preserved) is for¬ eign to the Old Testament. It grasps events concretely ; it does not analyze them in their origin or nature.” 7 Such, in my opinion is the fact, and the correct philosophy — the consistent explanation of the fact, is the Arminian doctrine of Divine Foresight. God foresees all the free actions of his creatures ; consequently he so arranges the government of the world that wickedness acts upon wickedness. Hence, to the popular conception, God does this or that sin- 7 “ The Christian Doctrine of Sin,” p. 96. See Oehler’s O. T. Theol. Am. e P- 543- But, granting that Dr. Hodge is to be interpreted according to the term “permit,” what is the result? If the fall of mail was permitted, yet it took place according to his will : if it occurred according to his will, he certainly designed it : if he designed it, he certainly decreed it. This is substantially confessed by Dr. Hodge. “Whatever he does, he certainly purposed to do. Whatever he permits to occur, he certainly purposed to permit.” Now what is the difference between the supralapsarian and the infra- lapsarian ? Simply this : one is fearless enough to state his doctrine just as it is ; the other hides behind a sophism. Does the reader imagine that my reason¬ ing on this point is fallacious? Take the other horn of the dilemma. Maintain, for one moment that there is an essential difference between the effecting and permitting decrees, and you have denied their unity ; hence Calvinism is in ruins. The decrees are but one purpose ; whatever is affirmed of one, must be true of all, and consequently the infralapsarian terminology is a distinction without a difference. That the Arminian doctrine of foreknowledge is logically necessiated by the position of the infralap- sarians is easily demonstrated. If God decreed to 352 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD permit sin, he certainly foreknew it ; otherwise there is no permission : sin occurred without his knowledge. Hence, so far forth, the decrees are subsequent to, and conditioned on foreknowledge, but if one or more decrees are conditional, others may be so, nay, must be so, for are not the decrees one ? Thus we reach the ground of the Arininian, who is doubtless thankful to the infralapsarians for their undesigned indorse¬ ment. SECTION VII. My Positio7i Confirmed by Eminent Calvinists . In a previous section the reader has seen the tes¬ timony of the infralapsarians concerning the legiti¬ mate conclusion of supralapsarianism. He will now have an opportunity to hear the other side, and thus be able to judge for himself as to the merits of both schemes. Before doing so, however, it may be inter¬ esting to notice the testimony of some Calvinists who are not pronounced supralapsarians. We have already heard the testimony of Dr. Dabney. With his per¬ mission we will recall him: he thinks “both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which should never have been raised.” There is “neither supra nor infralapsarian, and no room for their debate.” Dr. Dick is so candid and withal so consistent that the reader will greatly appreciate the following. He is considering the charge of God being the author of sin : AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 353 “ I acknowledge that this horrible inference seems to be naturally deduced from the supralapsarian scheme.” “There is something in this system repugnant to our ideas of the character of God, whom it represents rather as a des¬ pot than the Father of the universe.” pp. 373, 369. “ But it does not follow from our scheme which supposes sin as the groundwork of pre¬ destination. ” “The term pre¬ destination includes the de¬ crees of election and reproba¬ tion. 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 pre¬ appointed, or predestinated. . . . The sublapsarian scheme removes no difficulty, but merely speaks in terms less offensive. It is virtually the same thing to say that God decreed that Adam should fall, and then decreed to save some of his posterity and leave others to perish ; as to say that God first decreed to save some and condemn others and then in order to accomplish this design decreed the fall of Adam and the whole human race in him.” pp. 373, 360, 361. Here we have not only.diamond cutting diamond, but self arrayed against self. One is led to inquire if Dr. Dick is not attempting a third solution, which shall keep clear of both schemes ; the one which rep¬ resents God “as a despot,” and that which “ removes no difficulty but merely speaks in terms less offensive. ’ ’ But no, it can not be. It is logically impossible. All Calvinists are supra or infralapsarians, says Dr. Aik- man. Moreover, Dr. Dick uses the infralapsarian, or 354 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD sublapsarian language, which makes sin the ground¬ work of the reprobating decree. After such a con¬ vincing argument I am prepared for anything, and hence the following confession from our eminently consistent author is in order. “I confess that the statement may be objected to as not complete ; that there are still difficulties which press upon us : that perplexing questions may be proposed, and that the answers which have been returned to them by great divines are not so satisfactory in every instance as those imagine who do not think for themselves, and take too much upon trust.” Calvin says, “ Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an invidious charge, admit the doctrine of election but deny that any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, since there could be no election, without its opposite reprobation.” Waxing warmer and warmer, the great Reformer says of those who are infralapsarians, “ Here they recui to the distinction between will and permission, the ob¬ ject being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills ? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing it¬ self, viz., that man brought death upon himself, merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God ! As if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be.” Of the doctrine that says God merely permitted Pharaoh to be hardened, he calls it a “ silly cavil ” and maintains, “If to harden means only bare per¬ mission, the contumacy will not properly belong to Pharaoh. Now, could anything be more feeble AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 355 and insipid than to interpret as if Pharaoh had only allowed himself to be hardened ? ” 7 The following from Dr. S. S. Smith is quite impor¬ tant as coming from an honorable president of the College of New Jersey. Of moral evils, he says, “To say that they have been merely permitted, without any interference, or concern of Almighty God in the actions of men, is only attempting, by the illusion of a word, to throw the difficulty out of sight, not to solve it . The greater part of those writers who are friendly to the system of divine decrees, afraid, at the same time, of seeming to detract from the holiness of God, have, in order to avoid this impious consequence, thought it useful to conceive of the Divine purposes in a certain order, which has, therefore, been styled the order of the decrees. Every scheme, however, for ar¬ ranging them, labors under the same essential defect ; that of seeming to represent a succession in the Divine Mind similar to what must necessarily take place in the designs and plans of men. In the purposes of God there can be no succession ; ” of the sublapsa- rianshe says, “ The cautious timidity with which these writers approach this subject betrays their secret apprehension that the decrees of God, to which, on other occasions, they freely appeal, have, in the pro¬ duction of sin, some sinister influence on the moral liberty of man. If these apprehensions are well founded, they ought to abandon their system alto¬ gether.’’ 8 According to Hopkins modern Calvinists are less 7 “Institutes.” B. III., Chap. XXIII., Sec. 1-8. B. I., Chap., XVIII., Sec. 2. s “ Nat. and Revealed Religion,” pp. 271, 277. 356 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD consistent than Arminians, and should give up their position. “ It has been observed that Calvin and the assembly of divines at Westminster assert that the divine decree and agency respecting the existence of sin imply more than a bare permission, viz., some¬ thing positive and efficacious. They, therefore, who hold to only a bare permission, do depart from those who have been properly called Calvinists, and do not agree with the Confession of Faith composed by said assembly of divines, or with those numerous churches and divines who do assent or have assented, to that Confession of Faith, in England, Scotland and America.” 9 Rev. Daniel T. Fiske says, “The decrees of God are not merely his purposes to permit events to take place as they do. Some hold that, with regard to the existence of sin, we can only affirm that the divine decrees extend to it in the sense that God determines to permit it, that is, not to prevent it. But this lan¬ guage does not seem to express the whole truth. God might, indeed, be said to decree the existence of whatever he could have prevented, but determined not to prevent. But the decrees of God are not mere negatives. They are purposes to do something and to do that which renders certain the existence of all events, sin included.” 1 Bishop Burnett has so admirably stated the ques¬ tion that I am sure the reader will be pleased at its presentation : he is speaking of the supralapsarians. “Nor can they think with the sublapsarians, that reprobation is only God’s passing by those whom he 0 “ Works.” Vol. I., pp. 144, 145. 1 “Bib. Sacra,” Vol. XIX., p. 404. and man’s moral nature. 357 does not elect. This is an act unworthy of God, as if he forgot them, which does clearly imply imperfection. And as for that which is said concerning their being fallen in Adam, they argue, that either Adam’s sin and the connection of all mankind to him as their head and representative, was absolutely decreed, or it was not ; if it was then all is absolute. Adam’s sin and the fall of mankind were decreed, and by conse¬ quence, all from the beginning to the end are under a continued chain of absolute decrees : and then the supralapsarian and the sublapsarian hypothesis will be one and the same, only variously expressed. “ But if Adam’s sin was only foreseen and permitted, then a conditionate decree founded upon prescience, is once admitted, so that all that follows turns upon it : and then all the arguments either against the per¬ fection of such acts, or the certainty of such prescience, turns against this ; for if they are admitted in any one instance, then they may be admitted in others as well as in that.” The following is the Bishop’s personal opinion : “ The sublapsarians do always avoid to answer this ; and it seems that they do rather incline to think that Adam was under an absolute decree ; and if so, then, though their doctrine may seem to those who do not examine things nicely, to look more plausible ; yet really it amounts to the same thing with the other.” 2 This is the legitimate conclusion. Beyond all question, the whole discussion is mere logomachy. It is a distinction without any essential difference : or if the difference is radical, Arminianism is the inevitable conclusion. It is similar to the language employed 2 “ Exposition,” p. 212. 35$ CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD to mystify the mind on the Atonement. When the advocates of a limited Atonement were hard pressed by reason and Bible, they invented the subterfuge “Christ died sufficiently or meritoriously for all, but efficaciously only for the elect. ’ s So when the doctrine of Reprobation is closely examined and followed to its logical and necessary conclusion, the modern Calvin¬ ist recoits, 1 God does not decree the perdition of the 11011-elect. He has merely decreed to permit them to sin and perish.” When asked to explain the method of this wonderful negative decree, our friend says, “ It is because God views them as fallen,” thus making the vision of God as narrow as their own ; for if God can view men as fallen before they are created, why can not he view them as repentant under the influences of the Spirit ? Verily, the question is asked in vain. The Calvinist is silent except when he breaks out with that wonderfully convincing argument, “ who art thou that repliest against God ? ” SECTION VIII. God Not Guiltless if He Permits When He Could Pre- veiit Sin. The doctrine that God permits sin has been va¬ riously understood. As the reader has seen, all con¬ sistent Calvinists accept and affirm the bold theory that all sin could have been prevented had it so pleased God. That even now all souls might be converted, all sin immediately stopped, and every trace of wretch¬ edness instantly obliterated. If asked, why are these things permitted ? they invariably reply, God has not revealed all the reasons, but we are sure that it must be on account of his honor and glory. Moreover, they AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 359 affirm that if this be denied, the omnipotence of God is seriously impaired, and Atheism is the logical con¬ clusion. The theory of Leibnitz has been variously inter¬ preted. 3 Without doubt, his Theodicee is the ablest theological work which the seventeenth century pro¬ duced. If it did not satisfactorily solve the problem, it certainly started the mind in the right direction ; his theory of the ‘ ‘ privative nature of evil ’ ’ is now quite generally regarded as inadequate. Sin is more than a negation. Our consciousness can not thus be denied. From his assertions of the limitations of the creature, some have deduced the doctrine that evil is necessary. Others deny this and assert that he sim¬ ply meant “ that the possibility of evil inheres in the very nature of things.” McCosh thinks that “ it can not be so stated as not to involve this mystery, that God should select a system in which evil is allowed that good may come.” I am inclined to think that this is a just criticism upon Leibnitz, for unless he uses the word permit ambiguously he certainly fails to show why sin is not the means of good : the preface to his work contains the following : “ We show that evil has another source than the will of God ; and that we have reason to say of moral evil, that God only permits it, and that he does not will it. But what is more important, we show that God can not only permit sin, but even concur therein, and contribute to it, without prejudice to his holiness, although absolutely speaking, he might have prevented it.” 3 See Cook’s “ Transcendentalism,” p. 188. McCosh’s “ Divine Govern¬ ment,” p. 377; note Hodge’s “ Theology,” Vol. II., p. 134. 360 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S LAW It is to be regretted that so great a thinker as Ceibnitz did not see that if God, — “ absolutely speak¬ ing ” — permitted that which he might have prevented, he must have preferred its existence to its non-exist¬ ence, and consequently did really will its existence. It seems to me there are but two suppositions to be considered. Either God could have prevented sin, but did not, or he wished to, but could not. The first affirmation is accepted by all consistent Calvinists. The second is adopted and more or less clearly de¬ fended by Arminians. The reader has already seen some of the conse¬ quences which legitimately follow the Calvinistic doctrine that God can, but does not prevent sin. In the present section I am to show that if this dictum be true, God can not be guiltless. Sin is pronounced to be wrong both by God and man. So far as any wrong is permitted by any person having full power and authority to prevent, so far is that person morally guilty. This is true of man, and I reverently affirm it to be of universal application. The highest legal opinion of all nations asserts the principle as true in private and public life, in peace as well as war. The conscience and intellectual conviction of every man will instantly accept it. Men act upon it in every-day life and consequently to deny its force in theology is mere assumption. At this point, however, it is necessary to consider the meaning of the term “permit.” In popular lan¬ guage Arminians sometimes speak of the permission of sin, as though they held the Calvinistic doctrine. The term is unfortunate and should never be used out¬ side of the Calvinistic system. To permit a thing to AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 361 occur necessarily implies power to prevent ; if the event can not be prevented, because of something connected with it, then it can not be permitted. The something which is beyond prevention is, or is not indissolubly connected with the event : if it is so connected, then the power to prevent must embrace, not merely the event by itself, but the event as associated with that which is not preventable : this would be equivalent to saying that the event is not permitted because not preventable. On the other hand, if the non-prevent- able something is not indissolubly connected with the event, the event, in and of itself, is preventable, and hence is really permitted. Moreover, to permit denotes something “ positive, a decided assent, either directly or by implication.” Consequently all questions relating to the permis¬ sion of sin arising from the creation of man are decid¬ edly out of place. Calvinists have asserted, and at times Arminians have rather implied the same, Why, surely God permitted sin because he created man ; or God permits sin because he could deprive the race of life, or in any case of individual sinning he could force the soul by a flash of lightning, or by some other means equally effective. These questions I repeat, have no place in this dis¬ cussion. They confound all proper distinctions and cover the hideous features of Calvinism. Beyond all doubt God is free in all his actions. He was under 110 necessity in the work of creation. He could have made a different world, and different beings to inhabit it. But preferring a race of free agents with the pos¬ sibility — and to him the actuality — of sin, rather than a lower order of creatures, he created man. In this 362 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD sense, it is true, sin is permitted because man was cre¬ ated. But this is not the problem before us; for if God could have prevented sin only by refraining from cre¬ ating man in his present freedom, then as I have pre¬ viously said, it is irrelevant to cay that God could, but did not prevent sin. With that understanding of the subject the question would be, Why did God create man a free moral agent ? It is evident, therefore, that when the question of the prevention or the non-pre¬ vention of sin is considered, it has reference to man as he was created, the Calvinist asserting and the Armin- ian denying that God could have prevented all sin in the present moral system without violating the creature’s freedom. Notice ( 1 ) That Calvinists concede this is the question at issue. The following is from the “Au¬ burn Declaration.” “ God permitted the introduction of sin, not because he was unable to prevent it con¬ sistently with the moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and benevolent reasons which he has not re¬ vealed.” Dr. Geo. Duffield says, “The Old School have charged the New with believing that God could have prevented the existence of sin in the world, but not without destroying the freedom of the human will ; and that sin is incidental to any moral system. To this the latter reply, that God permitted the entrance of sin, but not because he was unable to prevent it ; but for wise and benevolent reasons which he hath not revealed.” (2) Calvinists ridicule the idea that God could have prevented sin only by creating man less free. President Jeremiah Day says, “ Will it be said that God merely permitted their hearts to be hardened ; AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE}. 363 or permitted them to harden their own hearts ? If this be conceded, it must still be understood, that he had power to prevent this result. What sort of per¬ mission is a mere inability to prevent that which is permitted ? ’ ’ Dr. Griffin thus speaks against the supposition of Dr. N. W. Taylor. “Permit sin! And how could he prevent it ? In no way but by refusing to create moral agents. As well might you talk of my per¬ mitting the cholera, because I do not kill off every¬ body that could have it. Why dress up palpable Arminianism in such Calvinistic drapery ? ’ ’ Dr. E. A. Lawrence is equally explicit : he says, “ God is pos¬ sessed of adequate power to have prevented sin, if he had chosen to do so. The idea of permission implies the power of prevention. It would be preposterous to speak of God’s permitting what he was not able to prevent ; and we hold it to be equally peculiar to speak of God’s permitting sin in a moral system ; if he had no other way of preventing it, than by pre¬ venting the moral system ; as the watchmaker can prevent friction in the wear of a watch, only by not making the watch.’’ 4 4 Strange that President Edwards could not see this distinction. The following extract from his defense of Decrees and Ejection clearly shows how he confounded the Arminian with the Calvinistic position. “ But you will say, God wills to permit sin, as he wills the creature should be left to his freedom ; and if he should hinder it, he would offer violence to the nature of his own. creature. I answer, this comes nevertheless to the very thing that I say. You say, God does not will sin absolutely ; but rather than alter the law of nature and the nature of free agents, he wills it. He wills what is contrary to excellency in some particulars, for the sake of a more general excellency and order. So that this scheme of the Arminians does not help the matter.” “ Works.” Vol. II., p. 516. As we have seen, this confounds all proper distinctions. The Arminian says, God desires, and works for the utter extinction of sin. The Calvinist says, God desires and secures the actual amount of sin. Yet Edwards sees no difference. 364 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD (3) My position more or less clearly conceded and affirmed by Calvinists. Dr. Albert Barnes is generally regarded as having been a good Presbyterian Calvin¬ ist ; here are his words concerning God’s disapproba¬ tion of sin. “ It would not be right for him not to show it, for that would be the same thing as to be in¬ different to it, or to approve it ; ” speaking of “ the wrath of God ” (Rom. i. 28) he says : “ We admire the character of a ruler who is opposed to all crime in the community, and who expresses those feelings in the laws. And the more he is opposed to vice and crime, the more we admire his character and his laws ; and why shall we be not equally pleased with God who is opposed to all crime in all parts of the uni¬ verse.” Dr. G. F. Wright has said Finney was “distinctively Calvinistic.” Here are his words, “ Certainly if he was able wisely to prevent sin in any case where it actually occurs, then not to do so nullifies all our conceptions of his goodness and wisdom. He would be the greatest sinner in the universe if, with power and wisdom adequate to the prevention of sin, he had failed to prevent it.” 5 Dr. L. P. Hickok was not given to idle speculations, nor did he speak with¬ out due consideration. His testimony, therefore, is especially important. “Theologically, no body of divinity can be sound which has running through it the doctrine that God wishes his creatures to sin, and works in or upon them to induce it . Somehow, sin has come into God’s system of government against his authority ; and its continuance, as well as its origin, leaves the sin to be abominable in his sight : and it can not consist with this that he wishes for it s “ Gospel Themes,” p. 218. AND MAN’S MORAI, NATURE. 365 and works to secure it. All theorizing or teaching subversive of this truth, or obscuring its clearness, should be rejected without ceremony or apology, no matter how ingenious the speculation or earnest the teaching may be.” 0 Thus do I show the logical result of the doctrine that God can, but does not prevent sin. Permission implies not only power to prevent, but also assent. He who permits evil is so far a particeps criminis to the transaction. SECTION IX. Some Objections Co7isidered. I. It may be objected that my position degrades God. If his omnipotence is limited, he can not be per¬ fect. This is true only of the Calvinist’s conception of God. If he is determined to define omnipotence as the power of God which call do anything, he has that privilege : but in that case it is the God of Calvinism, and not of the Bible, who is degraded. True, the Saviour, said “With God all things are possible”; but the literal interpretation is confined to Calvinism and Universalism. Even Charnock has said “ The object of his absolute power is all things possible : such things that imply not a contradiction, such that are not repugnant in their own nature to be done, and such as are not contrary to the nature and perfections of God to be done.” 7 Accepting this definition of the divine omnipotence I merely disagree with the Calvin¬ ist concerning what things do imply a contradiction, 6 “ Bib. Sacra,” 1873, pp. 667, 668. ^ “ Attributes of God,” p.401. 366 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD what things are “repugnant in their own nature,” and also what things are “ contrary to the nature and perfection of God.” I respectfully submit the ques¬ tion if sin is not repugnant in its own nature, and as such, is it “ not contrary to the nature and perfection of God”? Moreover, the objection is fallacious. Whatever limitation there is was self-imposed. God could have refrained from creating. He might have created a race with a much lower degree of freedom, and so far, his power would have remained unlimited. Hence, whatever force the objection has, directly ap¬ plies to the plan which God adopted. If the Deity chooses “for wise and benevolent reasons” to place himself under such limitations, I do not know as the Calvinist has any reason to object. In the light of this thought the following quotation from Professor Henry Cowles will prove interesting : Having consid- % ered the limitations under which the Holy Spirit works, lie says, “ Thus it appears that we must essen¬ tially modify the very common assumption that God has permitted sin in his moral universe, having infinite power to prevent it. This assumption — ‘infinite power to prevent ’ — has begotten the main difficulties of the sin problem. The sensitiveness of many good men touching this whole question hinges around this point. It seems to them derogatory to the infinite God to admit any sort of limitation to his power as against sin and as towards its prevention, or the recov¬ ery of sinners from its dominion. To all such sensi¬ tive thinking and feeling, let it be suggested that it is in no sense derogatory to God’s power to say that he can not save sinners of our race without an atone¬ ment, can not save them without their personal faith AND MAN’S MORAL NATURK. 367 in the atoning Redeemer, can not save them without their repentance. Such a ‘ can not ’ should startle no one ; should never be thought of as involving any dishonorable limitations of God’s power. Indeed, such limitations in God’s plans and principles as to human salvation are to his infinite glory. Nor is it any impeachment of God’s power, or of his moral character in any respect, that he should recognize the nature of intelligent, free, and morally acting minds, and adapt his agencies upon them accordingly . With profoundest reverence, it behooves us to assume that God’s wisdom in managing this whole moral sys¬ tem is simply perfect. Never let us derogate from his wisdom or from his love. The Scriptures represent the Most High as being keenly sensitive to the least imputation against his justice, his wisdom or his love. (See Ezek. xviii. 2, 3, 23, 32 ; xxxiii. 10, 11, 17, 20). No similar sensitiveness appears in his word on the point of limitations in the line of actually saving sin¬ ners. There seems to be never a thought of its being derogatory to God’s power to say, ‘ It is impossible to renew them again to repentance , ’ or to say that sinners whom he labors and longs to save, yet will resist his Spirit and forever die.” 8 Throughout this discussion I have tried to present the plain teachings of the Word. Beyond all success¬ ful contradiction the Scriptures contain many declara¬ tions concerning the limitations of God’s grace. Let the Calvinist talk as he will, God declares that his grace was limited by the perverseness of his ancient people. “ And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my * “Bib Sacra,” 1873, pp. 742-744. 368 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it ? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? ” (Isa. v. 3, 4.) If the reader will compare this statement with the record of Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, or with the words of the Master, “ Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life,” he will see that the Calvinist is over zealous, kastly, the objection comes with poor grace from the Calvinist. Of all men, he should be the last to find fault with the Arminian doctrine of omnipotence. Degrade the Divine Omnipotence ? And pray tell me what does he do ? One would think that the Power of God was of more consequence than the Divine Veracity or Justice. When the Calvinist shall have vindicated his theory against the charge of making God the author of sin, the punisher of men against whom there is no breath of evil, and the pro- claimer of one thing and the doer of another, then he may say with some degree of fairness that this position degrades the divine omnipotence. II. It may be objected that inasmuch as God knew that sin would invade his moral government, he must have preferred sin to the non creation of man with his actual freedom. If this be true, the objector may urge, then on your own confession, God is the author of sin, for he created man with the full knowledge that sin would occur, which might have been prevented by the non-creation of the race. This is the same idea which I noticed at the commencement of this section. It changes the entire argument. Instead of solving the problem of the prevention or non-prevention of sin, in and of itself, it seeks to know why God created man AND MAN’S MORAR NATURE. 369 whom he could not prevent from sinning. It is an entire abandonment of the Calvinistic doctrine that God could, but did not wish to prevent sin in the present moral system. With this understanding of the subject, I have no objection against answering the question. We do not know all the reasons why the Deity preferred to create a race of free creatures with the (pure) certainty that sin would result, rather than to refrain from creating, or to create a lower order of free creatures. That he has done so, is to me a fact beyond all successful questioning : hence it must have been for the best. But if reasons are sought, the following suppositions are, to me, more than probable. ( 1 ) The moral government of God does not demand perfection. That of course, should be its aim, but if it can not be secured, it does not follow that the attempt should be abandoned. If, on the whole, more good can be secured by such a government than by no government, even human reason justifies the attempt. This is the case with the present moral system. The Divine Mind sees the end from the beginning. He knows that notwithstanding the sin which can not be prevented, the ultimate amount of good will far exceed the ultimate amount of evil, and hence it is better to have created, than to have refrained from creating. (2 ) In the light of this remark it is easy to see the probable reason why God created the race with so large a degree of freedom. A low degree of creatural freedom necessarily means a low degree of creatural righteousness. Rightness or holiness can not be cre¬ ated. It is a matter of choice. He who has been created perfectly symmetrical, every faculty in proper CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD relation, or adjustment with every other faculty, every passion, every inclination directed toward that which is true, beautiful and good, is not righteous in the proper acceptation of the term. That which he is reflects the goodness and wisdom of his Maker : he may be admired for what he is, but he can not be virt¬ uous until he deliberately chooses his Creator’s will as his own : consequently if the creature has little responsibitity he can not acquire much virtue. The larger the freedom, therefore, the greater are the heights of nobility to which the soul may aspire : hence the Divine Love is more highly honored by the worship of creatures of exalted intelligence than by those whose freedom is only a little above the brute creation. The following from Dr. Dorner is admirable: “We must judge, therefore, that the divine omnipotence by the mightiness of its working brings into existence free beings capable of resisting its will ; because, unless they are able freely to resist, they will not be able freely to surrender themselves, and unless they freely surrender themselves, they can not be regarded by God as a new and valuable good. If we acknowledge this to be the nature of the freedom conferred on man, and assume that God designs to establish a free, ethical cosmos, a cosmos of love, a divine family ; we must also concede the necessity of his entering into a rela¬ tion of reciprocity to man, for love without reciprocity does not deserve the name.” Again, he says, “ By creating man a free, that he might be a moral, being, God has brought into exist¬ ence a being, in a certain sense of like iWure with himself, which as such is capable of resisting him. Such resistance can never be overcome by mere force. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 371 Indeed, God would contradict himself were he to attempt a compulsory vanquishmeut of human oppo¬ sition. Having made man free, he must suffer him to use his freedom, even when the use is abuse. He may annihilate him ; but he can not will his existence as free whilst annihilating his freedom. This is the secret of our immense responsibility for the use of free¬ dom. Here is the root of the sense of guilt.” 9 Dr. Samuel D. Cochran says, “ God’s design in constitut¬ ing them was not that they should sin, and suffer either the natural or the retributory consequence of so doing, but that they should obey his law and experi¬ ence the blessed consequences, both natural and remun- eratory, of so doing.” 1 In this connection it is proper to notice the state¬ ment of Dr. McCabe that “ No consideration whatever could justify infinite goodness in creating a soul that God foreknew would be wretched and suffer forever.” Unless Dr. McCabe adopts the doctrine of Creationism he needs to be reminded that souls are created through the complex workings of natural laws. If God should adopt and consistently follow Dr. McCabe’s postulate, human freedom would be seriously impaired. If, as he grants, God ‘ ‘ could not consistently have created a race of free moral beings such as man” without providing a Saviour, sin as a contingent fact must have been foreseen. Such a divine foresight justifies us in believing that God has not fundament¬ ally erred in his estimate of the abuse of freedom which lead/s to eternal ruin. III. It is more than merely supposable that the present moral system is the 9 “Bib. Sac.,” 1879, pp. 54, 55. 1 “ The Moral System and the Atonement.” 372 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD first of a series. If this be so, it is reasonable to infer that the history of our race, its fall, the Incarnation and Atonement, will be used as great moral motives to maintain the purity of future systems.2 Viewed in this light the difficulties pertaining to the subject are considerably decreased. The attempt of God which now looks like a failure may terminate in triumph. If the Calvinist seeks to vindicate his position by indefi¬ nitely postponing the solution, he certainly can not complain if his opponent adopts the same method. The radical difference between the two solutions is at once apparent. Nor is this position at all novel. Dr. Bellamy asks, ‘ ‘ How know we if God thinks it best to have a larger number of intelligences to behold his glory and to be happy with him, but that he judges it best not to bring them into existence till the present grand drama shall be finished at the day of judgment? That they may, without sharing the hazard of the present confused state of things, reap the benefit of the whole through eternal ages ; whilst angels and saints may be appointed their instructors to lead into the knowledge of God’s ways to his creatures, and of all their ways to him from the time of Satan’s revolt in heaven to the final consummation of all things. And as the Jewish dispensation was introductory and preparatory to the Christian, so this present universe may be introductory and preparatory to one after the day of judgment, almost infinitely larger.” 3 2 For an interesting discussion of the question of a plurality of in¬ habited worlds, see Townsend’s “ The Arena and The Throne.” Also Bib. Sac., 1873, p. 75S. 3 As quoted in “ Law and Penalty Endless.” See also Beecher’s “ Con¬ flict of Ages.” CHAPTER II. Calvinism Contradicts Conscience. “Foreordination of some men to everlasting life, and of others to everlasting death, and preterition of all the non-elect (including the whole heathen world), are equally inconsistent with a proper conception of divine justice, and pervert it into an arbitrary par¬ tiality for a small circle of the elect, and an arbitrary neglect of the great mass of men.” — Rev. Philip S chaff, D. D. 373 CHAPTER II. Calvinism Contradicts Conscience. Sin exists. This is as God desires, for, being om¬ nipotent, he doeth all things according to his will. Such is the logic of Calvinism. Its language is equally explicit. Sin seems to be one of the corner-stones of the system. If this assertion is considered too strong by the average reader, he will please recall a few of the many Calvinistic gems which have been polished by the master workmen. Bates says, sin was permitted by God “as a fit occasion for the more glorious discovery of his attri¬ butes.” The learned Charnock affirms that “God willed sin, that is, he willed to permit it, that he might communicate himself to the creature in the most excellent manner.” Toplady says God per¬ mitted the fall of “ our first parents . having purposed to order it to his own glory.” Hopkins de¬ clares that “ sin and misery . are necessary in the best system to accomplish the greatest good, the most important and best ends.” Dr. Alexander says sin was permitted in crder “ that God might have an opportunity of manifesting his own glory to all intelli¬ gent creatures niore conspicuously.” Edwards has the following, “ We little consider how much the sense of good is heightened by the sense of evil, both moral and natural. As it is necessary that there should be 374 AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 375 evil, because the display of the glory of God could not but be imperfect and incomplete without it, so evil is necessary in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world.” 1 Dr. Hodge declares that sin is permitted because “ higher ends will be accomplished by its admission than by its exclusion.” 2 It is not necessary to adduce further proof. It is incontestably certain that Calvinists have always made much of sin : have always regarded it as the means by which God reveals his glory to the world. Is that glory worthy of the adoration of the universe ? In that same proportion is the importance of sin : for as Toplady says, “ Without creation no creatures, with¬ out creatures, no sin.” I shall now attempt to show that these affirma¬ tions are unequivocally condemned by the funda¬ mental utterances of conscience. SECTION i. ♦ Calvinism Denies the Truthfulness of Remorse. Wishing to confront Calvinism with the real utter¬ ances of man’s moral nature I shall submit the follow¬ ing incident — similar ones are constantly occurring — which took place at the Illinois State Prison, Joliet, August 7, 1883. A convict named George Kellogg ‘ ‘ was employed on the Ashley & Company wire con- 1 “Works,” Vol. II., p. 517. 2 “ Theology,” Vol. I., p. 547. 376 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD tract, and ran one of the machines for drawing wire into smaller sizes. The machine revolves at a high rate of speed, and draws the wire with great force. Kellogg picked up one of the loops from the coil of wire that he was feeding and tossing it over his neck was drawn down to the block instantly with terrible force. The convict who was at the machine next to him, and to whom he had said good-by, stopped the machine as quickly as possible, but the wire was im¬ bedded far into the flesh around the suicide’s neck and had to be filed off. .... Just before commit¬ ting the act, he went to his keeper and told him that he wanted to see the warden, and being told that he was absent, replied, ‘ Well, I wanted to make a confession to him. I am the man that committed the double murder at Atlanta, Ill.,’ and turning, he walked back to his machine and threw the fatal coil about his neck. . ... In his cell he left an ante-mortem statement addressed to Chaplain Rutledge, saying, ‘ I have been treated well in the prison. I have no malice toward any one. I am innocent of the robbery that I am sent here for, but it is something else that worries me. I was raised a Methodist, but what am I now ? I am nothing. Mv God, forgive me, and be merciful to me. It is more than I have been to myself.’ ” Doubtless, this man’s sin constantly troubled him : he became less composed and easily frightened. More than ever he saw the enormity of the sin, and hence the sense of his guilt was constantly increasing. Ah ! wretched man ; “ thou art in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” Remorse is at work. Thou art now before the judgment seat of the Almighty AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 377 forever condemned for doing that which is an eternal wrong.3 But what is remorse, and what does it say ? Re¬ morse is the lash of conscience. It is the sting of con¬ scious guilt. It is self-loathing. It makes what Byron calls “a hell in man.” Its language is too plain to be misunderstood. It says to the soul, “ Thou art guilty.” The man may deny it before his fellows, but to himself, he says, “True, true, for I did it.” While remorse can never touch the innocent, it is a constant companion of the guilty. This has been vividly portrayed by Shakespeare in Richard III. : “ O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me ! The lights burn blue. — It is now dead midnight. Cold, fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh. What do I fear? Myself? There’s none else by ! Richard loves Richard ; that is, I am I. Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason ; why ? Lest I revenge. What ! myself upon m3Tself ? I love myself. Wherefore? for any good That I myself have done unto myself? O, no : alas ! I rather hate myself For hateful deeds committed by myself.” But remorse is not simply the pronouncement of guilt. By no means. Guilt necessarily presupposes that the deed done, against which the conscience pro¬ nounces its judgment, was intrinsically sinful. Hence remorse says, This evil deed ought not to have been committed. On this point there can not be a shadow 3 “The secret which the murderer possesses soon comes to possess him ; and, like the evil spirit of which we read, it overcomes him, and leads him whithersoever it will. He feels it beating at his heart, rising to his throat, and demanding disclosure. He thinks the whole world sees it in his face, reads it in his eyes, and almost hears its workings in the very silence of his thoughts. It has become his master. It betrays his discre¬ tion, it breaks down his courage, it conquers his prudence.” — Webster. 378 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD of doubt. Remorse is meaningless, nay, it is a psy¬ chological delusion, if it does not signify that the deed for which the soul is tortured, should never have been committed. Rev. Joseph Cook in speaking of the bliss or the pain which inevitably results from doing right or wrong, and which is “ capable of being at its height, the aeutest known to the soul,” says that the former arises ‘ ‘ when what ought to be has been done, and the latter when what ought not.” 4 But this brings us face to face with Calvinism. Of a given sin, the soul under the remorse of conscience says, I ought not to have done it. Calvinism answers, Nay, you ought. That which you have done, was decreed, was permitted by God for his glory. He permits nothing without design. Sin is the necessary means of displaying the Divine glory : hence your sin was included, and is as God desired, for having all power he will certainly secure his desires. Now if the reader is disposed to be indignant, I respectfully request him to direct his indignation against, not the writer, but the system under exami¬ nation. In previous pages I have carefully quoted the exact language of eminent Calvinists. I have not interpreted them according to my ideas, but have allowed them to speak for themselves. I kindly insist that the reader shall do the same. No excuse of the reader, no evasion of the Calvinist will be permitted. The issue has been clearly and fairly made, and the verdict must be according to the principles of fairness. Unless Calvinists write according to the teachings of Machiavel, they must mean what they say. Such being the actual fact, they must here suffer a crushing 4 Lect. “ Unexplored Remainders in Conscience.” AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 379 defeat. Can there be a palliative excuse ? None whatever. The decrees relate to all events : these decrees are one purpose : all things are thus decreed, and take place as God wills. This is the logic of Cal¬ vinism. Now for a few more quotations. Dr. Tim¬ othy Dwight says, “All things, both beings and events, exist in exact accordance with the purposes, pleasure, or what is commonly called, The Decrees of God. ’ ’ Hopkins says, ‘ ‘ There can nothing take place under the care and government of an infinitely power¬ ful, wise and good Being that is not on the whole wisest and best.” Dr. Charles Hodge says, “If, therefore, sin occurs, it was God’s design that it should occur.” The following was taught the author in a certain orthodox Congregational Theological Sem¬ inary. For clearness and consistency these points equal those of Calvin. They are entitled “ God’s connection with Sin. ( i) He forbids it. (2) He hates it. (3) Punishes those guilty of it. (4) Ear¬ nestly desires that men shall not be guilty of it. (5) He decrees sin. (6) He so constitutes and circum¬ stances men that they certainly will sin. (7) He makes sin the means by which he exhibits his own perfections in their most glorious display. (8) God displays His glory through the pardon of sin and the salvation of the sinner. (9) For aught we know this moral system in which we live answers the end of manifesting God’s declarative glory through the free agency of his creatures, as completely as any system that could be devised.” Certainly, these, together with the previous quota¬ tions, are sufficient to convince even the most incredu¬ lous that as a theological system Calvinism demands 380 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD the existence of sin. Remorse, on the contrary, af¬ firms that sin ought not to be.5 SECTION 11. Calvinism Co?itradicts the Ought of Co7iscie?ice. Remorse is the last stage in the analysis of con¬ science. I examined it first because of its clear and unimpeachable testimony. It speaks in no uncertain sound, and its language is the same the world over. “ No king can look it out of countenance, or warrior conquer it. How accurately and impartially it judges ! It masters completely the man of guilt, holding him down, grinding him down, overawing and overwhelm¬ ing him.” 6 Had I merely said that conscience condemns Cal¬ vinism, the friends of the system might have replied, That is a matter of individual experience. It is the fault of your conscience, not of the system. This however can not be maintained. Remorse is of uni¬ versal application. That which it always condemns is fundamentally wrong. It unequivocally and for¬ ever affirms that sin ought not to be. We will now turn our attention to the .second step in this moral analysis. Calvinism affirms that the glory of God demands the existence of sin. Says Hodge, “Sin, therefore, according to the Scriptures, is permitted, that the jus¬ tice of God may be known in its punishment and his 5 “ Is sin permitted as a dragooning- process, to eventuate in good at last ? No : for then sin ought to be ; and conscience affirms that it ought not to be. Is sin the necessary means of the greatest good ? No : for the same reason.” Cook’s “ Transcendentalism.” p. 184. 6 Townsend’s “ Credo.” AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 381 grace in its forgiveness. And the universe, without the knowledge of these attributes, would be like the earth without the light of the sun.” 7 Dr. Griffin says, “ Had there been no sin the uni¬ verse would have lost all the glorious results of re¬ demption, which, as we have seen, was the great end for which God built the universe;” again he says, “Without sin and the work of redemption, all the displays of God which belong to the present universe would have been lost.” 8 But what says conscience ? This is the crucial question, and I, for one, am perfectly willing to abide by its decision. Beyond all controversy, conscience has to do with the rightness or wrongness of motives. Of the acts of two persons conscience affirms that those of the first were right, and those of the second wrong, because the motives or intentions were right or wrong. Again, it is equally clear that of these given motives, conscience affirms that the first class ought to have been executed, while of the second class it no less emphatically declares the contrary. The ought of conscience is imperative. It com¬ mands every person to do the right. Of a certain act it says with no faltering tone, This is your duty : you must do it. As Kant has eloquently said, “Duty! thou great, sublime name ! thou dost not insinuate thyself by offering the pleasing and the popular, but thou requirest obedience.” The ought of conscience outweighs all other considerations. If men would only allow its mandates an impartial hearing, and then act accordingly the desert would indeed blossom as 7 “ Theology,” Vol. I., p. 435. 8 ” Divine Efficiency,” p. 195. 382 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD the rose. The dreams of the ages would be more than realized under the universal reign of the Prince of Peace. The ought of conscience imperatively demands the performance of the right : hence the universal obliga¬ tion to do right : consequently, if all men were to meet this obligation, if all men were to fulfill this righteous requirement, there could be no sin. But the non-ex¬ istence of sin necessarily means the abridgment of the Divine glory according to the Calvinistic idea of glory. Therefore, conscience is directly at war with its Maker. Calvinism affirms that God’s glory and honor are greatly enhanced by the existence of sin. Conscience, on the contrary, would rob God of this glory and honor by imperatively commanding all men to do that which would make sin an impossibility. What is the matter? Are we to understand that God says one thing on the fleshly tables of the heart, which he fundamentally contradicts in his written revelation ? Are we to believe that God cares more for display than or a me ek and holy heart, a pure and a contrite spirit ? Let Calvinists say this if they so think, but I am of the opinion that all such reasoning which necessitates these questions dishonors him, “the high and lofty One who inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy,” and who has said “ I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. ” No: the trouble is not with the Bible, nor with man’s moral nature, for when rightly interpreted they substantially agree. The dif¬ ficulty is with the system of theology which we are examining. Calvinists have sought to vindicate the AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 383 ways of God. Forgetting that the Divine Being is infinite in wisdom, and therefore will provide legiti¬ mate ways of manifesting his glory, they have postu¬ lated the absurd doctrine that he permitted, decreed, and therefore really desired the existence of sin, to its non-existence. Against this, I cheerfully put the ought of conscience, firmly believing that it will out¬ weigh by ten thousand times all of the Calvinistic literature of the ages. At this point it may be profitable to consider a few of the passages of Scripture which it is claimed, teach the general doctrine that God does permit, and there¬ fore decree the existence of sin for the manifestation of his glory. The following texts are adduced to support the theory, viz.: Gen. xlv. 7, 8 ; Prov. xvi. 4 , Isa. x. 5-19 ; Duke xxii. 22 John x. 18 ; Acts ii. 23, iv. 27, 28 ; Col. i. 16, with John i. 3. 9 The principle involved in most of these passages has been fully discussed in previous pages. As a wise Sovereign, God sees the end from the beginning. This is so, not only because he knows his own plans, but also because he foresees the free actions of men. He therefore restrains the wickedness of men so far as it is possible, and guides, or overrules the rest unto- the furtherance of his holy purposes. This is the Arminian’s position, and consequently he is a firm believer in Divine Sovereignty, provided the doctrine is properly understood and carefully guarded against Calvinistic encroachments.1 There are three passages in the above list which seem to demand an additional examination, viz., 9 Taken from Griffin’s “ Divine Efficiency,” p. 195. 1 See Chap. V. Part II. 384 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD Prov. xvi. 4; Col. i. 16 and John i. 3. John and Paul agree in asserting that all things were made by the eternal Word, while the latter asserts that all things were created for him. But what have these passages to do with the subject under discussion? Nothing whatever. The thought of sin, or of wicked creatures as such , did not enter into the scope of the apostles, and consequently the interpreter must not put it there. This is evident at a glance, for, reverse the process; take the words “all things” in the widest meaning, in the most literal sense, and you can not escape the conclusion that the Logos is the author of sin. That Dr. Griffin should have appealed to these texts for support clearly illustrates the way in which not a few of our eminent fathers interpreted the Bible. The other passage (Prov. xvi. 4) reads, “The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.” Shall this be literally interpreted ? Manifestly not ; the conclusion is too dreadful even for the infralapsarian Calvinists. If God hath made the wicked for the day of evil in the sense now understood, then the supralapsarians are right, and therefore men are condemned as inno- •cent. But says Dr. A A. Hodge, “This appears to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as well as with the teaching of Scripture.” Very well, then, let us agree that the words were not intended to teach that which would necessarily follow if they were in¬ terpreted according to our Occidental ideas. What then do they teach ? As this is one of the proof-texts of the Calvinists, I propose to step aside and allow those to speak whose testimony is especially impor¬ tant. The following is from Professor Cowles, who AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 385 says, “It is doubly important to understand this proverb. (1) Because it does teach a great truth ; (2) Because it does not teach a certain great error which has been sometimes imputed to it. The word c made ’ can not be restricted to creative work, but legitimately includes all the doings of God — works of providence more specifically than works of creation. The' Lord works all things in the sense of shaping events and determining issues with special reference to retribution for moral good or evil done by his moral subjects. The original word rendered ‘ for himself’ admits of another construction with this sense : The Lord works everything for its ow \\ purpose, i. e., he makes results and issues correspond to the human agencies involved in them. He makes the final result of every earthly life correspond to what that life has been . The sense of the proverb therefore is that simply in accord¬ ance with the great eternal law of fitness. God brings upon the wicked the destiny of suffering. There is a just and righteous correspondence between the moral activities of his creatures and the reward which a just God will bestow therefor . Unfortunately this proverb has sometimes been tortured to say that God has created the wicked for the sake of punishing them, i. e., in order to secure the good results of it in his moral universe. This doctrine has been made specially objectionable by associating it with a practi¬ cal denial of free moral agency, by assuming that, to accomplish his ends in creating sinners for perdition, God holds them to a life of sinning by a law of neces¬ sity which they can not break. “ Nothing can be wider from the truth than this, or more repugnant to every sentiment of benevolence or 386 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO COD’S WORD even of justice . We need to distinguish broadly between God’s supposed creating of sinners in order that they may sin, that so he may damn them for the good to come from it : and on the other hand, his actually creating them that they might be obedient and so be blest, and then punishing them only be¬ cause they zvill not obey him, but will perversely scorn their Maker, disown his authority, abuse his love, and set at naught all his efforts to reclaim and save them. Our proverb affirms that in this sense God shapes the destiny of the wicked to their just doom of .suffering. When they absolutely will consecrate themselves to sinning and to rebellion, the only use God can make of them is to give them their just doom of woe, and make them an example to his moral universe.” In Lange’s Commentary the passage is translated as follows : “Jehovah hath made everything for its end, even the wicked for the day of evil.” This is much clearer than the common rendering, and substantially agrees with Cowles. From the Ex- egetical Notes I quote the following. “ Vs. 4-9, God’s wise and righteous administration in respect to the rewarding of good and the punishment of evil . Even the wicked for the day of evil, i. e. , to experience the day of evil, and then to receive his well-merited punishment. It is not specifically the day of final judg¬ ment that is directly intended (as though the doctrine here were that of a predestination of the ungodly to eternal damnation, as many of the older Reformed interpreters held), but any day of calamity whatso¬ ever, which God has fixed for the ungodly, whether it may overtake him in this or in the future life.” AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 387 Dr. Chas. A. Aiken, the American Kditor says, “ An absolute divine purpose and control in the crea¬ tion and administration of the world is clearly an¬ nounced, and also the strength of the bond that joins ~in and misery.” Doubtless the reader perceives that the claim of the Calvinist is not sustained by any of these supposed proof-texts, and therefore there is no ground for the supposition that the ought of conscience is contradicted by the Scriptures. On the contrary they substantially agree in affirming that sin ought not to be, and conse¬ quently it can not be true that God desires it for the manifestation of his glory. SECTION III. In Denying the Ought of Conscience , Calvinism Contra¬ dicts the Divine Law. This section involves a discussion of the important question, What is the source, or, What is the authority of conscience? It is quite universally admitted that conscience is that power of the mind which recognizes moral judgments. As the will is the soul choosing, so conscience is the soul affirming the rightness or wrongness in motives. It is also generally conceded that conscience is susceptible of development. To a certain extent the affirmations of conscience depend upon the individual’s temperament, moral susceptibility, early education and present environments ; hence, the different judgments concerning the same act which are often expressed by those of the same community. As a rule, however, it may be said that these diversities belong to the less important duties, although at times they may relate to 388 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD the fundamental obligations. Says Haven, “ As to the great essential principles of morals, men, after all, do judge much alike in different ages and different countries. In details they differ ; in general principles they agree.” 2 Again : Conscience is not an infallible guide. It is not above error, and consequently it is possible lor men to do wrong conscientiously. In such circum¬ stances, however, they are not guiltless, for the simple reason they ought to have known better. That is, while they are right in following their conscience — for to disobey is sin — yet they are wrong in not having a more enlightened conscience. On the other hand, it may, perhaps, be granted that conscience is infallible according to its opportunities. That it impartially judges according to the data furnished : that according to its light, its decision is true.3 These modifying thoughts clearly understood, we are prepared to answer the question, What is the authority of conscience ? Beyond all legitimate doubt conscience is the law of God by which he seeks to govern his moral creatures. The mandate of con¬ science is, therefore, the authority of the Creator. What conscience says is what God affirms. On no other supposition can the majesty of conscience be explained. We instinctively feel that the voice within us agrees with our Father’s voice ; that the ought which outweights all human considerations must have the hearty sanction of him who is “of purer eyes than to behold evil.” 2 “ Studies in Philosophy and Theology,” p. 165. 3 Probably in this sense we are to understand the words of Kant — “An erring conscience is a chimera.” AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 5S9 This is so evident that it is almost, if not quite uni¬ versally conceded. A few quotations from eminent scholars will suffice to show the reader that 1 have not spoken at random. McCosh says, “The conscience declares that there is an indelible distinction between good and evil, and conducts by an easy process to the conviction, that God approves the good and hates the evil. The moral power points to a law, holy, just and good, a law which all men have broken, and which no nation shut out from supernatural light, and no pagan philosophy, have ever exhibited in its purity.” 4 Christlieb says, “Now conscience is confessedly that consciousness which testifies to the law of God implanted in us ; that moral faculty whereby man dis¬ cerns with inward certainty what is right and what is wrong in the sight of God (Rom i. 32), and is con¬ scious that the eye of God is turned upon him.” 5 The following is from Delitzsch : “Conscience, therefore, is not an echo or abode of an immediate divine self-attestation, but an active consciousness of a divine law established in man’s heart ; for all self-con¬ sciousness of created natures capable of self-conscious¬ ness is naturally at once a consciousness of their dependence on God, and a consciousness of their duty to allow themselves to be determined by the will of God, and consciousness of the general purport of that will.” 0 Wuttke says, “ As the conscience is a revelation of the moral law as the divine will, hence it never exists without a God-consciousness, — it is itself, in fact, 4 “ The Intuitions of the Mind/ ' pp. 419, 420. 5 “ Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, ” p 83. g " Biblical Psychology,” p. 165. 390 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD one of the phases of this consciousness, and is, per se, of a religious character, and is inexplicable from the mere world-consciousness.” 7 President Killen, of Belfast, says, “ The feeling of accountability — to be found in every human being — implies the oversight of a God to whom we are re¬ sponsible. When conscience tells us that there are certain things which we ought to do, and that there are certain other things which we ought not to do, it plainly suggests that there is a divine law to which we should conform, and that we are under the rule of a holy Being who rewards obedience and punishes transgression.” 8 The following is from the same Review and by Dr. Tyman H. Atwater: “Rightly understood, laws in¬ scribed on external nature, written on the heart of man, and revealed in the Word of God, must harmon ize. They are all from the same infallible author. However they may differ, so far as they relate to diverse objects, they are at one, and utter one voice when they relate to the same things. Any seeming contrariety must arise from misconceptions of, or false inferences from one or more of them. There can, therefore, be no real antagonism between the normal conscience or law graven on the heart and that written in the Re¬ vealed Word, however greatly the latter may out¬ reach and surpass the former.” In speaking of the scope of the judicium contradictiojiis , Dr. Atwater says, “ Nothing is tc be accepted as the Word of God which contradicts any other unquestionable truth of sense, reason, or conscience . So what clearly 7 ‘ Christian E)thics.” Vol. II., p. 100. 8 “ Princeton Review,” Jan., 1879, p. 3. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 391 contradicts our indubitable moral intuitions, as that we should do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, can not be recognized as from him.” 9 Prebendary C. A. Row, of Rondon, has admirably said, “ The Being who has formed man’s moral nature must possess in himself all the elements of that nature ; otherwise the principle of self-determination must have originated in something destitute of it, freedom in necessity, personality in impersonality, and the power of moral choice in necessary sequence. Hence, God must be a Being who is capable of self-determination, must be a Person : in a word, must possess all those attributes which distinguish a moral from a necessary agent. Consequently, in all these respects our moral nature is a revelation of God.” 1 Doubtless these extracts are sufficient to show the trend of modern Christian thought on this subject. Consequently the affirmations of Calvanism concerning the existence of sin are emphatically contradicted by the postulates of man’s moral nature. Of any given sin, remorse says, this ought not to have been com¬ mitted. The ought of conscience imperatively de¬ mands the performance of the right, and thus cuts off the possibility of sin. The moral nature is the voice of God, and hence he can not desire the existence of sin to its non-existence for the sake of manifesting his glory. 2 9 Art. “ Supremacy of Conscience and of Revelation,” pp. 671, 685. 1 “ Princeton Review.” May, 1878, p. 721. 2 “If there be any philosophy, so called, whether physical or meta¬ physical, which clashes with what men in their hearts and consciences know to be true — with what the soul testifies to be the truth — so much the worse for such a philosophy.” — Dr. George P. Fisher. CHAPTER III. Calvinism an Ally of Universalism. “Some men would make sin a very light thing, and so count all teaching of everlasting punishment a monstrous error, wholly incongruous with our ideas of a just God. Others would make God the author of everything, sin included, and therefore responsible for all sin’s enormity, and hence the everlasting pun¬ ishment of man an outrage cn justice. God’s re¬ vealed word strikes away the foundations of both these philosophic theories. It declares sin to be rebellion against the Holy Ruler of the Universe . It further teaches that God in no sense whatever is the author of sin, that he never decreed it or encouraged it or connived at it . This world of mankind is not a machine made to go as it does by God’s decrees. It is a world of independent wills, made independent in the likeness of God at the creation . To say that all this was pre-arranged and effected by God himself is to say that his word is all a sham, and that his expostulations with the wicked are all gross hypoc¬ risy. God declares that he wishes all men to come to repentance. What does this mean, if it does not mean that God both has no hand whatever in their sin, and also has offered his grace to all as far as he consistently could ? ’’ — Rev. Howard Crosby , D. D. 392 CHAPTER III. Carvinism an Arry op Universarism. Iii making this affirmation I do not mean that Cal¬ vinism and Universalism have been, or now are bosom friends. By no means. The advocates of these re¬ spective systems of theology have not dwelt together in unity, nor have they loved one another as did David and Jonathan. In not a few instances the affirmations of Calvinism have constituted the nega¬ tions of Universalism. The literature of the last hundred years is permeated with the protracted and intensely bitter controversies of these rival systems. My meaning is this. In constructing a theodicy, Universalism has adopted some of the fundamental postulates of Calvinism. To a certain extent the premises of both theologies are the same, while they fundamentally disagree in their conclusions. Univer¬ salism has flourished, partly because of the utterances of Calvinism. If the Calvinistic doctrine of omnipo¬ tence be true, Universalism is the legitimate conclu¬ sion. But it is my profound conviction that both systems are wrong : that the truth is to be found not by deny¬ ing the sincere and atoning love of God for all his children, as does Calvinism ; nor by limiting the di¬ vine penalties and psychological tendencies of sin, a<> does Universalism ; but by combining these moment- 393 394 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S TAW ous truths maintain, as does the Bible, that the lost are those who will not be saved.1 SECTION i. Calvinism and U n iversalism agree co7icerni?ig God's Power . At this stage of the discussion it is not necessary to repeat the assertions of Calvinism relating to the Divine Omnipotence. The reader is now in possession of such facts as will enable him to form an inde¬ pendent judgment concerning the teachings of Calvin¬ ism. If, however, he should fail in any given case to see the close similarity between Universalism and the Theology of the Reformation, a brief reference to pre¬ vious pages will doubtless be sufficient. (i) “ God, almighty in his power over mind as well as matter.” This is the language of Rev. Thomas Baldwin Thayer, whose work on the “ The¬ ology of Universalism” is generally regarded as among the best which the denomination has produced. Concerning this subject the author says, “ It is impor¬ tant to observe the language of this statement— that God is omnipotent, not only in the natural world, but also in the moral and spiritual world. It is as easy for him to create and govern a soul, as to create and gov¬ ern a sun or a planet. And it requires no more effort on his part to discipline and save a moral being, ac- i In this connection I would say to the Universalist reader that in writing the above I am not unmindful of the latest and ablest biblical and psychological arguments by which his doctrine is supported. As my pur¬ pose is to demonstrate the fallacies of Calvinism. I can not fully discuss the merits of Universalism. That has been done by several recent works ; e.g., Haley’s “The Hereafter of Sin,” and Wright’s “The Relation of Death to Probation . ” AND MAN’S MORAD NATURE. 395 cording to the laws of his moral nature, than it requires to control the solar systems, according to the material laws impressed upon them at the time of their crea¬ tion.” 2 3 Dr. I. D. Williamson says, “ As to the attributes of God, there is a like unity of opinion. All agree that God is a being of infinite power, wisdom and good¬ ness. No error can enter into his arrangements, no lack of goodness can mar his purposes, no failure can defeat him. Take these simple ideas of God, about which there neither is nor can be any dispute among Christians, and see what they teach in reason, in re¬ gard to the subject of destiny.” Mr. Skinner, in “ Universalism Illustrated and De¬ fined,” says, “ The will of God is absolute. The will of kings is absolute ; and God is the King of kings > and Tord of lords. He does all things after the coun¬ sel of his own will.” Hosea Ballou taught that “ It is not casting any disagreeable reflections on the Al¬ mighty to say he determined all things for good ; and to believe that he superintends all the affairs of the universe, not excepting sin, is a million times more to the honor of God than to believe he can not, or he does not when he can.” Mr. Whittemoresays, “Man can not do what his Maker wills he shall not do, and he can not leave undone what his Maker wills he shall do.”4 (2) The following quotations from eminent Cal¬ vinists are used by Dr. Thayer as supports to his doc- 2 p. 41- 3 “ The Philosophy of Universalism.” 1866, p. 11. 4 From “ Universalism Not of the Bible,” by Rev. 1). N. George, pp. 309, 2*4, 215. 396 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD trine : he says, “ Dr. Woods has a good thing on this point, which deserves a place here ; ’ * this is the doc¬ trine as explained by Dr. Woods. “ No one can have any -power except what God gives, and there can be no greater absurdity than to suppose that God will give to any of his creatures a power which he can not control, and which shall in any possible cir¬ cumstances, so come in the way of his adminis¬ tration as actually to prevent him from doing what he wills to do. If he is really omnipotent, and if all power in creation depends on him, it must be that he will do all his pleasure ; that whatever he sees on the whole to be the best he will certainly accomplish.” Dr. Thayer takes the following from Prof. Moses Stuart, who is speaking of those who limit the power of God : “ They overlook the omnipotence of that Spirit, whose office it is to bow the stubborn will, and soften the hearts of the unbelieving. What ! are not all things possible with God ? Can he not ‘ make the people willing in the day of his power ? ’ 5 Can not he who works in men, ‘ according to the working of his mighty power which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead,’ can he not make the deaf to hear, and the blind to see ? Can he not raise the dead to life ? Has he not promised to do all this? Has he not often repeated the assurance that he will do it ? Has he not done it in numberless instances ? Are not ‘ all hearts in his hand,’ and so in it that he 5 This text — Ps. ex. 3 — has been pressed into the Calvinistic service quite long enough. It does not teach the doctrine. Dr. T. W. Chambers, a pronounced Calvinist, says the sentiment is true and pleasing, but is not the meaning of the words. “ They refer not to the matter or agency of conversion, but the cheerful obedience which the subjects of the priest-king renders to his commands.” “Homiletic Monthly.” Vol. VI., p. 648. See also Cowles on “Psalms.” “Methodist Quarterly Review.” 1873, p. 341. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 397 can turn them whithersoever he will, even as the rivers of water are turned ? Can any resist God’s will?” The following from Dr. Enoch Pond is regarded by Dr. Thayer as “ conclusive on the point.” “ The question, therefore, comes to this, Is it impossible for God to convert and save all men ? But in what sense can this be considered as impossible ? Is it incon¬ sistent with the nature of the human mind, and with the freedom and accountability of man ? Such a sup¬ position is a priori incredible ; because God made the minds of men as well as their bodies — made them free, accountable agents — and it is not likely that he would give existence to a being which it was impossible for him to control. Besides is it not a fact that God does control the minds of men, of all men, in perfect consistency with their freedom and account¬ ability ? I speak not now of the manner in which this is done, whether by a direct efficiency in view of motives, or by the mere influence of motives ; the fact it is done will not be denied, except by those who deny that God executes his purposes and gov¬ erns the world. The Scriptures, too, by necessary implication, by direct assertion, and in almost every form of representation and expression exhibit the free minds of men as subject to the control of him who ruleth all. God’s control over the free, responsible mind is also exhibited in every instance of conversion. Every conversion which takes place is the work of God’s Spirit, accomplished in perfect consistency with the nature of the mind, and without any infringement of human freedom or accountability. But are not all minds constituted essentially alike ? And if it is pos- 398 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD sible for God to convert one sinner in the manner above described, why not two ? why not as many as he pleases ? why not all ? ” 6 SECTION II. Calvinism and U?iiversalism Substantially Agree Con¬ cerning the Good Uses of Sin and the Denial of Freedom. Dr. Thayer says, “ If there had been no error or sin in the world, we should have known nothing of Jesus the Christ, that loftiest exhibition of perfected human¬ ity, that single bright star in the mingled firmament of earth and heaven, whose light was never dimmed. .... And of God, also, if there were no sin, we should lose sight of half the glory of his character, and of the beautiful and tender relations which he sustains to us.” Our author also quotes from Pres¬ ident Edwards to the effect that, all things considered, it is best that sin should exist. 7 Ballou taught that “What in a limited sense we may justly call sin or evil, in an unlimited sense is justly called good.” 8 Concerning human freedom he says, “ It is evident that will or choice has no possible liberty.” According to Mr. Rogers “ The notion of freewill is a chimera.” In speaking of God’s will, Mr. Skinner says, “ He does all things after the counsel of his own will. Of course when he made 6 Dr. Thayer also quotes an extract from a sermon by Wesley, which upon the surface seems to agree with the above. Every Arminian knows that the meaning of Wesle3T must have been radically different from that of Woods, Stuart and Pond. See “ Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1872, pp. 644, 645. 7 Pages 52, 56, 57, 25, 20. ,, 8 Christian Spectator,” 1833, p.280. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 399 man and gave him the power which he possesses, he did everything according to his own will. It will avail nothing to say man is a moral agent ; for why should God give him an agency which would defeat his own will ? This would be planning against himself Nothing is more evident than that an expected result of a voluntary act proves that it was desired.” 9 Speaking of sorrow and affliction which are in the world, Dr. Williamson says, “ But these have their mission, and become, in their turn, the occasions and the sources of our highest and most refined enjoyments. Such a thing as evil for its own sake, evil not counter¬ balanced with corresponding good, there is not in this world, nor is there the remotest probability that there will be in the future. ’ ’ 1 These extracts will suffice to show the exact posi¬ tion of Universalism concerning the omnipotence of God, the means of sin for the manifestation of his glory, and the doctrine of necessity in human actions. “ Thus the sinful actions of men, being only the legit¬ imate effect of causes which proceed from the author of all good, are not, as has so often been supposed, an evil of incalculable malignity ; they are only a seem¬ ing evil ; they are evil only to our limited and dark¬ ened understandings : they are evil only to those who can not trace out all the tendencies of things, or fore¬ see their final issue.” 2 9 “ Universalism Not of the Bible,” pp. 214, 309. 1 “ The Philosophy of Universalism,” p. 39. 2 “ Christian Spectator,” 1833, p. 279. An admirable expose of both systems under discussion. 400 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD SECTION III. To a Targe Extent Universalism is a Reaction Aga inst Calvhi ism . By this I do not mean that all Universalists were once Calvinists, nor that all Calvinists are in great danger of becoming believers in the salvation of all men. Nothing of the kind. Doubtless there have been, and now are Universalists who always opposed Calvinism. It is also quite probable that some of the advocates of universal salvation, have been more or less friendly to Arminianism. It is possible that some Arminians have accepted Universalism. Such facts I desire to recognize. I have no desire to exaggerate the defects of Calvinism, nor hide those of Arminianism 3 My meaning is this, Universalism is the natural re¬ action against the doctrines of Calvinism. Nearly every important error has some truth which gives it vitality. The truth of Universalism is the Infinite Love of God for all his children. This grand, Bible doctrine has no place in Calvinism. As there taught it is not even the shadow of the truth. The divine love is limited to the “ elect,” while the “ non-elect ” who are equally deserving, are left in misery and eter¬ nally condemned for the rejection of that which God never meant they should accept. Some men may regard this as Scripturally true, but the vast majority of mankind never have and never will believe the Bible teaches such a conception of him whose nature is declared to be Uove. In not a few instances the reaction has been intense. Misgivings have often been keenly felt. Doubts have crowded 3 Dr. H. W. Thomas of Chicago favors Restorationism AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 4OI the mind. The faith of years has gradually disap¬ peared, and, as a historic fact, he who was a strong Calvinist — not thinking to re-examine his premises — accepts Universalism. This will now be elucidated. But before showing whence many of the leaders of Universalism have come I wish to ' speak of the evil effects of Calvinism upon New England Congrega¬ tionalism. Says the late Dr. W. W. Patton, of How¬ ard University, “ The early ministers were strong Cal¬ vinists of the type now known as Old School. They held ideas of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, of human inability to all good, of sovereign personal election and reprobation, of atonement for the elect alone, of the nature of the influence of the Holy Spirit, and of the entire passivity of the sinner in the new birth, which now are seldom preached among us, and are held by few if any of our theolo¬ gians, even such as style themselves Calvinists. There was little in the preaching of such doctrines to pio- mote revivals of religion, or to secure individual con¬ versions - though the grace of God did secure these results from the accompanying gospel truth. There was much in them to provoke controversy and to secure reaction toward some antagonistic system, which, in the swing to the opposite extreme, was likely to be unevangelical. And such was the result. Rigid Calvinism caused a revulsion, which first took form as a cold unevangelical Arminianism, very dif¬ ferent from the Arminianism of the Wesleys ; then introduced the half-way covenant, and then developed into Unitarianism. ” 4 John Murray is generally considered the father of ■i “ The I,ast Century of Congregationalism, pp. 12, 13. 402 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD American Universalism. His “Life” informs us of much concerning his parents and early training. T hey were Calvinists, and young Murray was taught by his father “ that for any individual, nut the elect of God, to say of God or to God, ‘ our Father ’ was nothing better than blasphemy.” The Sabbath is described as “a day much to be dreaded in our fatuity . the most laborious day in the week.” At the age of twenty-one or two he was engaged in preaching as a Whitefieldian Methodist. Speaking of his views at this time he says, “I had connected this doctrine of election with the doctrine of final reprobation, not considering that, although the first was indubitably a Scripture doctrine, the last was not found in, nor could be supported by, revelation.” Subsequently he was converted to Universalism by Rev. James Relley, of London. As an advocate of this doctrine he believed that a part of mankind were elected to be saved through Jesus Christ and to enjoy the Christian life while on earth. The rest, while they would suffer some degree of condemnation, would also finally be saved. “ He retained high views of Divine sover¬ eignty through life.” About the time that Mr. Murray arrived in this country (1770) Rev’s Adam Streeter and Caleb Rich, originally of the Baptist denomination, became pro¬ nounced Universalists and preached in various parts of New England. 5 Elhanan Winchester was originally a Calvinistic Baptist. Describing his earlier views, he says he was ‘ ‘ one of the most consistent Calvinists on the continent, much upon the plan of Dr. Gill, whom he esteemed 5 “ Methodist Quarterly Review,” 1871, p. 445. AND MAN’S MORAR NATURE. 403 almost as an oracle.” In preaching he was very care¬ ful not to invite all men to come to Jesus, for “if provision was made only for a part, he had no warrant to call or invite the whole to come and partake.” This duty he urged only on the “hungry, weary, thirsty, heavy laden, such as were without money, sensible sinners.” 0 Hosea Ballou at an early age joined a Baptist church of which his father was pastor. Walter Bal¬ four was educated in the Scotch Church. Coming to America he became a Baptist about 1806, and in 1823 was a pronounced Universalist. Sylvanus Cobb was early educated under the or¬ thodox influence of New England, but he soon became an ardent advocate of the doctrine of Universalism. Dr. Joseph Huntington graduated at Yale College in 1762, and was ordained pastor of the First Congrega¬ tional Church, Coventry, Conn., 1763 ; his work “Calvinism Improved,” which was not published until after his death, advocates Universalism. 7 SECTION IV. As Universalism becomes more Biblical , the Fundamental Doctrine of Calvinism is De7iied. The Universalists are improving. Of late years their peculiar doctrines have not been so dogmatically taught nor their philosophical principles so strenuously maintained. 8 As the harsh features of Calvinism are s “Christian Spectator,” 1833, p. 277. For a description of Gill’s Cal¬ vinism, see Chap. IV. of Part II. 7 See Note III. at close of this Chapter. 8 “We feel confident that the last twenty years have witnessed a great improvement in the devotional aspects of Universalism.”— Rev. G. W. Whitney.” “ Universalist Quarterly,” 1872, p. 323. 404 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD disappearing, there is a gradual abandonment of the coarse statements of Universalism. Hence, I shall try to show that Universalism abandons its distinct¬ ive tenet— thereby becoming more Scriptural — in the proportion as it renounces the fundamental principle of Calvinism, the Divine Omnipotence as the prime factor in the world’s salvation. For the following extracts I am indebted to “The Uatest Word of Uni¬ versalism ” which contains thirteen sermons by as many representative Universalist clergymen. I have been much pleased with its spirit of candor toward opponents and its reverent treatment of the Scriptures. Dr. A. G. Gaines writes of “ The Divine Nature and Procedure.’’ Speaking of God’s relation to sin, he says, “ Again, we infer from what we know of God’s holiness, and of his moral government, and of the law written in the consciences of men, that he hates sin and can have no concord with it, or with the works it prompts . God never planned it, nor did he ever purpose aught that required sin as a means for its accomplishment, or that depended on sin as a means to its end. Sin is of God in no proper sense. His whole relation to it, and action towards it, is, and ever has been antagonism, resistance . God is hostile to sin ; he has no purposes to serve by it ; never gave his consent to it ; forbade it at the first, and has steadfastly resisted it ever since ; and he has assured us that he can never acce .t it, nor become reconciled to it.” 9 Speaking of “ Sin and its Sequences ” Dr. G. H. Emerson says, “. . . . remorse recognizes a responsi¬ bility that can not attach to man : it is the proclama- 9 Pages 20, 2i. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 405 tion of the will of a Higher Being, and it seems the literalness of truth to say it is the expression of God’s censure.” 1 The following is from “Jesus and the Gospel ” by Rev. J. Smith Dodge, Jr.: “ But sin is man’s specialty ; and it is so because man alone has self-determining power. . . . Man alone can choose, and therefore he alone can resist. But when we examine why man, having the power to choose, sets his will against the will of God (which is the essence of sin), the inquiry takes us into unsound depths.” 2 Elucidating the nature of “ Repentance, Forgive¬ ness, Salvation,” Rev. E. C. Sweetser says, “We must work with God, in order that God may work with us. As to his part of the process, there is no room for uncertainty. His grace is unfailing. Where sin abounds, his infinite love much more abounds ; and whenever we choose to avail ourselves of it, we shall find it sufficient for our needs. He yearns over us with an infinite longing for our salvation, and will not be satisfied till the whole human family is perfected and glorified. . . . So, although his power to save us is contingent upon our voluntary obedience to the con¬ ditions of salvation, yet in view of all the facts in the case, we can not reasonably doubt that his purpose concerning us will at last be fulfilled.” 3 The following from “This Life and the Next,” by Rev. J. C. Adams, is an admirable presentation of the question under consideration. “ If the resistance of the will to the eternal moral law alienates the heart 1 Pages 59, 60. 2 p. 79. 3 Pages hi, 1 12. 406 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S LAW from God up to and beyond the gates of Death, the eternal laws of moral compensation will inflict suffer¬ ing as long as this alienation lasts. Until the will consents to the divine order, there is no deliverance from the thralldom of retribution. So that if any soul goes into the future unrepentant, we must believe that the progress of penalty and discipline goes on, at the same time that grace persuades and love invites, until the evil heart is overcome.” 4 The Philosophy of Universalism is expounded by President K. H. Capen, who declares that man “is God’s child, and that he has broken God’s law. If he sins repeatedly, he will be punished repeatedly. No amount of penalty can destroy his freedom. He may choose to sin as long as he is willing to take sin and penalty together. But, whenever he shall be moved to a different choice, the way will be open. . . . We hold that the sovereignty of God will be completely vindicated in the ultimate harmony of the moral uni¬ verse. ... It will not do to say that man’s freedom may defeat the beneficent intentions of the Almighty ; for that would be a poor sort of freedom which practi¬ cally dooms men to endless sin. ... Of moral evil, he says, “ We not only believe in the ‘ exceeding sinful¬ ness of sin,’ but our nature revolts at it ; we loathe it ; we feel bound to make war upon it, to wrestle with it, and to seek its extermination in ourselves and others. We hate it, however, not merely because it is inherently hateful, but because God hates it, because it is opposed alike by his law and his nature, of which his law is the expression.” 5 4 p. 165. 5 Pages 253, 254, 265, 266. AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 407 Rev. George Hill says, “ All things are possible to God within the limits of possibility. Man as such must have the attributes of his own nature, else he is not man, and no question of moral evil could arise. Within his sphere he is free and the arbiter of his joys and sorrows. All the evil in the moral universe had its birth in the heart of man. We can not say that God permits or fosters it for a good purpose for there is no good in it. We can only say that God hates it, and opposes it, and would prevent it if he could without destroying the moral freedom of man.” Dr. A. J. Patterson says of man’s present condition, “ God does not take pleasure in his falls and bruises, physical or moral. These are incidental to his unde¬ veloped and imperfect state. . . . To have made a race of beings that could not sin, would have peopled the earth with beings entirely unlike ourselves. . . . He might have created beings that could not sin, but they would not be men.” 6 Dr. Miner says, “It is said, ‘God can not save man against his will.’ It is equally true that God can not damn man against his will. Salvation is a condi¬ tion in which human powers co-operate with divine grace. The saving of man, therefore, is the bringing of his powers into such co-operation. The only thing that makes salvation necessary is perversity of will. To remove this perversity is to save.” 7 6 “ Universalist Quarterly.” 1878, 1880, pp. 53, 54, 282, 284,444. i “ Bib. Sacra,” 1883, p. 498. The distinction is radical. Calvinism says Man has no power to resist God. This phase of Universalism affirms the power — carries it far into eternity— but postulates the final triumph of Divine Love. But I can not so interpret the teachings of Reason and Rev¬ elation. CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD 408 NOTE III. Possibly the reader is conservative. Notwithstand¬ ing the many facts adduced to show that Calvinism has greatly aided Universalism, he may object to my reasoning and affirm that I am forcing an issue. It is, therefore, eminently proper to adduce a few addi¬ tional facts illustrating how the subject is considered by those whose ability and candor can not be ques¬ tioned. The following is from Dr. Fitch of New Ha¬ ven fame, forming a part of his celebrated “Review of Fisk on Predestination and Flection.’ ’ Although somewhat long, it is too good to be abridged. . . . The Universalist does not (if we rightly judge) de¬ rive his doctrine in the first place from the oracles of God, but rather from the attributes of God. The ar¬ gument on which he relies as the real basis of his faith is the following : God, as infinitely benevolent, must be disposed to prevent sin with all its evils. God as omnipotent, can prevent sin in all his moral creatures ; God therefore will hereafter prevent all sin ; and thus render all his creatures happy forever. “The infidel reasons exactly in the same manner, and comes to the same conclusion. But, then, he has discernment enough to see that the Scriptures contain the doctrine of future endless punishment. He, there¬ fore, discards the divine origin of the book, as incul¬ cating a doctrine so obviously false, and inconsistent with the perfections of God. “As a specimen of atheistical reasoning on this sub¬ ject, a friend has put into our hands a card engraved in an attractive style, and said to have been printed in New York, and extensively circulated by a club of AND MAN’S MORAR NATURE. 409 atheists in that city. It contains the following words, ‘ God either wills that evil should exist, or he does not. If he wills the existence of evil, where is his Goodness ? If evil exists against his will, how can he be All-Powerful ? And if God is both good and omnipotent, where is evil ? Who can answer this ? ’ “ Now it is manifest, that these several conclusions of the universalist, the infidel and the atheist, are all derived from substantially the same premises. If the premises are admitted to be true, the conclusion fol¬ lows with all the force of absolute demonstration. The premises are briefly, that the permanent existence of evil is inconsistent with the goodness and the power of God. Hence the atheist infers, in view of existing evil and the want of evidence that it will ever end, that there is no omnipotent, benevolent being — there is no God. The universalist and the infidel maintain the eternal existence of evil to be inconsist¬ ent with the perfections of God, and hence infer that ultimately all evil will be excluded from the system ; the one explaining away the plainest declarations of the Bible, and the other denying the divine origin of the book. “ Here, then, the advocate of truth is bound to show that there is a fallacy in these premises. Where then does the fallacy lie ? The premises rest on two attri¬ butes of God, his power and his benevolence. As to his power, the argument assumes that God can, by his omnipotence, exclude sin, and its consequent suf¬ fering, from a moral system. Those who admit this assumption have therefore no plea left for the divine benevolence, except to assert that ‘ sin is the neces¬ sary means of the greatest good,’ and that for this rea- 410 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD son, it is introduced into our system, and will always be continued there, by a Being of infinite benevolence. But can this be proved ? Is this supposition consist¬ ent with the sincerity of God as a lawgiver, the excel¬ lence of his law, the known nature and tendency of sin and holiness, and the unqualified declarations of the divine word, that ‘sin is the abominable thing which his soul hateth,’ that he ‘ would have all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth,’ etc. Can this be consistent with his actually preferring the existence of all the sin in the system to holiness in its stead ? For ourselves, we must say, that we regard the success of any attempt to make men believe this, as utterly and forever hopeless. Our confident antici¬ pation is, that universalism, infidelity and atheism in this land and through the world, will only go on to new triumphs, so long as their overthrow is left to de¬ pend on the truth of the position, that God prefers sin to holiness, in any of his moral creatures. “We are thrown back then to consider the other branch of this argument, viz., the assumption that God as omnipotent can prevent all moral evil in a moral system. Is not here the fallacy ? We know that a moral system necessarily implies the existence of free agents, with the power to sin in despite of all opposing power. This fact sets human reason at defiance in every attempt to prove that some of these agents will not use that power and actually sin. There is, at least, a possible contradiction involved in the denial of this : and it is no part of the prerogative of omnipotence to be able to accomplish contradictions. But if it be not inconsistent with the true idea of om¬ nipotence, to suppose that God can not prevent all sin AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 4H in a moral system, then neither is it inconsistent with his goodness that he does not prevent it ; since sin in respect to his power of prevention, may be incidental to the existence of that system which infinite goodness demands. It is, then, in view of this groundless assumption, concerning omnipotence, that we see the reasoning of the universalist, the infidel and the atheist, to be the merest paralogism, or beggingof the question. The utter impossibility of proving their main principle, is so obvious that they caii be made to see it, and we hope, 'to acknowledge it. At any rate, until this mode of refutation be adopted, we despair of the subversion of their cause by reasoning. By that mode of argument, which assumes that God pre¬ fers sin to holiness, the main pillar of their conclusion, viz., that God can prevent all moral evil in a moral system, is conceded to them, and thus they are only confirmed in their delusions. ‘ ‘ When shall the defenders of the truth learn the difference between scriptural doctrines and groundless theories ? When will they see, that a zeal for the one, leads them to attach truth to the other, and thus inad¬ vertently to prepare the way for the worst of errors ? ” 1 Speaking of the popular doubts concerning the doctrine of future endless punishment, Dr. John P. Gulliver, of Andover Seminary says, ‘ ‘ What then is the practical lesson which such facts a-s these teach us ? It is plainly that if we expect men, especially un¬ converted men, if even we expect a large class of the best minds among Christian men, to accept the clear teachings of the Bible on this subject, ‘ without de¬ falcation or fraud,’ as the lawyers say, we must go i “ Christian Spectator.” 1831, pp. 616, 617. 412 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD back of their faith in the words of the Bible, and plant onr doctrine in the deep soil of their original moral convictions — in their sense of justice, in their love of law, in their intuitions of right ; in their percep¬ tions of the absolute and unchangeable necessities of moral government, in their knowledge of the nature of free, moral agency, in their comprehensive views of God’s plans in permitting and removing sin and suffering. Till this is done, the utmost which all appeals to the strong language of the Bible can accom¬ plish, will be to produce a kind of distressing bewilder¬ ment, and the highest expression of faith* will be — ‘ I do not understand it. It is a dark and horrible mystery.’ .... ‘ ‘ But the influence of this confusion of thought is, of course, much more positive upon minds which have never experienced the grace of God. They have no counteracting testimony coming from the daily com¬ munion of the heart with a loving Father. They take the epicurean dilemma. ‘ God either would have pre¬ vented evil andcould not — then where is his powrer ? or he could have prevented evil and would not — then where is his benevolence ? ’ And they conclude from it that there is no God, or that there is no evil but the necessary means of good, and that final good is to be educed from all evil. In other words, they either be¬ come Atheists, denying the infinity of God, or Uni- versalists, denying the eternity of evil. Of the two, it is easy to see that the Atheist occupies the only tenable ground. For he who affirms that God can not secure the highest final good without using evil as its temporary means , limits his power just as truly as he who affirms that he can not secure the highest good AND MAN’S MORAL NATURE. 413 without permitting evil as its necessary concomitant . The fact that the means are te?nporary , while the con¬ comitant is eternal, does not change the fact that, in both cases, God has been proved unable to secure good without any admixture of evil : hence, according to the epicurean premise, he is not omnipotent ; hence, there is no God. “ With these facts before us, we can not wonder if a large class of minds refuse to accept the Christian’s faith, if it must be accompanied with the theologian’s doubts ; and have sought most eagerly for some posi¬ tion in thought which should not array the moral nat¬ ure which God has given them in hostility against God himself. “All these attempts must, as a matter of course, have, as a common element, the placing of some limit¬ ation of some kind upon God’s power to preveyit sin. There is no possible escape from the epicurean dilem¬ ma unless we assume that the absolute prevention of sin by an act of power in a being free to sin, is a con¬ tradiction in terms — is an impossibility ; that such prevention is outside the range and domain of power, as much so as the requirement to construct a circle from right angles would be. The whole strength of skepticism, in all its forms and degrees, consists in slipping in somewhere, in its reasoning, the absurd as¬ sumption that God can necessitate the choice of a be¬ ing endowed with freedom to choose uncontrolled by necessity. “ On the other hand, the whole force of any argu¬ ment of Christian philosophy, in vindication of the present moral order of the universe, will be ultimately found in the axiom that omnipotence consists simply 4 H CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD in the power to do whatever is in its nature possible, not what is impossible. In other words, there is in the whole argument the assumption that God is only bound to prevent all the evil he can, and yet create a system which, on the whole, will produce more good than any other. If a system containing evil, is seen to be better in its total results of holiness and happi¬ ness, than any system of a lower grade which excludes evil, then God is vindicated. But on no other hypoth¬ esis can such a vindication be made . The fault must be in our human philosophy, not in the Divine theology. When we have learned to give a proper definition to power , and do not demand of Om¬ nipotence the performance of impossibilities ; when we have learned otherwise, to discriminate between things that differ, when we have learned to discard prejudice, and to subject all our early theological notions, and our habitual definitions ol words, and our .stereotyped modes of thought to the test of reason and conscience, and the teaching of God, the church will, for the first time in her history, look forth upon an unbelieving, unconvicted, rebellious world, ‘ fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.’ ” 2 The following by Dr. George P. Fisher is an ad¬ mirable presentation of the historic fact that Calvinism has prepared the way for Universalism : “Strict Calvinism was a symmetrical and coherent system. It was constructed from the theological point of view. The starting point was God and his eternal purpose. The end was made to be the manifestation of his love and his justice, conceived of as co-ordinate. The salvation of some, and the condemnation of others, 2 An Introductory Essay in “ Caw and Penalty Endless,” pp. 14-17, 23. u AND man’s moral nature. 415 are the means to this end. The motive of redemption is love to the elect, for whom all the arrangements of Providence and grace are ordered. The capstone was placed upon the system by the supralapsarians, who followed Calvin’s strong language in the ‘ Institutes ’ (but not elsewhere, especially not in his Comment¬ aries), and made the fall and sin of mankind — like creation itself, the object of an efficient decree — means to the one supreme End ; for if mercy and righteous¬ ness are to be exerted in the salvation and condemna¬ tion of sinners, a world of sinners must first exist. “ There was rebellion against this system. Not to speak of the different theology of the Lutherans — in the French Calvinistic school of Saumur, wherever Arminianism prevailed, in the modified Calvinism of the New England churches, it was asserted that in the ‘ intention of love,’ Christ died for all, that God’s love extends over all, in the sense that he desires them to be saved, yearns towTard them, and offers them help. “This mode of thought has more affinity to the Greek anthropology than has rigid Calvinism, or its Augustinian prototype. The teleological point of view is less prominent ; it stands in the background. The universal love and pity of God, the broad design of the atonement, are the central points. “ The more rigid Calvinism often protested against this modification of the system : it considered the whole theodicy imperiled by it ; it saw in it a drift and tendency towards other innovations subversive of the system. For if this universal, yearning love is at the basis of redemption, will it not be suggested that this love will not fail of its end ? Will the heart of God be disappointed of its object ? Will the Almighty 41 6 CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD’S WORD 9 be baffled by the creaturely will ? If Christ died for all, will he be ‘ satisfied 7 with anything short of the recovery of all ? As a matter of historical fact, belief in Restoration and kindred doctrines are seen to spring, in different quarters, in the wake of the mitigated form of the¬ ology to which we have referred. Not that such be¬ liefs are logically required. All a priori reasoning must be subject to the correction of experience. There is a terrible reign of sin, though all sin is con¬ trary to the will of God ; there is a development of sinful character, a hardening of the heart, a persistent resistance — ‘ how often would I ... . but ye would not ’ ; ‘ woe unto thee, Chorazin, woe unto thee, Beth- saida : ’ there is a stern, tragic side to nature and to human life. We stand within a sphere where results are not worked out by dint of power, but where free¬ dom, under moral lawT, wdth all the peril, as well as possibility of good, which freedom involves, is an essential attribute of our being.” 3 The “ Andover Controversy” is another link in this historic chain. Dr. K. A. Park has demonstrated that according to the intent of the founders of Andover Theological Seminary its funds must be used to promulgate Cal- vinistic doctrine.4 The tendency of the “New De¬ parture ” is certainly toward Universalism. 3 “ New Englander,” 1878. Art. “ The Doctrine of Future Punish¬ ment,” pp. 192, 193. 4 “ The Associate Creed of Andover Theological Seminary.” INDEX. Alexander, W. L . 14 Alexander . . 23, 37, 48, 374 Aikman . 14, 127 Augustine . . . 17, 3 r, 41 Adams, 27, 49, 61, 172, 200-204 Auburn Declaration . . 38, 46 Atwater . 28, 58, 69, 220, 390 Alford . . . 76, 83, 85, 146, 242, 292, 293, 295 Aquinas . 1 18 Alting . -119 Aiken . 387 Adams, J. C . 405 Beza . . 18 Baxter . 20, 121 Breckenridge . . .25, 37, 48, 214, 342 Baker . 36 Bates . 31, 321 Barnes . . 49, 51, 58, 65, ' 77, 148, 212, 294, 364 Boardman, Prof. G. N . . .70 Berthold . 118 Blackburn, Prof. W. M. . 124 Briggs, Prof. C. A. . . .125 Brown, A. W . 191 Barrows . 230 Bushnell . 246 Bailey . 274 Bledsoe . 288 Bloomfield . 294 Brown, D . 295 Burnett . 356 Ballou . 395, 398, 403 Balfour . 403 Charnock . . .20, 32, 43, 219, 281, 365, 374 Crakanthorp . 19, 42 Cochran . 57, 371 Cook, Prof. J. . . 13, 107, 378 Christlieb . 76, 389 Cowles . . . 155, 226, 230, 235, 237, 241, 301, 366 Causes secondary but dim¬ ly recognized in O. T. . 229 Crosby . 243, 392 Crane . 253 Cobb . 276, 280-289 Cousin . 333 Chambers . 396 Cobb, S . 403 Capen . 406 Dort, Synod of . . 18, 41, 119 Dwight . . . . 21, 34, 53, 379 Dick . 22, 36, 45, 62, 129, 217, 325, 33b 335, 352 Duffield . . .26, 38, 129, 362 Day . 38 Dabney .... 72, 79, 86-100 Dorner . . 101, 102, 345, 370 Delitzsch .... 76, 103, 389 Death, spiritual meaning of . I49_I57 Dodge . 405 Edwards 27, 44, 64, 335- 340, 346, 374 Emmons . 21, 35, 44, 58, 123, 172, 187, 324, 342 Emerson, G. H . 404 Chalmers . . .28, 65, 91, Fisher, Prof. G. P. . . 15, 210, 337, 343 391, 4r4 Calvin . . . 31, 41, 96, 118, Faber . 16 170, 208, 325, 354 Fuller . 20 P7 418 INDKX. Fitch, . Fiske, D. T. . . Future Probation Fletcher . . . . Fairchild . . . . Fausset . . . 91, 408 . 24, 37, 356 . . 101-109 .... 161 .... 254 .... 300 Gottschalk . 17 Griffin, 22, 34, 44, 70, 124, 129, 171, 327-329, 363, 381 Green . 22, 35, 44 Gill . 24, 215 Gregg . 67 Gess . 238 Godet . 294 Gaines . 404 Gulliver, Prof. J. P. . . .411 Hodge, Charles, 14, 38, 50, 78, 82, 1 13, 130, 147, 152-156, 174, 241, 299, 326,348, 351 Helvetic Second Confession, 18 Hopkins, S. 21,34, 45, 322, 355, 374, 379 Hodge, A. A. 28, 39, 50, 175. 1 92-1 99, 384 Howe . 22, 31, 173 Hall, R . 24 Hickok . . . 40, 229, 275, 364 Hallam . 122 Hoyt .... .... 126 Hanna . 116 Hopkins, Mark . 167 Henry . 209 Harrison . '. . . 209 Hagenbach . 349 Hopkins, S. M . 349 Haven, J . 388 Huntington . 403 Hill . 407 Infant Salvation . . . 106-109 Infralapsarianism .... 349 Jenkyns . 245 Jenks . 294 Krauth . 113 Kendall . 18 1 Keith . 266 Kendrick . 306 Kant . 381 Killen, Prest . 390 Lawrence .... 24, 289, 363 Lange . . 77, 164, 165, 31 2-315 Lacroix . 267 Leibnitz . 359 Luther . 97 Mason . 23 Musgrave .... 23, 35, 219 Milner . 61, 174 Miley, Prof. John .... 101 Munger . 102 Martyr . 119 Man now in God’s image, 156 Mozlev . 211 Murphy, Prof. J. G. . . . 236 MacKnight . 241 Martensen . 248 McCabe . . 249, 267-276, 371 Meyer . 293, 296, 31 1 Melancthon . 325 McCosh . . 333, 335, 359, 389 Murray . 401 Miner . 407 Neander . .79, 146 New' Departure . 416 Olshausen . . .2x2, 257, 297, 303-306 Pictet . 26, 37, 45, 216 Porter . 34 Pascal . 167 Probation, Principles of a just . 101-109 Park . 234, 416 Park hurst . . 319 Pond . 397 Patton . 401 Patterson . 407 Rice . 49, 80, hi, 129 Riddle, Prof. . . 165, 314-318 Rothe . 248-267 Reid . 333 Row . 391 INDEX. 419 Rogers . 398 Rich . 402 Smith, W. D. 25, 37, 61, 173, 219 Smith, S. S. . . . • • 26, 355 Sladen . . • 43, 68, 170 Smith, H. B. . . , • 5!, 61, 324 Symington . . . . .... 68 Secret Will of God . . 69, 70 Smyth . .... 103 Swing . ... .113 Skinner, Prof. T. H . . .146 Synergism, a Scriptural Doctrine ... . 147-158 Shedd, Prof. W. G. T. . . 188 Stuart . . 235, 297, 307-310, 396 SchafF, Prof. P. 242, 315- 318, 373 Supralapsarianism .... 349 Shakespeare . 377 Skinner . 395, 39s Streeter . 4°2 Sweetser . 4°5 Tobey . 10, 48, 147 Toplady, 20, 33, 44, 69, 170 218, 329-33! Tyler . 49, 210 Tyndall, Prof. . 66 Twisse . 1 21 Taylor, N. W . 129 Tulloch . 156, 231 Thayer, T. B . 394, 398 Thomas . 400 Venema, 27, 36, 46, 63, 172, 184-192, 209, 326 Wesley, John . 4, 398 Westminster Con. of Faith, 19, 33, 42, 57, 96, 107, 1 '5 Williard . 20, 32, 46 Witherspoon . 21 Wood, J . 24 Withington . 26 Woods, L. 26, 39, no, 173, 396 Wilson . 43 Watts . . 62, 122, 176-184, 326 Wright, Prof. G. F. . 107, 364 Whedon, 108, 160, 222, 242, 258, 286, 287 Westminster Assembly, 1 20-1 2 2 Woodbridge . 212 Weisse . 248 Whately . 261 Watson . 288 Webster, D . 377 Wuttke . 390 Williamson . 395, 399 Whittemore . 395 Winchester . 402 Whitney . 403 Xavier . 134 Zanchius . 118 I 'iff 'mi theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 .1012 01012 7449 DATE DUE HIGHSMITH * 15230 Printed in USA